# Blasting and Cruising



## BuffnStuff (Oct 18, 2013)

So I've been Blasting and Cruising for about a year and I'm doing 250mg for TRT a week.  I'm about to start my next cycle and I've been wondering should I front load my test the same as if I wasn't blasting and cruising?


----------



## PillarofBalance (Oct 18, 2013)

No need IMO... Just up the dose and get to work.


----------



## hulksmash (Oct 18, 2013)

That's TRT, not cruising lol

Of course everyone has their own definitions

POB said all you need


----------



## Hero Swole (Oct 18, 2013)

not needed save yourself the trouble. i mean you could but it wouldnt make that much of a difference. id rather not.


----------



## Rumpy (Oct 18, 2013)

I guess it would depend on what ester you're using.  Are you planning to use more of the same or mix for your blast?


----------



## DF (Oct 18, 2013)

Here's a thread you can take a look.

http://www.ugbodybuilding.com/threa...ng-esters-Good-or-bad?highlight=front+loading


----------



## djt248 (Oct 19, 2013)

Just opinion but I'd kick start with some prop or just up the dose. IMHO I heard both sides of a debate like this as to whether its worth it or not but I'd say yes. Again just my opinion and I defer to the rank here. Much more knowledgable than I am on the subject.


----------



## BuffnStuff (Oct 19, 2013)

Rumpy said:


> I guess it would depend on what ester you're using.  Are you planning to use more of the same or mix for your blast?


Yes..I'll just take POB advice and just up the dosage.


----------



## Cobra Strike (Oct 19, 2013)

Hulksmash...if trt isn't cruising then what is cruising? 

Don't front load...the way esters release your not really gaining much...pob hit it


----------



## PillarofBalance (Oct 19, 2013)

Cobra Strike said:


> Hulksmash...if trt isn't cruising then what is cruising?
> 
> Don't front load...the way esters release your not really gaining much...pob hit it



In power lifting to cruise means to maintain a dose where you lose no weight or strength. It could be at 250 or a gram or more.


----------



## NbleSavage (Oct 19, 2013)

PillarofBalance said:


> No need IMO... Just up the dose and get to work.



Here's your answer. Enjoy the blast!


----------



## Cobra Strike (Oct 19, 2013)

In power lifting...but how many of us power lift? In general terms Cruising is just a trt dose between high dosed cycles


----------



## PillarofBalance (Oct 19, 2013)

Cobra Strike said:


> In power lifting...but how many of us power lift? In general terms Cruising is just a trt dose between high dosed cycles



Completely disagree and has nothing to do with the number of PL on the board. It applies to BB too.

As the name implies TRT is to replace natural test levels in hypohonadal individuals. A cruise is simply to maintain gains


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Oct 19, 2013)

PillarofBalance said:


> Completely disagree and has nothing to do with the number of PL on the board. It applies to BB too.
> 
> As the name implies TRT is to replace natural test levels in hypohonadal individuals. A cruise is simply to maintain gains



The confusion lies in the misuse of the word cruise for people who do TRT and blast.


----------



## PillarofBalance (Oct 19, 2013)

Docd187123 said:


> The confusion lies in the misuse of the word cruise for people who do TRT and blast.



I would have said that if if I wasn't like 8 beers deep


----------



## TheLupinator (Oct 19, 2013)

TRT is a specific dose of test (100-200mg/week). Cruise just means you lower your dose relative to the "blast", to avoid PCT & maintain gains. I agree with cobra tho, TRT is a type of cruising.. unless you compete in PL or BB I don't see a need to cruise too much over a TRT dose.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Oct 19, 2013)

PillarofBalance said:


> I would have said that if if I wasn't like 8 beers deep



Dot worry, you can drink for me as I'm not a big drinker anymore. Only a couple times a year. I bought a 6pack of corona  and it took me 2.5months to finish it lmao.


----------



## Cyborg (Oct 20, 2013)

PillarofBalance said:


> In power lifting to cruise means to maintain a dose where you lose no weight or strength. It could be at 250 or a gram or more.



Ok so I have a question. What would be the gauge (outside of bloodwork) to determine what dosage would be the minimum in the cruise phase to maintain these gains? Experimentation? Weight? The mirror? Or do all these play a part. What is the proper way to cruise? (I know get bloods done and give blood) I just mean to gauge keeping gains. Thanks.


----------



## PillarofBalance (Oct 20, 2013)

Cyborg said:


> Ok so I have a question. What would be the gauge (outside of bloodwork) to determine what dosage would be the minimum in the cruise phase to maintain these gains? Experimentation? Weight? The mirror? Or do all these play a part. What is the proper way to cruise? (I know get bloods done and give blood) I just mean to gauge keeping gains. Thanks.



It's very unscientific. But you got it. Weight, lifts etc. The purpose is to lessen the stress of high dose blasts on the body for periods of time without giving up any ground.


