Masteron or Primo guy?

[Rido]

Accrete protein at the same rate... in other words, thre is only so much protein synthesis that the steroids can do; and as the blog stats, there is no evidence showing in human trials that any of them are far superior to another; like the myth tren is 5x more anabolic than testosterone.

If such studies exist, you can easily show them. You won't find them because they don't exist.

Show me a study that they accrue at the same rate on a human trial.

I wanna see a study that says 500mg of tren is equivalent to 500mg of mast.

Can't?

Cause it doesn't exist.

See. I can create a straw man argument too.

Great. So 500mg of trest is the same as 500mg of mast.



Or 100mg of superdrol is the same as 100mg of anavar.



Got it

 

[Rido]

Exactly. 50mg of proviron daily = 50mg of trestolone.

I deleted that one so I can add more into another post lol

 

[Deleted member 123722]

Claiming they accrete at the same rate because protein accretion can only occur so fast is not the same as "all steroids are equally anabolic mg per mg," which is what the accretion statement implies.


Of course those studies don't exist. You honestly think there would be studies examining the accumulation of protein from weight training in healthy humans? Pharmaceutical companies have never had an interest in selling aas to bodybuilders or athletes. That's absurdly far down the list of potential revenue streams for them.
At best, pharmaceutical companies might have attempted to determine which drugs best retained tissue in patients suffering from muscle wasting conditions.


That guy has cited some pathetically lousy studies as "evidence" on other topics. Boldenone and kidney harm in particular comes to mind. So I don't give his words much credence.

He did a video on it showing the studies, I could find it. But obviously they wouldn't all acrete the same amount of protein at the same dosages...so if someone means tren is 5x more potent than test, then you need 5x less of tren to get the same amount of protein accretion?

I think the confusion is that tren will build 5x more tissue than test, and that's what I think Victor Black is saying that it is not the case.

Here Big Paul does a video summary in 10 mins on this subject.

That's why a lot of guys just go test, primo, and use less "insane" drugs.


View: https://youtu.be/AUMrP6-eAV4

 

[kosp]

Masteron E made me feel like absolute shit.

Weak libido, extreme fatigue like WTF? felt myself edgy and emotionally numb.

the goods: really nice dryness and look, gyno killer, it makes your lower chest look very shaped and manly.

 

[Deleted member 123722]

Show me a study that they accrue at the same rate on a human trial.

I wanna see a study that says 500mg of tren is equivalent to 500mg of mast.

Can't?

Cause it doesn't exist.

See. I can create a straw man argument too.

Great. So 500mg of trest is the same as 500mg of mast.



Or 100mg of superdrol is the same as 100mg of anavar.



Got it

Except the problem is, your counter-argument actally proves my point: because there are no studies for one to even claim that tren is 5x more potent or whatever other things people say on forums. So it is not a strawman.

Now tren has other affects, and is great in deficit; as the blog mentions, these steroids can do different things, but his claim is, at the end of the day, there is only so much protein accretion these compounds can produce...and sure, it probably is dose dependent, but that wouldn't mean a compound makes more gains than another; it just would take more or less of that compound to reach a desired affect.

 

[cmK9s33]

I deleted that one so I can add more into another post lol

Amusing timing lol.

 

[RaddishPork]

I am really enjoying masteron. I had played with it on a cruise before but this is my first time blasting it. 425test 350mast

Was running MENT too and the stack felt great. I have a healthy amount of assertiveness and I'm insanely horny all day to the point it gets annoying. I've now replaced the MENT with NPP and still feel great. (The blood pressure and gyno was too much to handle. I was blowing through ralox)

It's keeping me reasonably dry. Can still see some striations in my shoulder and veins through my arms even though I've put on some bodyfat. I don't look bloated at all and I don't have to worry about an AI unless it's gyno related. Mast is making me feel like my e2 is in normal range even though it's probably high right now. I just popped an Asin for the first time in weeks because it was taking me forever to cum. Wasn't losing boner quality or anything though.

My primo is on the way now. I'll try it out at the end of the year. I'm also not shedding from masteron which is great. So far it has been all positives and no negatives

 

[Rido]

Except the problem is, your counter-argument actally proves my point: because there are no studies for one to even claim that tren is 5x more potent or whatever other things people say on forums. So it is not a strawman.

Now tren has other affects, and is great in deficit; as the blog mentions, these steroids can do different things, but his claim is, at the end of the day, there is only so much protein accretion these compounds can produce...and sure, it probably is dose dependent, but that wouldn't mean a compound makes more gains than another; it just would take more or less of that compound to reach a desired affect.

My counter argument was mocking you.

You just said dose dependent, which we all know. Victor Black doesn't seem to agree when he says they all do it at the same rate


Let's say that 1000mg of mast can max out protein accretion. But 500mg of tren can max it out.

Clearly one is more potent then the other. It doesn't go at the same rate.


This applies to all drugs. Diuretics, glucocorticoids, bronchodilators, opiates etc.

There are conversion calculators pharmacists use. Especially with opiates

 

[cmK9s33]

He did a video on it showing the studies, I could find it. But obviously they wouldn't all acrete the same amount of protein at the same dosages...so if someone means tren is 5x more potent than test, then you need 5x less of tren to get the same amount of protein accretion?

