300mg vs 600mg of testosterone

[WindowCleaner]

I don't get this part. They gained 17 pounds of muscle with no training?????

Am I missing something here?

It's believable since I'm pretty sure they were untrained. I mean when I look at naturally high testosterone people who don't really lift weights or do any manual labor they are pretty muscular for not being on steroids or doing much physical activity.

So, even high natural levels of testosterone can take someone far with no training so I dont believe for one second that 600 mg cant. The difference is that these people arent staying on 600 mg forever and once they come off they will lose most of it if they dont get in the gym and eat right.

Also, steroids with no training does nothing for people who already have alot of muscle mass. No training + steroids only work when you are very far from your genetic potential as seen in this study. Had this study continued much longer they would have eventually had to start weight training to see more gains on 300/600 mg.

 

[jasonleeson]

It's believable since I'm pretty sure they were untrained. I mean when I look at naturally high testosterone people who don't really lift weights or do any manual labor they are pretty muscular for not being on steroids or doing much physical activity.

So, even high natural levels of testosterone can take someone far with no training so I dont believe for one second that 600 mg cant. The difference is that these people arent staying on 600 mg forever and once they come off they will lose most of it if they dont get in the gym and eat right.

Also, steroids with no training does nothing for people who already have alot of muscle mass. No training + steroids only work when you are very far from your genetic potential as seen in this study. Had this study continued much longer they would have eventually had to start weight training to see more gains on 300/600 mg.

It's funny how this seems to be in almost complete contrast to this thread I started a few days ago.

The subject being: Well trained muscle = Responds much better

steroidology.com/forum/anabolic-steroid-forum/606357-trained-muscle-responds-better-steroids.html

 

[DD55]

Excellent read! Thanks for the info. Go Stone Cold! Woot

 

[WindowCleaner]

It's funny how this seems to be in almost complete contrast to this thread I started a few days ago.

The subject being: Well trained muscle = Responds much better

steroidology.com/forum/anabolic-steroid-forum/606357-trained-muscle-responds-better-steroids.html

I agree, except in this extreme case where the lifters are extremely untrained. I bet these guys have never picked up a weight in their life. They are extremely far from their natural genetic potential, let alone their genetic potential with steroids. They are going to respond very well with no training because there is no where for them to go but up.

My opinion is that the study you posted doesn't apply to this extreme case. On one hand you have couch potatos and on the other you have weight lifting veterans. Even though the weight lifting veterans use the steroids more efficiently because they have more receptors, the couch potatos are so untrained they respond better simply because they are so out of shape.

Now, lets look at two veterans. One has been lifting for 10 years naturally and another veteran has been lifting for six years. Neither of them are untrained so excluding any large genetic differences the veteran who has been lifting for 10 years will respond better to the steroids because of the extra receptors he has from lifting longer, just like it was stated in the study you posted.

 

[HumbleMuscle]

Shxjjn

 

[HumbleMuscle]

Sorry for the last message, kid got a hold of the keyboard

 

[HumbleMuscle]

Great stuff

 

[200mphCrazy]

...

Great info buddy, thnx

 

[MCMOW]

good read thanx man

 

[Colbert]

I wonder how well would this compare to Test suspension...Thinking of starting at 600mg and working up to 800 or maybe even a gram.

 

[Livereal]

just curious cuz I'm new

so I'm new to this whole stereoid business. I've hit a plateau and test is what I was told to run for my first cycle. But I had bad gyno problems simple from 800 mg of a dilly test booster 2 years ago. So I was also told to run tren due to the fact there wouldn't be an estrogen problem. This post makes me want to run test, but I'm unsure. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks guys

 

[Satoa]

Nice read for sure. Been into BBing for 30 years and that info answered quite a few questions. Its a must read for all.

 

[sucio1986]

great info thanks

 

[ilovejuice]

Very nice info..

 

[bang143]

Leg Press Strength
300 mg group-72.2kg (158.8lbs) increase
600 mg group-76.5kg (168.3lbs) increase
Leg Power
300 mg group-38.6 watt increase
600 mg group-48.1 watt increase

Knob Radiance

 

[likelike123]

Bumppyy

 

[milne250]

can sum one please tell me if deca200 in steriod profiles is the same as xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.htm it is deca 300. the reason im asking is that the deca 300 on apn pharmacy says to take 600mg a week. an the deca 200 on the steriod profiles says take 600mg daily thsi is what i hav e concern with any help would be good thanks and im sorry for posting in this page i know has nothing to do with what use are spking about but this is first time on this site an cant find the right bit to post thanks steve


no source posting bro .

do not do 600 mg of deca a day lol . 600 a week is enough.

 

[sucio1986]

great research, thanks for posting this information

 

[tommygunn76]

So guess that answers my quetion I was gonna ask. Is 200 mg of Test Cyp twice a week good enough for my cycle hahah. Its 400 mg a week so should be good huh?

 

[chain]

informative