----------



## Cyborg (Oct 20, 2013)

PillarofBalance said:


> It's very unscientific. But you got it. Weight, lifts etc. The purpose is to lessen the stress of high dose blasts on the body for periods of time without giving up any ground.



Thanks POB. I just dropped my cruise dose to 300mg/week because blood pressure was high last doctor visit, but I have been under stress lately so that probably plays a huge part. If I start losing size and pressure gets good I'll bump it up a little every what, two weeks? I run test cyp.


----------



## heavydeads83 (Oct 20, 2013)

I've been running 600mg's a week for 2 months right now and i'm calling it a cruise.


----------



## Cyborg (Oct 20, 2013)

heavydeads83 said:


> I've been running 600mg's a week for 2 months right now and i'm calling it a cruise.



Yeah that's what I was running too.


----------



## Cobra Strike (Oct 21, 2013)

Ive been thinking pob...what you said really doesnt make sense. If your running a gram of tren and a gram of test a week it would be pointless to raise your test to 2 g a week and drop the tren to try and not lose gains or strength...because that is basically just doing more test to supplement the tren which would be no less harsh on your body or really mean your doing a whole lot more then just doing a different blast. And I can tell you right now...no matter how much test you do your never gonna keep your strength up vs what it was on tren...if that was the case then why even do tren? lol You stop blasting you will always lose some kind of gains and strength...its the physiology of things.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Oct 21, 2013)

Cobra Strike said:


> ...snip...* lol You stop blasting you will always lose some kind of gains and strength...its the physiology of things*.



That is not the physiology of things. The only gains you'll lose in both size and strength are the gains that are past your genetic potential, assuming diet and training aren't the causative factors.


----------



## hulksmash (Oct 21, 2013)

Cobra Strike said:


> Ive been thinking pob...what you said really doesnt make sense. If your running a gram of tren and a gram of test a week it would be pointless to raise your test to 2 g a week and drop the tren to try and not lose gains or strength...because that is basically just doing more test to supplement the tren which would be no less harsh on your body or really mean your doing a whole lot more then just doing a different blast. And I can tell you right now...no matter how much test you do your never gonna keep your strength up vs what it was on tren...if that was the case then why even do tren? lol You stop blasting you will always lose some kind of gains and strength...its the physiology of things.



You think tren at 1g and up is no more harsh than test at 1g and up?? Lol...

And I'll tell you-I've kept my strength vs what it was on tren with test cruising

Of course, this also plays into my opinion that tren is overrated unless getting on stage

If you lose your strength or size gains more than a negligible degree, then your "cruise" is WAY too low

If you are blasting 1g/wk, you better be cruising on at least 500mg...blasting 2g grams, better cruise at 1g..so forth and so on

You won't lose the size or strength goals you accrue on blasting

NOTE: this is also ENTIRELY dependent on genetics

Most I come across don't see a difference in 500mg vs 1g; they shouldn't cruise (doubt they will see benefit)

And don't cruise if you can't keep strength or size gains on a cruise after a blast lol


----------



## PillarofBalance (Oct 21, 2013)

Cobra Strike said:


> Ive been thinking pob...what you said really doesnt make sense. If your running a gram of tren and a gram of test a week it would be pointless to raise your test to 2 g a week and drop the tren to try and not lose gains or strength...because that is basically just doing more test to supplement the tren which would be no less harsh on your body or really mean your doing a whole lot more then just doing a different blast. And I can tell you right now...no matter how much test you do your never gonna keep your strength up vs what it was on tren...if that was the case then why even do tren? lol You stop blasting you will always lose some kind of gains and strength...its the physiology of things.



I'm not going to disagree at all. And there are guys cruising on 2 grams of test. It's insane to me.  

All I can say is that if I have a 600 lb squat on a test and tren blast, when I come off even on a low dose of test I know I can hit that again. Mostly mental. 

It's tough to defend retarded doses when I don't use them lol


----------



## Cobra Strike (Oct 21, 2013)

@doc...regardless of your natty potential your still losing gains. 

Look guys its not rocket science. And hulksmash whoever told you that tren is over rated is a fukin idiot. Period. But I do agree on a few things you stated. 

I run 1.5g of tren a week...no matter how much test I do, when I stop the tren I absolutely without an argument lose a little weight and a little strength. This doesn't occur overnight...it occurs over a period of time of course...the ester needs to clear. By taking out half of the gear your using your body won't be able to sustain the gains its made on the high dosage. You cant take out tren and supplement it with test and expect to not lose a shred of strength. Tren is 5 times what test will ever be. You guys can argue all you want but this is based off years of personal experience. If there were no loss then there would be no gains either which explains why peoples dosages get higher and higher as they continue to grow. How far do you think you will go on 500 of test a week lmao. People who sit there and try to say they didn't lose anything off their blast are full of shit.  Its impossible to keep every single ounce that you gain on a blast. I don't know where this line of thinking has started but it needs to stop...it sounds stupid. Everyone loses something when they come off of a blast. Fact. 

