Why Anavar should ALWAYS be run with TrenBelone

[OMEGA]

I hope you guys enjoy this article I worked on, sponsored by
www.bodybuildingexpertise.com (PSL)

We all know the story with Tren, Radical Strength gains FAST, and Aggression.
The Aggression is largely do to Tren being what I call a "Triple Androgen" up to 3-4 times more potent then Test interms of operating as an Adrogen on the CNS.

Now the Strength gains are so Fast that MANY injuries ruin peoples cycle with Tears and more. The reason this happens is Collagen Synthesis, and Elastin cannot keep up pace with the huge increases in performance.

Many also note cramping on Tren, and have theories as to why, but my own theory is that while Tren Increases strength largely by enervating the CNS it DOES NOTHING for ATP synthesis ( aka endogenous Creatine), so the muscle is not able to hold as much glycogen ,atp, and h20 then needed to keep pace as well.

The 4 things that "Specialize" in increasing collegen and elastin relative to other AAS are: HGH, Deca/NPP, EQ, and our star ANAVAR.

GH takes way too long to work, same with EQ so they cannot keep pace. Deca/NPP are not to be used with Tren since Prolactin levels would be super sky high and just intoloerbale to deal with. Not to mention the other 3 do nt do nearly what Anavar can do in terms of ATP formation.

So not only does Anavar Increase collegen and elastin, in increases ATP. And because Ananvar is an ORAL in works RIGHT away at doing its Job for us

PSL Labs with the Advent of the Superior TriTrenabol also gives us some of the best and well priced Anavar on the planet.

Sample Cycle on TriTrenabol and Anavar?

300-400 mgs a week Sustanon
400-500 mgs a week of TriTrenabol
and 40-60 mgs a day of PSL Anavar

Get huge and strong FAST Safely brothers

 

[halfwit]

Many also note cramping on tren, and have theories as to why, but my own theory is that while tren Increases strength largely by enervating the CNS it DOES NOTHING for ATP synthesis ( aka endogenous Creatine), so the muscle is not able to hold as much glycogen ,atp, and h20 then needed to keep pace as well.

THAT is an interesting theory. I like anavar as it is, this just gives me another reason to add it in. Gotta test this out to see if it works as creatine isn't quite cutting the mustard and I DO think I'm seeing reduced levels of glycogen in my muscles during a workout. Ex: Petering out at reps 9 and 10 in the second set at 80% 1RM weight. Great info!

 

[Austinite]

Interesting. I could write a book about this topic so I'll keep this to a minimum. I don't think I'll be reaching for the most expensive compound in my collection to combat these side effects. It's like drinking expensive Hawaiian deep sea water when Tap would do the job just fine. Depletion is not as astronomical as some might think.

Personally I never noticed a difference when I included Anavar (var) into a tren cycle. If anything, it made my training efforts suffer further. Forget cardio for sure. For that reason I never combine them or allow them to overlap in the same cycle. But everyone is different so who knows. My choice with Tren in this case would be deca. I'm mind boggled as to why "deca/NPP are not to be used with tren", like estrogen, prolactin can be controlled. Anyway, thank you for sharing this.

 

[bigkit34]

hmmm maybe thats a reason why i've had so many sports injuries derail me while running tren. i think i know my summer cycle for next summer already lol. thanks good read

 

[MeatHead96]

Good write-up OMEGA, very interesting theory. Makes a lot of sense.

 

[SolomonGrundy]

but trenbolone shuttles all the available blood glucose into the muscle, is that not holding large amounts of glycogen?
Still I agree with any combo that covers skeletal muscles and connective tissues as a good recommendation . I dont think high test on tren is good( unless you do blood work and know you control E2) as the high estrogen levels cause you to store excess carb calories as fat

 

[OMEGA]

Hey Guys thanks! I hope you enjoy the next one :

Next Month is the ACTUAL cycle Arnold used to run

 

[DreDay187]

but trenbolone shuttles all the available blood glucose into the muscle, is that not holding large amounts of glycogen?
Still I agree with any combo that covers skeletal muscles and connective tissues as a good recommendation . I dont think high test on tren is good( unless you do blood work and know you control E2) as the high estrogen levels cause you to store excess carb calories as fat

But that's the case whether you're natty, running test solo, or a mixture of compounds. Are you saying HIGHER estrogen will exacerbate this problem or that estrogen is the cause?

 

[P.S.L.]

Nice write up O.

