Why do people use it if you lose it when you come off? People agree once you stop you're back to normal ceiling. What's the point of using so many different things just to create a body that is not there without the medicine? I would say low to moderate use of the basics isn't distorting the reality.
-
SIED Moderators: Genetic Freak | Serotonin101
perplexed about steroids
- Thread starter Snarky91
- Start date
Got to disagree there mate if you've adjusted your diet according to your new weight/tissue you can keep a lot of your gains, people who loose it all usually aren't eating enough. While you will always loose the added water weight you've gained during a cycle the tissue should be there to stay.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2012
- Messages
- 2,759
I've recently posted a paper on another site suggesting the effects of AAS last for years, and that athletes are still benefiting from previous use years after cessation..
As previously stated its all about food and training capacity... AAS allow you to reach a higher plateau whether you stay there is up to you..!!
This is not true. The hormones activate processes in contradistinction to natural guy; this allows muscle gain. Once hormones are off, the body doesn't discriminate between regular gains and 'extra gains.' If the chemicals are no longer there to maintain the excess muscle, it will slowly come off because it's not needed on par with physiological signals.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2012
- Messages
- 2,759
Training studio folklore suggests that previous strength training, with or without the use of anabolic steroids facilitates re-acquisition of muscle mass even after long intervening periods of inactivity. This ‘muscle memory’ has previously been attributed to motor learning, but our data suggest the existence of a cellular memory residing in the muscle fibres themselves.
•
Muscle fibres have multiple nuclei, and the number of nuclei increases when muscle mass increases.
•
When mice were briefly treated with steroids the muscle mass and number of nuclei increased. The drug was subsequently withdrawn for 3 months and the muscle mass returned to normal, but the excess cell nuclei persisted. When such muscles were subjected to overload they grew by 30% over 6 days while controls grew insignificantly.
•
Our data suggest that previous strength training might be beneficial later in life, and that a brief exposure to anabolic steroids might have long lasting performance-enhancing effects.
Abstract Previous strength training with or without the use of anabolic steroids facilitates subsequent re-acquisition of muscle mass even after long intervening periods of inactivity. Based on in vivo and ex vivo microscopy we here propose a cellular memory mechanism residing in the muscle cells. Female mice were treated with testosterone propionate for 14 days, inducing a 66% increase in the number of myonuclei and a 77% increase in fibre cross-sectional area. Three weeks after removing the drug, fibre size was decreased to the same level as in sham treated animals, but the number of nuclei remained elevated for at least 3 months (>10% of the mouse lifespan). At this time, when the myonuclei-rich muscles were exposed to overload-exercise for 6 days, the fibre cross-sectional area increased by 31% while control muscles did not grow significantly. We suggest that the lasting, elevated number of myonuclei constitutes a cellular memory facilitating subsequent muscle overload hypertrophy. Our findings might have consequences for the exclusion time of doping offenders. Since the ability to generate new myonuclei is impaired in the elderly our data also invites speculation that it might be beneficial to perform strength training when young in order to benefit in senescence.
http://www.ous-resea...n&pmid=24167222
http://onlinelibrary...F5748F0F.f04t02
•
Muscle fibres have multiple nuclei, and the number of nuclei increases when muscle mass increases.
•
When mice were briefly treated with steroids the muscle mass and number of nuclei increased. The drug was subsequently withdrawn for 3 months and the muscle mass returned to normal, but the excess cell nuclei persisted. When such muscles were subjected to overload they grew by 30% over 6 days while controls grew insignificantly.
•
Our data suggest that previous strength training might be beneficial later in life, and that a brief exposure to anabolic steroids might have long lasting performance-enhancing effects.
Abstract Previous strength training with or without the use of anabolic steroids facilitates subsequent re-acquisition of muscle mass even after long intervening periods of inactivity. Based on in vivo and ex vivo microscopy we here propose a cellular memory mechanism residing in the muscle cells. Female mice were treated with testosterone propionate for 14 days, inducing a 66% increase in the number of myonuclei and a 77% increase in fibre cross-sectional area. Three weeks after removing the drug, fibre size was decreased to the same level as in sham treated animals, but the number of nuclei remained elevated for at least 3 months (>10% of the mouse lifespan). At this time, when the myonuclei-rich muscles were exposed to overload-exercise for 6 days, the fibre cross-sectional area increased by 31% while control muscles did not grow significantly. We suggest that the lasting, elevated number of myonuclei constitutes a cellular memory facilitating subsequent muscle overload hypertrophy. Our findings might have consequences for the exclusion time of doping offenders. Since the ability to generate new myonuclei is impaired in the elderly our data also invites speculation that it might be beneficial to perform strength training when young in order to benefit in senescence.
http://www.ous-resea...n&pmid=24167222
http://onlinelibrary...F5748F0F.f04t02
Interesting study, though it's not 100 p clear. One group of mice were given no steroids; the other group of mice were given steroids. The one that got steroids grew significantly in muscle mass and nuclei in the muscles. The nuclei increase is usually concomitant with muscle growth. However, on discontinuing the doses, the got smaller like the other group. However, nuclei increase was rather well maintained. Thus, when both groups were reintroduced to muscle building stimulus, group with prior use regained rapidly, whereas other group did not...
Did they even train the other group to build muscle? If one group is getting doses and other group isn't and they are training equal length time, then dose group would gain more muscle in first place. Ergo, they have musch higher benchmark to regain some muscle. Unless they let the undose group train time-proportionately to how much muscle dosed rats had. Of course more muscle will be regained more easily vs building a little bit and laying off...
EG: natural bodybuilder can gain 30 lbs muscle over skinny self.
Natty bodybuilder trains 1 year and gains 10 lbs of muscle. Hormone fella trains same time but he gains 25 lbs muscle. If both these guys go on long vacation n come back, my theory is hormone fella would regain much more faster because it's muscle in the realm of what body can support naturally already...
This is sketchy idea... even I think.. but I'm willing to consider chemicals give you faster gains that are sustainable but only those gains to ur genetic limit.
But there's also theory that you can't have free meal. If it takes natty guys 3 years to max, something happened in process of time for his body to accept it. But force natty max celing on in 6 months, and body has not legitimately accustomed it's natural state to the processes built over changes in cellular levels. Homeostasis means it's not easy to keep your body in non-survival adaptations with trickery.
Did they even train the other group to build muscle? If one group is getting doses and other group isn't and they are training equal length time, then dose group would gain more muscle in first place. Ergo, they have musch higher benchmark to regain some muscle. Unless they let the undose group train time-proportionately to how much muscle dosed rats had. Of course more muscle will be regained more easily vs building a little bit and laying off...
EG: natural bodybuilder can gain 30 lbs muscle over skinny self.
Natty bodybuilder trains 1 year and gains 10 lbs of muscle. Hormone fella trains same time but he gains 25 lbs muscle. If both these guys go on long vacation n come back, my theory is hormone fella would regain much more faster because it's muscle in the realm of what body can support naturally already...
This is sketchy idea... even I think.. but I'm willing to consider chemicals give you faster gains that are sustainable but only those gains to ur genetic limit.
But there's also theory that you can't have free meal. If it takes natty guys 3 years to max, something happened in process of time for his body to accept it. But force natty max celing on in 6 months, and body has not legitimately accustomed it's natural state to the processes built over changes in cellular levels. Homeostasis means it's not easy to keep your body in non-survival adaptations with trickery.
Thanks m8