And pob how can you cruise on one gram of test lol I guess my definition of cruising is completely wrong cause to me that's like a blast hahha


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Oct 21, 2013)

Cobra Strike said:


> @doc...regardless of your natty potential your still losing gains.
> 
> Look guys its not rocket science. And hulksmash whoever told you that tren is over rated is a fukin idiot. Period. But I do agree on a few things you stated.
> 
> ...



Would you care to explain to me physiologically how one will lose lean body mass from a cycle and differently then lean body mass gained off cycle if diet and training are correct/appropriate and one is not last genetic potential? You're right it's not rocket science and I'm trying to figure out what part you're not understanding. 

If you want to get down to measuring by the ounce, then you will not keep every ounce of gains on or off cycle so your statement is somewhat pointless. There is no difference between muscle whether it's built without synthetic AAS or with, the factors that determine what you keep are genetic disposition to maintain muscle mass, diet and training. 

"If there was no loss there would be no gains either"??? Please explain that statement bc as it stands it makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## Jada (Oct 21, 2013)

Man I love this reading!


----------



## Cobra Strike (Oct 21, 2013)

Its simple. Why is diet so important in a cycle? Because the way aas utilizes the food you intake. Take away aas and try eating even more and cleaner and you still will not get the same results. Take away a compound that your body is depending on to make gains and you no longer will make gains...you will decrease. Its like nitrous in a race care...what happens when you run out..you go backwards or slow down. Does that kinda make any sense to you doc? I mean I don't really know how to put it any more lamen then that. Your only making gains cause your nody is depending on the compound your putting in...stop putting it in and you will lose.

What kind of cycle experience do you have? Give me your biggest cycle for example and don't try to play me because I abuse the **** out of gear and I know what takes place. The questions your asking and the statements your making do not sound like you have experimented much and the shit I'm talking about you won't learn out of a book or from google...you learn it cause you live it. You keep talking about all this natty potential bullshit...even those guys that havnt reached it still experience some kind of loss wether it be strength or weight or bf. Also I would like to point out that anyone that hasn't reached their natty potential isn't running gear like I'm talking or we are talking about running....they are mainly running low doses like 500 of test and 400 tren. I don't even bother talking about guys that havnt reached their natty potential because they also don't have the dam experience that is needed to go beyond that. So...tell me your most bad ass cycle you ran...and yes I'm expecting you to tell me you kept every pound and every ounce of strength and you ate huge afterwards without losing your lean bf


----------



## Tren4Life (Oct 21, 2013)

jada said:


> man i love this reading!



me too!!!
Me too!!!


----------



## Seeker (Oct 21, 2013)

Just to throw a monkey wrench in all the theories here between my last cycle and my current cycle that I just started I was cruising/ trt whatever at 150 mg of test cyp over a 90 day period. I adjusted my training, eating, and cardio during that time and what do you know? I lost no strength and I went from 260 lbs to 267 lbs.


----------



## Cobra Strike (Oct 21, 2013)

Then your training and eating while on was shit bro...so not really a wrench there  you don't gain more while on trt then on a blast unless your fukin up on your blast


----------



## Cobra Strike (Oct 21, 2013)

Does anyone in class know anything about food efficacy/efficiency in relation to aas?


----------



## Tren4Life (Oct 21, 2013)

Cobra Strike said:


> Does anyone in class know anything about food efficacy/efficiency in relation to aas?



NO but I am glued to this thread Cobra.

Do tell


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Oct 21, 2013)

Cobra Strike said:


> Then your training and eating while on was shit bro...so not really a wrench there  you don't gain more while on trt then on a blast unless your fukin up on your blast



Reading comprehension, it's an important trait to possess. He never stated he gained more on TRT than a last hahaha.


----------



## Cobra Strike (Oct 21, 2013)

This post says all I needed to know about you doc. Your a fukin joke...def got me laughin!!! Quit talking out of your ass. You know what...your not even worth a defensive comment...your mouth is big enough to dig your own grave...and sorry if they guy stated he didn't lose any strength and gained weight right after his blast while just being on trt...ya that's def a reading comprehension issue asshat. You may now politely exit the thread being that you have nothing to offer it but meaningless objective banter.