Took , saved your sig. content - I love it ! - my favourite scene !

 

[OMEGA]

Sir P.S.L I will be writing us 1 Original Article Each month Enjoy!

 

[Clamp]

But that's the case whether you're natty, running test solo, or a mixture of compounds. Are you saying HIGHER estrogen will exacerbate this problem or that estrogen is the cause?

Tren in the absence of estrogen prevents lipogenesis, the creation of fat from carbohydrates. Hence, by adding aromatizable steroids or increasing estrogen levels by any other means you will have more lipogenesis, and more carbs stored as fat. At least that's how it works in cattle. There have been no human studies done on this but based on anecdotal evidence it seems to be true for humans as well.

 

[hardtarget]

Great read....psl is the man!

 

[DreDay187]

Tren in the absence of estrogen prevents lipodegenesis, the creation of fat from carbohydrates. Hence, by adding aromatizable steroids or increasing estrogen levels by any other means you will have more lipodegenesis, and more carbs stored as fat. At least that's how it works in cattle. There have been no human studies done on this but based on anecdotal evidence it seems to be true for humans as well.

I appreciate your time in answering this question and thank you for it but it has consequently led to more questions lol. Does tren PREVENT de novo lipogenesis or INHIBIT it?

Also de novo lipogenesis is a rare process in humans. Studies were performed in rats with excess carbs being converted to fat but rats process nutrients differently than humans do and produce a lot of fat from carbs whereas in humans its much more rare. In fact, a study done on humans with 500g of carb intake at once only synthesized 3-4g of fat via de novo lipogenesis

Am J Clin Nutr. 1987 Jan;45(1):78-85. Links
Carbohydrate metabolism and de novo lipogenesis in human obesity.

Acheson KJ, Schutz Y, Bessard T, Flatt JP, Jéquier E.
Respiratory exchange was measured during 14 consecutive hours in six lean and six obese individuals after ingestion of 500 g of dextrin maltose to investigate and compare their capacity for net de novo lipogenesis. After ingestion of the carbohydrate load, metabolic rates rose similarly in both groups but fell earlier and more rapidly in the obese. RQs also rose rapidly and remained in the range of 0.95 to 1.00 for approximately 8 h in both groups. During this time, RQ exceeded 1.00 for only short periods of time with the result that 4 +/- 1 g and 5 +/- 3 g (NS) of fat were synthesized via de novo lipogenesis in excess of concomitant fat oxidation in the lean and obese subjects, respectively. Results demonstrate that net de novo lipid synthesis from an unusually large carbohydrate load is not greater in obese than in lean individuals.

Carbohydrate metabolism and de novo lipogenes... [Am J Clin Nutr. 1987] - PubMed - NCBI

^^^thats a study done on humans not cattle or rats. So if de novo lipogenesis is a rare issue in humans, why the fear mongering about carbs leading to fat? (Not talking about you in particular but society in general).

