Why Anavar should ALWAYS be run with TrenBelone

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

Testosterone Research: Is it a Fat Burner or Fat Promoter?
Click to expand...

Hmmm, according to that article....
Nevertheless, you don't want to get too excited. Although too little testosterone is associated with fat gains, an excess of male hormone can also make you fat. There's a narrow range in testosterone levels that will promote fat loss. If you're below the lower limit or above the upper range, the chances are you are going to gain bodyfat. As a result, androstenedione can either be a fat burner or a fat gainer. In most people it has both reactions at the same time. Whether you become fat or lean depends on the dominating action.
Click to expand...
I don't even know what to say to that. :smashcomp

I think I like:
CONCLUSIONS:

Supraphysiologic doses of testosterone, especially when combined with strength training, increase fat-free mass and muscle size and strength in normal men.
Click to expand...
The effects of supraphysiologic doses of testos... [N Engl J Med. 1996] - PubMed - NCBI
Much more as it coincides with my experiences.
 
Clamp said:
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.
Click to expand...

Same here brother, Im more concerned with getting my questions answered and getting to the bottom of this than who's right or wrong. Plus everyone wins in an intellectual debate if it leads to answers lol. Just got home from my gym session and its my feeding time so I'll give that article a read and respond to see what you think. Maybe it will help shed light to my questions. Again thanks for taking the time to indulge my curiosity lol :)
 
halfwit said:
Hmmm, according to that article....

I don't even know what to say to that. :smashcomp

I think I like:

The effects of supraphysiologic doses of testos... [N Engl J Med. 1996] - PubMed - NCBI
Much more as it coincides with my experiences.
Click to expand...

We're talking about fat loss, not muscle gain. "Fat mass, measured by underwater weighing, increased significantly in men receiving the 25- and 50-mg doses but did not change in men receiving the higher doses of testosterone"

The study you cited did not measure fat mass, so here's one that does. This is one of the best studies on steroids ever, IMO- Testosterone dose-response relationships in healthy young men

Not to mention we're talking about fat loss for TREN, not TESTOSTERONE. Although they are both steroids, they do not have the same derivatives. Tren, for example, does not convert to androstenedione, the testosterone derivative that the article is claiming influences appetite, or estrogen.

Also the article states that androgen receptors are found in adipose tissue, not to mention it is a well known fact. Tren binds to the AR even more strongly than testosterone so it may also increase the number of beta adrenergic receptors in fat cells. I only say may because although I am 100% positive it does different steroids cause different changes in gene transcription and as there are no studies on this I can not state it as though it were a fact. An increase in beta adrenergic receptors makes the cell more sensitive to norepinephrine and epinephrine which make the cell release its fat stores. So tren may provide, once again I am saying may since there are no studies verifying, the same or better, since it fits more snugly into the receptor, fat burning effects as testosterone without the increase in appetite due to its derivatives.
 
Last edited:
Clamp said:
We're talking about fat loss, not muscle gain. "Fat mass, measured by underwater weighing, increased significantly in men receiving the 25- and 50-mg doses but did not change in men receiving the higher doses of testosterone"

The study you cited did not measure fat mass, so here's one that does. This is one of the best studies on steroids ever, IMO- Testosterone dose-response relationships in healthy young men

Not to mention we're talking about fat loss for TREN, not TESTOSTERONE. Although they are both steroids, they do not have the same derivatives. Tren, for example, does not convert to androstenedione, the testosterone derivative that the article is claiming influences appetite, or estrogen.

Also the article states that androgen receptors are found in adipose tissue, not to mention it is a well known fact. Tren binds to the AR even more strongly than testosterone so it may also increase the number of beta adrenergic receptors in fat cells. I only say may because although I am 100% positive it does different steroids cause different changes in gene transcription and as there are no studies on this I can not state it as though it were a fact. An increase in beta adrenergic receptors makes the cell more sensitive to norepinephrine and epinephrine which make the cell release its fat stores. So tren may provide, once again I am saying may since there are no studies verifying, the same or better, since it fits more snugly into the receptor, fat burning effects as testosterone without the increase in appetite due to its derivatives.
Click to expand...
I was only pulling up a study on testosterone as that's what you had linked. I wasn't bashing you or trying to force you to defend your stance by any means. I just simply didn't care for the article as it is basically telling viewers that they should aim for a special "zone" in serum levels that once deviated from you'll put on fatty tissue. Your quoted new link completely disagrees with this and agrees with what I feel the main point of the study I posted was. :p (Fat-free mass in my opinion is the same as zero change to body fat while increasing lbm. I guess we can call it semantics if you'd like. :) )

I honestly haven't even begun to read all of the stuff you and Doc posted on tren, which is completely out of character for me - but I *had* to click on your link, hence my comment. Please by all means keep up the research, I hope by tomorrow I'll have the time to read it all and learn some new things. ;)
 
halfwit said:
I was only pulling up a study on testosterone as that's what you had linked. I wasn't bashing you or trying to force you to defend your stance by any means. I just simply didn't care for the article as it is basically telling viewers that they should aim for a special "zone" in serum levels that once deviated from you'll put on fatty tissue. Your quoted new link completely disagrees with this and agrees with what I feel the main point of the study I posted was. :p (Fat-free mass in my opinion is the same as zero change to body fat while increasing lbm. I guess we can call it semantics if you'd like. :) )

I honestly haven't even begun to read all of the stuff you and Doc posted on tren, which is completely out of character for me - but I *had* to click on your link, hence my comment. Please by all means keep up the research, I hope by tomorrow I'll have the time to read it all and learn some new things. ;)
Click to expand...