----------



## Seeker (Oct 21, 2013)

I went from 243 lbs to 260lbs on the cycle before.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Oct 21, 2013)

Cobra Strike said:


> Its simple. Why is diet so important in a cycle? Because the way aas utilizes the food you intake. Take away aas and try eating even more and cleaner and you still will not get the same results. Take away a compound that your body is depending on to make gains and you no longer will make gains...you will decrease. Its like nitrous in a race care...what happens when you run out..you go backwards or slow down. Does that kinda make any sense to you doc? I mean I don't really know how to put it any more lamen then that. Your only making gains cause your nody is depending on the compound your putting in...stop putting it in and you will lose.
> 
> What kind of cycle experience do you have? Give me your biggest cycle for example and don't try to play me because I abuse the **** out of gear and I know what takes place. The questions your asking and the statements your making do not sound like you have experimented much and the shit I'm talking about you won't learn out of a book or from google...you learn it cause you live it. You keep talking about all this natty potential bullshit...even those guys that havnt reached it still experience some kind of loss wether it be strength or weight or bf. Also I would like to point out that anyone that hasn't reached their natty potential isn't running gear like I'm talking or we are talking about running....they are mainly running low doses like 500 of test and 400 tren. I don't even bother talking about guys that havnt reached their natty potential because they also don't have the dam experience that is needed to go beyond that. So...tell me your most bad ass cycle you ran...and yes I'm expecting you to tell me you kept every pound and every ounce of strength and you ate huge afterwards without losing your lean bf



So basically you've got nothing of value to rebut my statements. Your body has a limit to the amount of muscle it can hold naturally which is dependent on training, diet and genetics. If you're within your body's natural limits it doesn't matter how you get there (AAS or natural) you can keep what your body diet and training allow you to keep. This is physiology 101, it doesn't take any cycle experience to know this. 

Wait so when your car runs out of nitrous it goes backwards? Are you serious? Have you ever been to a racetrack my man? Does anyone else not see the error in this statement? Yes your car will slow down but it will still keep the same speed that the motor and drivetrain provide it with just like with the body. 

So you don't talk to anyone who hasn't reached their natty potential? Is this an inferiority complex or what? You're arguing like a second grader, these arguments fall apart without a rebuttal. My cycle experience is limited, admittedly, and all that proves is someone with less cycle experience knows more about the topic than you. Plain and simple.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Oct 21, 2013)

Cobra Strike said:


> This post says all I needed to know about you doc. Your a fukin joke...def got me laughin!!! Quit talking out of your ass. You know what...your not even worth a defensive comment...your mouth is big enough to dig your own grave...and sorry if they guy stated he didn't lose any strength and gained weight right after his blast while just being on trt...ya that's def a reading comprehension issue asshat. You may now politely exit the thread being that you have nothing to offer it but meaningless objective banter.



Pot meet kettle . Come on my friend don't be angry that someone is calling you out on the. BS. It's ridiculous that you believe this stuff you're spewing. And now bc your feelings got hurt you want to resort to ad hominem attacks, usually used by those who talk out their ass or those who lack maturity. Thank you for giving me permission to exit this thread but the laughs are just to plentiful to exit just yet.


----------



## Austinite (Oct 21, 2013)

I did not read the thread in its entirety but would like to comment on "lost gains". 

Unattended gains would be lost, regardless of reaching genetic potential. Steroid induced gains that surpass genetic potential are not retainable without an appropriate and continuous dose of anabolic steroids. It is physically impossible to retain any lean mass that surpasses genetic potential with food alone. 

Gains that are still within genetic potential can be maintained with food alone. 

It's how the human body works, it's really not questionable. There is too much literature, clinical studies, trials, systematic reviews and observational conclusory for this to be worthy of a debate.


----------



## Seeker (Oct 21, 2013)

Cobra, even when I'm blasting my dosages are not extremely high. I was very surprised that I gained those 7 lbs during that period. What surprised me most was that I did not lose the strength that I gained and again because my doses are not that high to begin  with my strength gains were moderate. I know that if I go off completely I'm going down there's no doubt about that.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Oct 21, 2013)

Austinite said:


> I did not read the thread in its entirety but would like to comment on "lost gains".
> 
> Unattended gains would be lost, regardless of reaching genetic potential. Steroid induced gains that surpass genetic potential are not retainable without an appropriate and continuous dose of anabolic steroids. It is physically impossible to retain any lean mass that surpasses genetic potential with food alone.
> 
> ...



Wait wait...but what about when your car runs out of nitrous and then goes backwards?! That proves the body cannot keep AAS gains without them regardless of genetic potential. But what about feed efficiency, we're having a class on it now apparently. 

And OMG, you better not be making these claims if you haven't run huge cycles. You don't know jack otherwise. And don't attempt to fool me bc I abuse the f**k out of AAS. You won't learn this stuff on google scholar  Austinite, it's only knowledge to those that live it bc we're superior to the rest.


----------



## Cobra Strike (Oct 21, 2013)

Now who has the reading comprehension disability? Backwards as in not as fast and or decreased speed...moron. go ahead and keep talking and trying to make me sound stupid..I will entertain it. Another error in your comprehension...I didnt say I don't talk to them I said I don't talk about them. This thread was based on high dosages of gear not natty potential. You started the natty potential bullshit. Why bother talking about natty potential when we are talking about levels much further from that? The reason we are talking about natty potential
Is because that is as far as your experience goes. Like I said earlier...there isn't a book or google that will teach you of the things I am speaking of...obvioisly or your book worm ass would be trying to talk with the big boys with your parroted bullshit. 