However, since I know most of you will have just ignored my suggestion to actually read that piece, I***8217;m going to summarize a few points from it (as well as from the Q&A):
Carbs are rarely converted to fat and stored as such
When you eat more carbs you burn more carbs and less fat; eat less carbs and you burn less carbs and more fat
Protein is basically never going to be converted to fat and stored as such
When you eat more protein, you burn more protein (and by extension, less carbs and less fat); eat less protein and you burn less protein (and by extension, more carbs and more fat)
Ingested dietary fat is primarily stored, eating more of it doesn***8217;t impact on fat oxidation to a significant degree
Let***8217;s work through this backwards. When you eat dietary fat, it***8217;s primary fate is storage as its intake has very little impact on fat oxidation (and don***8217;t ask me a bunch of questions about ***8220;But people say you have to eat fat to burn fat?***8221; in the comments. That idea is fundamentally wrong but would take an entire article to address). It also doesn***8217;t impact greatly on the oxidation of the protein or carbohydrates.
Carbohydrates are rarely converted to fat (a process called de novo lipogenesis) under normal dietary conditions. There are exceptions when this occurs. One is with massive chronic overfeeding of carbs. I***8217;m talking 700-900 grams of carbs per day for multiple days. Under those conditions, carbs max out glycogen stores, are in excess of total daily energy requirements and you see the conversion of carbohydrate to fat for storage. But this is not a normal dietary situation for most people.
A few very stupid studies have shown that glucose INFUSION at levels of 1.5 total daily energy expenditure can cause DNL to occur but this is equally non-physiological. There is also some evidence that DNL may be increased in individuals with hyperinsulinemia (often secondary to obesity). There***8217;s one final exception that I***8217;ll use to finish this piece.
But when you eat more carbs, you burn more carbs and burn less fat. And that***8217;s why even if carbs aren***8217;t directly converted to fat and stored as such, excess carbs can STILL MAKE YOU FAT. Basically, by inhibiting fat oxidation, excess carbs cause you to store all the fat you***8217;re eating without burning any of it off. Did you get that? Let me repeat it again.
Carbs don***8217;t make you fat via direct conversion and storage to fat; but excess carbs can still make you fat by blunting out the normal daily fat oxidation so that all of the fat you***8217;re eating is stored. Which is why a 500 cal surplus of fat and a 500 cal surplus of carbs can both make you fat; they just do it for different reasons through different mechanisms. The 500 calories of excess fat is simply stored; the excess 500 calories of carbs ensure that all the fat you***8217;re eating is stored because carb oxidation goes up and fat oxidation goes down. Got it? If not, re-read this paragraph until it sinks in.
Oh yeah, the same holds for protein. Protein isn***8217;t going to be converted to and stored as fat. But eat excess protein and the body will burn more protein for energy (and less carbs and fat). Which means that the other nutrients have to get stored. Which means that excess protein can still make you fat, just not by direct conversion. Rather, it does it by ensuring that the fat you***8217;re eating gets stored.
Of course protein also has the highest thermic effect, more of the incoming calories are burned off. So excess protein tends to have the least odds of making you fat under any conditions; but excess protein can make you fat. Just not by direct conversion to fat; rather it***8217;s indirectly by decreasing the oxidation of other nutrients.
Ok, is the above clear enough? Because I can***8217;t really explain it any simpler but will try one last time using bullet points and an example. Let***8217;s assume someone is eating at exactly maintenance calories. Neither gaining nor losing fat. Here***8217;s what happens with excess calories. Assume that all three conditions represent identical increases in caloric intake, just from each of the different macros. Here***8217;s what happens mechanistically and why all three still make you fat:
Excess dietary fat is directly stored as fat
Excess dietary carbs increases carb oxidation, impairing fat oxidation; more of your daily fat intake is stored as fat
Excess dietary protein increases protein oxidation, impairing fat oxidation; more of your daily fat intake is stored as fat
Got it? All three situations make you fat, just through different mechanisms. Fat is directly stored and carbs and protein cause you to store the fat you***8217;re eating by decreasing fat oxidation.
And I***8217;d note again, since someone will invariably misread this that that doesn***8217;t mean that a low-carb and/or low-protein diet is therefore superior for fat loss. I***8217;m not saying that and don***8217;t think that I am. Because in such a situation, while you may be burning more fat, you***8217;re also eating more dietary fat. So net fat balance can be unchanged despite the dicking around with macronutrient content. It still comes down to the deficit.
.
The Obvious Question: Why Not Just Eat Zero Dietary Fat?
And now I***8217;ll answer the question that I know every person who has read (and hopefully understood) the above is asking: so if carbs and protein are rarely converted to and stored as fat, and make you fat by decreasing fat oxidation and causing all ingested dietary fat to get stored as fat, can***8217;t I eat as much as I want of protein and carbs so long as my dietary fat intake is zero?
And the asnswer is still no. Remember how I teased you above with one other exception, when carbs are converted to fat for storage? That exception is when dietary fat is below about 10% of total daily calories. Under that condition, the body ramps up de novo lipogenesis. So you still get fat.
Because the body is usually smarter than we are. Under conditions where dietary fat intake is ***8216;adequate***8217; (meaning 10% of total calories or more), the primary fate of that fat is storage and protein and carbs are used for other things. And when dietary fat is too low, the body will start converting ingested carbs (and probably protein, though it would still be rare) to fat for storage.

How We Get Fat | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald

^^^ from the article: carbs make you fat through an indirect process. Dietary fat's main fate is storage as fatty tissue because its intake has very little to do with oxidation. Carbs very rarely go through de novo lipogenesis under normal dietary conditions. One exception to this would be massive chronic over feelings of 700-900g of carbs for multiple days and this is only due to the fact that muscle glycogen stores are maxed out and you are in excess of total daily energy expenditure. That is very uncommon of an occurrence.