It's cool, I was just setting things straight. You were posting things that were slightly off on their train of logic and I didn't want people to be confused or misinformed when they read this thread. No offence taken and I hope none was given.
 
Clamp said:
It's cool, I was just setting things straight. You were posting things that were slightly off on their train of logic and I didn't want people to be confused or misinformed when they read this thread. No offence taken and I hope none was given.
Click to expand...

None at all mang. I actually rather enjoy reading your posts, so I enjoy having a debate every so often. :)
 
Clamp said:
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.
Click to expand...

But that's part of my point and what posts 13 & 16 meant to convey: carbs are VERY RARELY converted to fat. If you look at the first study I quoted in post 13, both lean and obese individuals were given 500g dextrin maltose, 500g of carbs in a 5hr window, and only 4g +/- 1g (lean) and 5g +/-3g (obese) of fat was produced via DNL. That's about 3g of fatty tissue on average via DNL and these subjects ingested 500g of carbs in 5hrs. How many of us do you think that high an intake in such a short period of time would apply to?

In your example with high carb/low fat diet causing fat loss due to oxidationof fat being greater than intake of fat, this is simply not true. DNL is not something we really have to worry about plus when you eat more carbs you don't burn more fat, even when DNL is prevented which again is mainly a non-issue. When you eat more carbs and less fat, you oxidize less fat but burn more carbs. Eat less carbs and more fat and you burn less carbs and more fat (but you're also taking in more fat).
 
Docd187123 said:
But that's part of my point and what posts 13 & 16 meant to convey: carbs are VERY RARELY converted to fat. If you look at the first study I quoted in post 13, both lean and obese individuals were given 500g dextrin maltose, 500g of carbs in a 5hr window, and only 4g +/- 1g (lean) and 5g +/-3g (obese) of fat was produced via DNL. That's about 3g of fatty tissue on average via DNL and these subjects ingested 500g of carbs in 5hrs. How many of us do you think that high an intake in such a short period of time would apply to?

In your example with high carb/low fat diet causing fat loss due to oxidationof fat being greater than intake of fat, this is simply not true. DNL is not something we really have to worry about plus when you eat more carbs you don't burn more fat, even when DNL is prevented which again is mainly a non-issue. When you eat more carbs and less fat, you oxidize less fat but burn more carbs. Eat less carbs and more fat and you burn less carbs and more fat (but you're also taking in more fat).
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I didn't read the studies well enough. I'll suck up my pride and admit I was wrong. I was still stuck on the belief that carbs turning to fat happens often. Although tren may still help prevent fat GAIN if you were on a see-food diet, via inhibited DNL, it does not appear this would be of much use on a lower calorie diet nor should it cause fat LOSS while on a bulk. Which brings us back to the question: why DOES tren cause fat loss? Muscle tissue is only about 600 calories per pound, remember that muscle tissue is 70 percent water and part of the remaining 30% is other non-caloric materials, so if you were bulking significantly above maintenance you should not see fat loss solely due to the conversion of adipose to muscle tissue. Yet I've seen fat loss on my friends bulk with tren. Where do the excess calories go? They shouldn't just vanish.
 
Simply put we have evidence that the more Test injected the more fat loss on a standardized diet. At what point diminishing returns hit I have no idea but I can tell you from experience many guys on cutting cycles are pushing tons of mg's and are dropping fat. This may be an indirect effect as LBM plays a role in fat burning. Regardless, more drugs seem to work better even though that's not a very PC statement.
 
you are all wrong. none of those aas do anything. its dbol that will give you lbm while shedding fat and it will make your male parts grow bigger too :stickpoke
 
Glad you guys liked this one, I am going to get some heat for the next article.........(What Mike Menzter used to run, and how I feel he could have run a ideal version)
 
OMEGA said:
Glad you guys liked this one, I am going to get some heat for the next article.........(What Mike Menzter used to run, and how I feel he could have run a ideal version)
Click to expand...

Lookin forward to that one! Did you do the Arnold one yet?

Love your articles btw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Cutting cycle - feedback please
Replies
3
Views
724
tomahawk
T
T
How much test with anavar cycle
Replies
11
Views
3K
casanovaaa
casanovaaa
O
Babys first cutting cycle (Advice please)
Replies
8
Views
4K
appleton111
appleton111
F
PCT isn't raising my LH or TEST
Replies
4
Views
1K
francosiciliano
F
M
Mk677 - is it right for me?
Replies
2
Views
584
Nicky_eye_lids
Nicky_eye_lids
Back
Top