Austinite...I completely agree with you...but that is a different topic...I'm obviously talking about gains beyond natty potential...pretty sure that's clearly stated many times from the begginning of this thread. I will apologize for doc not comprehending this...unless guys below natty potential are running 3g of gear a week...and if that's the case then they are as much of an asshat as ol doc here


----------



## Cobra Strike (Oct 21, 2013)

Bahaha glad to see the kid coming out in you doc!!! Shits gettin fun now boys!


----------



## Cobra Strike (Oct 21, 2013)

Hold on a sec doc...before you reply with a comment about my comments about shit you dont know about...let me grab my popcorn!!!!


----------



## Cobra Strike (Oct 21, 2013)

Seeker...your cycle provided some decent gains...I should apologize for making an armchair quarterback call on your cycle as I do not know your details or experience level...so I will just say good job brotha!


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Oct 21, 2013)

Cobra Strike said:


> Now who has the reading comprehension disability? Backwards as in not as fast and or decreased speed...moron. go ahead and keep talking and trying to make me sound stupid..I will entertain it. Another error in your comprehension...I didnt say I don't talk to them I said I don't talk about them. This thread was based on high dosages of gear not natty potential. You started the natty potential bullshit. Why bother talking about natty potential when we are talking about levels much further from that? The reason we are talking about natty potential
> Is because that is as far as your experience goes. Like I said earlier...there isn't a book or google that will teach you of the things I am speaking of...obvioisly or your book worm ass would be trying to talk with the big boys with your parroted bullshit.
> 
> Austinite...I completely agree with you...but that is a different topic...I'm obviously talking about gains beyond natty potential...pretty sure that's clearly stated many times from the begginning of this thread. I will apologize for doc not comprehending this...unless guys below natty potential are running 3g of gear a week...and if that's the case then they are as much of an asshat as ol doc here





Wait so Austinite and I said the same exact thing in different words but you agree with him and not me? Haha. Serious? I've said it from the beginning: any gains made on AAS can be maintained without AAS IF THE GAINS ARENT PAST GENETIC POTENTIAL AND DIET AND TRAINING SUPPORT THE GAINS. 

Now here's the part that flew over your head, Austin said: GAINS THAT ARE STILL WITHIN GENETIC POTENTIAL CAN BE MAINTAINED WITH FOOD ALONE. 

Now explain how one person is right and the other wrong when they said the same exact thing?  

Backwards does not mean decreased speed or not as fast, your poor wording led to an error. Next time write what you mean instead of using the wrong words. I bothered mentioning natural potential bc you claimed "when you stop blasting, you'll always lose some gains and strength". That's not the case if you blast while within genetic potential which you just agreed to with Austin but trying to tell me I'm wrong lol. This thread is not based on high doses of gear, you were the one to initially bring them up. No one mentioned grams of gear until you did. What you donnt understand now is beyond me. I've said from the beginning the same thing I'm saying now and the same that Austin said ?which you agreed with). The rest of the problems came up bc when I decided to point out an error in your statement you felt your manhood being threatened and resorted to ad hominems and personal attacks. And now you want to laugh and make jokes about my experience bc what? I haven't abused gear like you? Grow up man, argue like an adult and let's leave the name calling to the children, unless you still are one psychologically


----------



## Cobra Strike (Oct 21, 2013)

Well atleast you let me get my popcorn!  I'm gonna listen to you...I will grow up now. You win..I'm sorry. I'm completely wrong and your completely right...keep up the good work doc...I could learn a lot from a guy like you ;-)


----------



## TheLupinator (Oct 21, 2013)

Docd187123 said:


> GAINS THAT ARE STILL WITHIN GENETIC POTENTIAL CAN BE MAINTAINED WITH FOOD ALONE.



Yes any gains you have made *once you have already come down from the blast* can be maintained by food alone. Cobra is talking about the transitional period (I think) --> you lose gains because of the sudden dump in hormones. Sure you can say it's biologically correct that gains within your genetic potential can be maintained (no shit) but in the real world when your hormones are cut in half you will lose some gains.


----------



## Austinite (Oct 21, 2013)

TheLupinator said:


> Yes any gains you have made *once you have already come down from the blast* can be maintained by food alone. Cobra is talking about the transitional period (I think) --> you lose gains because of the sudden dump in hormones. Sure you can say it's biologically correct that gains within your genetic potential can be maintained (no shit) but in the real world when your hormones are cut in half you will lose some gains.



Interesting. Muscle that is generated with food alone would have to vary from muscle generated with the aid of anabolic steroids. But both methods generate identical muscle fibers. 