When you eat more carbs, you burn more carbs and therefor less fat. So while carbs are being converted to fat and stored as such they can still MAKE you fat (not create fat) through an indirect mechanism. They blunt the normal fat oxidation so all your dietary fat is being stored as fat. This is how an excess of 500 calories of fat and an excess of 500 calories of carbs will both make you fat just through DIFFERENT mechanisms.

The other exception to de novo lipogenesis would be when total dietary fat intake is below ~10% of total calories.

Because the body is usually smarter than we are. Under conditions where dietary fat intake is ***8216;adequate***8217; (meaning 10% of total calories or more), the primary fate of that fat is storage and protein and carbs are used for other things. And when dietary fat is too low, the body will start converting ingested carbs (and probably protein, though it would still be rare) to fat for storage.

And I want to highlight this to make my point:

1) Excess dietary fat is directly stored as fat
2) Excess dietary carbs increases carb oxidation, impairing fat oxidation; more of your daily fat intake is stored as fat
3) Excess dietary protein increases protein oxidation, impairing fat oxidation; more of your daily fat intake is stored as fat

So finally after all that lol my point is, why is the claim being made that excess carbs will be stored as fat? This is simply not true. High estrogen will yield lower carbohydrate oxidation but since the energy has to come from somewhere this would lead to an increase in fat oxidation to counterbalance the effect.

Another study showed that the effects of estrogen on carbohydrate oxidation can be reversed elevating serum progesterone levels

The main findings in this study were that 1) high circulating levels of estrogen reduced total carbohydrate oxidation during exercise compared with a low-estrogen condition, with decreases in both estimated muscle glycogen use and (a tendency toward) blood glucose uptake, and 2) when high levels of progesterone were added to the high-estrogen environment, there was no measurable impact on blood glucose uptake but a complete reversal of the muscle glycogen sparing induced by estrogen alone, which restored total carbohydrate oxidation to baseline values.



Results from this study suggest that estrogen alone reduces total carbohydrate oxidation during exercise by decreasing both blood glucose uptake and other carbohydrate (i.e., glycogen) use. [/B]The addition of progesterone may further reduce blood glucose uptake but, conversely, increases glycogen use such that total carbohydrate utilization is indistinguishable from an estrogen-absent condition[/B]

Regulation of exercise carbohydrate metabolism by estrogen and progesterone in women

There are several ways of increasing progesterone levels which would in effect negate the effect of estrogen but EVEN SO, when carbohydrate oxidation is impaired, it will elevate fat oxidation to counterbalance since the 1st law of thermodynamics and conservation of mass/energy holds true.


Edit* and we should we worried about estrogenic sides regardless of whether on tren or not with any aromatizing compound but least of all de novo lipogenesis. Far more important things to worry about than that such as gynecomastia, loss of libido, water retention/bloat, high BP, etc and this is the case WITH OR WITHOUT tren or high test/low test on tren.

 

[OMEGA]

Woah I need to read that soon lol

 

[Clamp]

I always believed that tren simply caused fat loss via inhibited lipogenesis. I've seen tren at work, second-hand, and can tell you that it definitely does have fat burning effects even in a caloric surplus. If that is not caused by the mechanisms which have been stated then I don't have the slightest clue what causes it. However, I will say that a buddy of mine who was on tren lost pounds upon pounds of bodyfat while bulking on a 3500 calorie diet consisting primarily of carbohydrates and protein.

 

[DreDay187]

Another abstract on humans and de novo lipogenesis:

De novo lipogenesis in humans: metabolic and regulatory aspects.
Hellerstein MK.
Source
Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of California at Berkeley, 94270-3104, USA.
Abstract
The enzymatic pathway for converting dietary carbohydrate (CHO) into fat, or de novo lipogenesis (DNL), is present in humans, whereas the capacity to convert fats into CHO does not exist. Here, the quantitative importance of DNL in humans is reviewed, focusing on the response to increased intake of dietary CHO. Eucaloric replacement of dietary fat by CHO does not induce hepatic DNL to any substantial degree. Similarly, addition of CHO to a mixed diet does not increase hepatic DNL to quantitatively important levels, as long as CHO energy intake remains less than total energy expenditure (TEE). Instead, dietary CHO replaces fat in the whole-body fuel mixture, even in the post-absorptive state. Body fat is thereby accrued, but the pathway of DNL is not traversed; instead, a coordinated set of metabolic adaptations, including resistance of hepatic glucose production to suppression by insulin, occurs that allows CHO oxidation to increase and match CHO intake. Only when CHO energy intake exceeds TEE does DNL in liver or adipose tissue contribute significantly to the whole-body energy economy. It is concluded that DNL is not the pathway of first resort for added dietary CHO, in humans. Under most dietary conditions, the two major macronutrient energy sources (CHO and fat) are therefore not interconvertible currencies; CHO and fat have independent, though interacting, economies and independent regulation. The metabolic mechanisms and physiologic implications of the functional block between CHO and fat in humans are discussed, but require further investigation.
PMID: 10365981 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981