I think the confusion is that tren will build 5x more tissue than test, and that's what I think Victor Black is saying that it is not the case.

I think that is not the source of any confusion. No one (that I've ever read anyways) claims that using 100mg of tren will produce greater muscle gains than 500mg of testosterone. What people are taking issue with is you repeating VB's line of accretion/accumulation/etc occurring at the same rate.

You keep repeating the 5x statement. I don't know if that's something that
V.Black says or what. But it is something of a strawman. Yes the anabolic:androgenic ratio of tren is something like 500:500 but no one seriously believes any of those figures directly correlate to humans. They were done in rats and the androgenic figure only took into account the growth of the seminal vesicles (a hypothetical proxy for the human prostate).

As I mentioned, at the heart of this is the implication that "all steroids build muscle at the same rate and same dose." That is what I am saying is bullshit. Would you seriously put forth that 100mg of trestolone = 100mg of proviron? Or even sillier, 10mg of mtren = 10mg of testosterone?

Now, an issue of practicality of use comes up b/c it's likely physically impossible to endure the use of some drugs in high mg amounts. For example, no one can physcially endure as much mtren as testosterone. But that does not in any way buttress the idea that all aas "accrete/build/accumulate" tissue at the same rate on a per mg basis.

So back to my point, some steroids are undeniably more potent at building muscle on a per mg basis than others. Not just water retention but actual tissue as well. Could it wind up being a relatively small number of pounds of muscle tissue given a large number of other variables at play? Potentially. But again, that's not the same as "all aas accrete..."

 

[Deleted member 123722]

To answer both of you, of course I don't agree that they all accrete the same protein at the same dosages, nor do I think VB is stating that. If he is saying that, then I disagree with him.

I don't think he is saying that because the dosages he recommends for each compound are different due to their clinical studies.

What I think he is stating, is that there is a cap to protein accretion that all of these drugs can produce. So it makes more sense to take "safer" compounds at whatever dose you'd need to take to achieve the cap.

So suppose 700mg of Primo would give the same accretion rate as 400 tren E, it would be better to take the 700 primo, since it would be safer.

Am I misunderstanding this?

 

[Zmn71]

I think that is not the source of any confusion. No one (that I've ever read anyways) claims that using 100mg of tren will produce greater muscle gains than 500mg of testosterone. What people are taking issue with is you repeating VB's line of accretion/accumulation/etc occurring at the same rate.

You keep repeating the 5x statement. I don't know if that's something that
V.Black says or what. But it is something of a strawman. Yes the anabolic:androgenic ratio of tren is something like 500:500 but no one seriously believes any of those figures directly correlate to humans. They were done in rats and the androgenic figure only took into account the growth of the seminal vesicles (a hypothetical proxy for the human prostate).

As I mentioned, at the heart of this is the implication that "all steroids build muscle at the same rate and same dose." That is what I am saying is bullshit. Would you seriously put forth that 100mg of trestolone = 100mg of proviron? Or even sillier, 10mg of mtren = 10mg of testosterone?

Now, an issue of practicality of use comes up b/c it's likely physically impossible to endure the use of some drugs in high mg amounts. For example, no one can physcially endure as much mtren as testosterone. But that does not in any way buttress the idea that all aas "accrete/build/accumulate" tissue at the same rate on a per mg basis.

So back to my point, some steroids are undeniably more potent at building muscle on a per mg basis than others. Not just water retention but actual tissue as well. Could it wind up being a relatively small number of pounds of muscle tissue given a large number of other variables at play? Potentially. But again, that's not the same as "all aas accrete..."

Won’t let me like the post but I agree with this. Also victor is a fucking chode lmao. Even if he’s right about something’s the way he goes about it is horrible.

 

[Deleted member 123722]

Won’t let me like the post but I agree with this. Also victor is a fucking chode lmao. Even if he’s right about something’s the way he goes about it is horrible.

lol. I agree, his delivery is arrogant af.

 

[TRENdy07]

Only thing mast did for me was give me super hard boners. There was almost no difference visually on 700 mast. That said, I was only around 12% bf. Primo on the other hand, makes me full as fuck and vascular. I definitely built some muscle on 800 test/800 primo. I’ve never looked as good as I do on primo.

 

[Deleted member 123722]

Only thing mast did for me was give me super hard boners. There was almost no difference visually on 700 mast. That said, I was only around 12% bf. Primo on the other hand, makes me full as fuck and vascular. I definitely built some muscle on 800 test/800 primo. I’ve never looked as good as I do on primo.

Yea, primo has been keeping me full despite lower calories and carbs.

 

[Zmn71]

Only thing mast did for me was give me super hard boners. There was almost no difference visually on 700 mast. That said, I was only around 12% bf. Primo on the other hand, makes me full as fuck and vascular. I definitely built some muscle on 800 test/800 primo. I’ve never looked as good as I do on primo.

how’s your e2 on 1:1?

 

[TRENdy07]

how’s your e2 on 1:1?

Tad low. I will either run some hcg or run test a little higher this summer. It was at 19 last time but I didn’t experience any low e symptoms.