Here is where everyone is confused. The majority assume that most of the gains are lean mass. This is hardly the truth. Frankly, not even remotely close. The majority of gains would be fat-cell increase and water retention. A cycle that produces a total of 25 lbs of mass, is likely carrying an average of 6 lean pounds. This is where "I lost my gains" comes from. Otherwise I could cycle on and off and become 700 lbs lean. Doesn't really add up. Expectations are way too high and generally unrealistic for steroid-induced muscle. If your body has the natural ability to maintain a certain amount of muscle, there isn't any hormonal transition that could hinder this. The method in which muscle below genetic limits is attained is not relevant to retainability. Unless one can defy the laws.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Oct 21, 2013)

Cobra Strike said:


> Well atleast you let me get my popcorn!  I'm gonna listen to you...I will grow up now. You win..I'm sorry. I'm completely wrong and your completely right...keep up the good work doc...I could learn a lot from a guy like you ;-)



I think it's safe to say you can learn a lot period 



TheLupinator said:


> Yes any gains you have made *once you have already come down from the blast* can be maintained by food alone. Cobra is talking about the transitional period (I think) --> you lose gains because of the sudden dump in hormones. Sure you can say it's biologically correct that gains within your genetic potential can be maintained (no shit) but in the real world when your hormones are cut in half you will lose some gains.



Here's an example of what I'm trying to say:

A guys genetics, diet, and training will allow him to naturally hold onto 200lbs of lbm hypothetically. It does not matter whether he gets to the 200lbs lbm naturally or with AAS (large or small doses), he can NATURALLY maintain that 200lbs lbm without the aid of AAS. How he gets to the limit of his potential is irrelevant to his ability to hold it. 

Now if same person went up to 220lbs lbm by using AAS then yes, some dose of AAS will constantly be required to maintain that state. Whether it's TRT dose or higher. 

What you're saying "any gains you made once you're down from the blast can be maintained by food alone" is tricky. You mean gains made in a natural state? Then yes food and training will suffice. But if he's past his genetic potential he'll need AAS. As Austin has touched upon, their is no physiological difference between muscle gained on cycle or off. Muscle is muscle. The AAS will only serve to get you there faster and go above and beyond your natural limit, it doesn't give you mutated muscle that disappears when you stop cycling but the body's endogenous hormonal environment will only allow it to carry so much muscle before these hormone levels change and start working against you and that's when AAS use is necessitated to keep results past your body's set point. 

When your hormones are cut in half you don't lose gains necessarily. Speaking from experience, I started cutting while on PCT, didn't wait for after I had recovered. My strength levels kept going up for several weeks (plateaued so I reset and kept increasing strength) and my body composition improved. I didn't lose all these gains as many claim, my strength didn't tank, etc. I compensated by reducing my volume and keeping intensity high (more powerlifter than bodybuilder here) and eating to support my new LBM. Another confusing factor like was mentioned is the fact that on a cycle if you gain 30lbs, that's not 20lbs of muscle  and 10lbs of fat. There's a lot of water, increased glycogen stores, muscle mass, fat mass, and more. Most of the weight you lose when coming off a cycle is water weight. While water is technically considered lbm bc it's not fat mass, water still isn't muscle.


----------



## TheLupinator (Oct 21, 2013)

Austinite said:


> Interesting. Muscle that is generated with food alone would have to vary from muscle generated with the aid of anabolic steroids. But both methods generate identical muscle fibers.



No one said you build different muscle with steroids


----------



## TheLupinator (Oct 21, 2013)

Austinite said:


> If your body has the natural ability to maintain a certain amount of muscle, there isn't any hormonal transition that could hinder this. The method in which muscle below genetic limits is attained is not relevant to retainability. Unless one can defy the laws.



#1 So what determines "your body natural ability to maintain a certain amount of muscle" ...wanna tell me how hormones don't play a part in this?

#2 No one is saying the method in which gains are attained matters. Nobody.


----------



## hulksmash (Oct 21, 2013)

Cobra Strike said:


> @doc...regardless of your natty potential your still losing gains.
> 
> Look guys its not rocket science. And hulksmash whoever told you that tren is over rated is a fukin idiot. Period. But I do agree on a few things you stated.
> 
> ...



*I* think tren is overrated...only in the offseason

Tren has its place, and that's for shredding fat/precontest

It increases metabolism that you will gain more LBM in the offseason with the main compounds (dbol/anadrol, test, deca, EQ) EVEN THOUGH the lbm gained from tren is not partnered with minimal-no fat/water gain

Again, you should lose only a NEGLIGIBLE amount of lbm/strength when on a cruise-this even means going to test after tren

If you lose more than a minute amount, your cruise dose is TOO LOW

Also it makes me think that the blasts don't last at least 15-20 weeks (which should be a minimum amount of time)


----------



## hulksmash (Oct 21, 2013)

TheLupinator said:


> #1 So what determines "your body natural ability to maintain a certain amount of muscle" ...wanna tell me how hormones don't play a part in this?
> 
> #2 No one is saying the method in which gains are attained matters. Nobody.



I'm late and have yet to read all the posts...