 

[Anton102]

I'm added var to my cycle thanks

 

[DreDay187]

I always believed that tren simply caused fat loss via inhibited lipogenesis. I've seen tren at work, second-hand, and can tell you that it definitely does have fat burning effects even in a caloric surplus. If that is not caused by the mechanisms which have been stated then I don't have the slightest clue what causes it. However, I will say that a buddy of mine who was on tren lost pounds upon pounds of bodyfat while bulking on a 3500 calorie diet consisting primarily of carbohydrates and protein.

But that statement is contradictory in a way. Inhibiting de novo lipogenesis is NOT the same as oxidizing fatty tissue, its just the inhibition of forming new fatty tissue. A question for you, if you know the answer, did your friend really LOSE body fat or did he simply gain ENOUGH muscle to have the appearance of losing body fat. This is what I mean: You can drop your body fat percentage in 2 ways. One is to oxidize fat cells which lowers total fatty tissue which lowers body fat %. The other way is by increasing lbm which won't affect body fat but will reduce body fat %. Since the effect of increasing lbm in BF% is much smaller than actually reducing body fat he'd have to have increased lbm significantly to lose "pounds upon pounds of fat". If as you say he was bulking he had to have gained some fat due to a caloric excess. If we believe that tren only INHIBITS DE NOVO LIPOGENESIS, than it would only have stopped him from gaining fat on the bulk and not have changed any of his existing fat stores.

I've seen ppl claim tren increases feed efficiency and I'm trying to look up studies regarding that. Maybe I'll find more answers. I apologize if I PM coming across in a negative way, not my intention at all. I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of this as best I can since it really stirs my curiosity. Plus I have inklings to run a tren cycle myself after I've gotten myself accustomed to 19-nors with deca

 

[Clamp]

But that statement is contradictory in a way. Inhibiting de novo lipogenesis is NOT the same as oxidizing fatty tissue, its just the inhibition of forming new fatty tissue. A question for you, if you know the answer, did your friend really LOSE body fat or did he simply gain ENOUGH muscle to have the appearance of losing body fat. This is what I mean: You can drop your body fat percentage in 2 ways. One is to oxidize fat cells which lowers total fatty tissue which lowers body fat %. The other way is by increasing lbm which won't affect body fat but will reduce body fat %. Since the effect of increasing lbm in BF% is much smaller than actually reducing body fat he'd have to have increased lbm significantly to lose "pounds upon pounds of fat". If as you say he was bulking he had to have gained some fat due to a caloric excess. If we believe that tren only INHIBITS DE NOVO LIPOGENESIS, than it would only have stopped him from gaining fat on the bulk and not have changed any of his existing fat stores.

I've seen ppl claim tren increases feed efficiency and I'm trying to look up studies regarding that. Maybe I'll find more answers. I apologize if I PM coming across in a negative way, not my intention at all. I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of this as best I can since it really stirs my curiosity. Plus I have inklings to run a tren cycle myself after I've gotten myself accustomed to 19-nors with deca

I gotcha, I don't really care for pissing matches either. I'd just prefer to get to the bottom of this and figure out why it does what it does, and does it so well.

My statement was not contradictory. If a person was eating a large amount of carbohydrates and very little fat then without the conversion of one carbs to fat they would lose fat. This is because the amount of fat their bodies used daily would surpass the amount of fat intake. I never said tren causes fatty acid oxidation, although it does bind to the AR in adipose tissue and cause a release of fat stores into the bloodstream (another reason why androgens aid in fat loss).

He did not get his bodyfat percentage checked throughout the cycle however I could tell based off of the fat that was stripped from his lower abs that he did indeed undergo fat loss. Even if he built up his abdominals there would still be a thin layer of fat covering them and it would be impossible to see them. He did gain a good amount of muscle though as well, as to be expected with tren.

 

[Clamp]

Here's an article on testosterone and fat loss for you.

Testosterone Research: Is it a Fat Burner or Fat Promoter?