ENDOGENOUS hormones play a role, not exogenous

If your body can grow and maintain 13" arms without EXOGENOUS hormones, then you can run AAS and the finally get off, shrink down and not get lower than 13" arms

Just like if I were to get off everything right now

I wouldn't shrink lower than 16" arms because I built that naturally and my body can support that naturally

WELL there is one kink-that's IF I can even endogenously MAKE HORMONES ANYMORE LOL

Which I highly highly doubt haha


----------



## hulksmash (Oct 21, 2013)

Docd187123 said:


> When your hormones are cut in half you don't lose gains necessarily. Speaking from experience, I started cutting while on PCT, didn't wait for after I had recovered. My strength levels kept going up for several weeks (plateaued so I reset and kept increasing strength) and my body composition improved. I didn't lose all these gains as many claim, my strength didn't tank, etc. I compensated by reducing my volume and keeping intensity high (more powerlifter than bodybuilder here) and eating to support my new LBM. Another confusing factor like was mentioned is the fact that on a cycle if you gain 30lbs, that's not 20lbs of muscle  and 10lbs of fat. There's a lot of water, increased glycogen stores, muscle mass, fat mass, and more. Most of the weight you lose when coming off a cycle is water weight. While water is technically considered lbm bc it's not fat mass, water still isn't muscle.



FINALLY SOMEONE WHO ELSE WHO UNDERSTANDS THE NON-BROSCIENCE of BB'ING

Wait until I mention "set points" for force feeding/gaining weight

Or how "body types" like endo, meso, et al are utter bullshit

Etc etc etc

Anyway, just so you have ANOTHER anecdotal backing:

I stopped a blast, jumped straight on 100mg ONLY DECA nothing else 

Didn't lose strength or size...I did gain more water, minimal fat however (due to lessened metabolism vs a blast)


----------



## Austinite (Oct 22, 2013)

TheLupinator said:


> #1 So what determines "your body natural ability to maintain a certain amount of muscle" ...wanna tell me how hormones don't play a part in this?
> 
> #2 No one is saying the method in which gains are attained matters. Nobody.



Well, it's entirely simple. You would follow a nutritional and training plan that would retain the very same steroid-induced muscle mass, that you would have attained without them. It's not rocket science. Of course hormones play a role, what I said was the drop from supraphysiological levels to baseline is not relevant, The only rle that plays is that your growth slows. but we are discussing the very same gains that would have been obtained at baseline. So why would you lose any gains going from 4400 ng/dL serum testosterone, back down to 850 ng/dL serum? You would have achieved those gains eventually and maintained them without steroids.  So what is it exactly that you're referring to (the exact mechanism if you will) that says I cannot maintain the gains from steroids at baseline. All with mind that I have not exceeded genetic limits. 

To answer # 2, Yes, you did. You said it...



> Sure you can say it's biologically correct that gains within your genetic potential can be maintained (no shit) but *in the real world when your hormones are cut in half you will lose some gains*



That means the muscle fibers would  have to be different than those developed without AAS. Does the muscle evaporate somehow? Once again, no one is going to defy physiological laws.

It's probably best to agree on a disagreement, because this stuff is really far too entry level to continue debating. Keep in mind that I have a tremendous amount of data from dexa scans and bodpod assessments. Not that I need it really.


----------



## hulksmash (Oct 22, 2013)

Docd187123 said:


> gains made on AAS can be maintained without AAS IF THE GAINS ARENT PAST GENETIC POTENTIAL



I made an example (13" arms one) so people can understand better and not take "genetic potential" the wrong way

I don't like my of my brothers here not getting along over words

Loosen up everyone!


----------



## hulksmash (Oct 22, 2013)

Austinite said:


> Well, it's entirely simple. You would follow a nutritional and training plan that would retain the very same steroid-induced muscle mass, that you would have attained without them. It's not rocket science. Of course hormones play a role, what I said was the drop from supraphysiological levels to baseline is not relevant, The only rle that plays is that your growth slows. but we are discussing the very same gains that would have been obtained at baseline. So why would you lose any gains going from 4400 ng/dL serum testosterone, back down to 850 ng/dL serum? You would have achieved those gains eventually and maintained them without steroids.  So what is it exactly that you're referring to (the exact mechanism if you will) that says I cannot maintain the gains from steroids at baseline. All with mind that I have not exceeded genetic limits.
> 
> To answer # 2, Yes, you did. You said it...
> 
> ...



Just quote my "13" arm shrinking off gear" example

It will save headache, tell the point, and prevent any insults


----------



## Austinite (Oct 22, 2013)

That's alright. I would  never insult anyone.


----------



## hulksmash (Oct 22, 2013)

Cobra Strike said:


> Does anyone in class know anything about food efficacy/efficiency in relation to aas?



Yes, in fact I got interesting things about your beloved tren 

Tren works weirdly-it actually DECREASES protein synthesis

Testosterone and others INCREASE protein synthesis

So how the **** does tren work so well?

Well, tren *DECREASES* protein degradation SO MUCH that it cause a huge net protein accumulation

I other words, on tren you stop SO MUCH protein from being degraded, that even though tren lowers the synthesis of protein, _it saves more from degradation that it does from not synthesizing_ 

Thus, you have a higher net protein accumulation

Testosterone and others INCREASE both protein SYNTHESIS and DEGRADATION

however, test and others increase synthesis MORE than it does degradation, thus a higher net protein accumulation

Test and others are synergistic with tren because of this


----------



## TheLupinator (Oct 22, 2013)

Austin, it just sounds like you're saying AAS will increase the rate at which one builds muscle but doesn't impact your ability to maintain that muscle. I disagree, clearly.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Oct 22, 2013)

hulksmash said:


> FINALLY SOMEONE WHO ELSE WHO UNDERSTANDS THE NON-BROSCIENCE of BB'ING
> 
> Wait until I mention "set points" for force feeding/gaining weight
> 
> ...



I try and use real science as my guide, not what the guy at the gym tells me. He tells me squatting below parallel is bad for my knees and I should do my power cleans for time and max attempts. 

I completely agree body types are not real, if you're not aware look at the education and background of the man who initially came up with the terms. That's enough to debunk them right there. I would prefer it if we could all return to a civil nature and will gladly do so, I get enough of this crap at Ology and I like to think this place is different


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Oct 22, 2013)

TheLupinator said:


> Austin, it just sounds like you're saying AAS will increase the rate at which one builds muscle but doesn't impact your ability to maintain that muscle. I disagree, clearly.



That's not what he's saying brother. What he's saying is the drop from a blast to natural/TRT dose or supraphysiological levels to physiological levels do not affect your ability to maintain muscle you would have built within your potential.


----------



## Austinite (Oct 22, 2013)

TheLupinator said:


> Austin, it just sounds like you're saying AAS will increase the rate at which one builds muscle but doesn't impact your ability to maintain that muscle. I disagree, clearly.



Yes, but we have to remember that there are too many factors here. And as a quick reminder, I am only speaking of pre-genetic limits.

Let me give a reasonable example.

Freddie has a baseline serum testosterone of 800 ng/dL. He is currently at an LBM of 175 lbs.  He is able to naturally achieve a total lean mass of 185 lbs. But that would take 1 year to achieve. 

If Freddie used anabolic steroids to bring his testosterone levels to 6000 ng/dl, he could accelerated his growth to 185 lbs in 16 weeks. 

Now freddie comes off the injections and returns to his 800 ng/dl baseline. Should Freddie maintain a strong diet and training regimen, he can maintain those 10 lbs without any issues.

So that's a scenario. 

Let's say Freddie did not recover, and his testosterone level plummeted to 180 ng/dl. This would be a problem. Now, food may not be enough. But at this stage, Freddie has bigger issues as he's become hypogonadal, and  with therapy returning him to baseline he could retain his future blasts.

So the moral of the story is, if you return to baseline, there is no reason why you would lose any muscle. We've already established that Freddie's baseline is capable of generating and maintaining those ten lbs naturally.


----------



## PillarofBalance (Oct 22, 2013)

hulksmash said:


> Yes, in fact I got interesting things about your beloved tren
> 
> Tren works weirdly-it actually DECREASES protein synthesis
> 
> ...



Also why tren shines in a caloric deficit


----------



## PillarofBalance (Oct 22, 2013)

How come we are talking about natural potential in a thread about anything but natural? 

I think we already established that cruising and TRT aren't equal terms right?

Keep this going guys but let's leave the antagonizing shit out of it.


----------



## TheLupinator (Oct 22, 2013)

PillarofBalance said:


> How come we are talking about natural potential in a thread about anything but natural?
> 
> I think we already established that cruising and TRT aren't equal terms right?
> 
> Keep this going guys but let's leave the antagonizing shit out of it.



I agree TRT and cruising are not the same thing. TRT is just a specific type of cruise. and I agree 100% why talk about "Genetic Potential". Most people won't come close to their genetic potential even with AAS. why? because we all have families, jobs, hobbies, etc that take time. Time that could be spent sleeping, training, eating, or planning. Until you time every meal to the second and measure your food out to the nearest mg how can you say you've reached your natural limit for growth? And the same lifestyle constraints that make reaching your "Genetic Potential" near impossible, even with gear, also make maintaining muscle below that limit just as difficult without gear. 

Not to mention "Genetic Potential" is theoretical and is limited in application (application --> what we debate here). If I send you a blood, hair, and urine sample along with my family tree could you tell me what my genetic potential is? 

Lastly Aus & Doc, one of you even said something along the lines of changing your routine --> decrease volume, increase intensity, and kept strength when coming off. So you're saying you had to decrease volume to keep strength? that's still a loss of performance (gains) as you can now preform less total work. Not to mention what would happen if you didn't come off the blast and did the same thing i.e. drop volume and raised intensity --> your strength would more than likely increase rather than just be maintained, again lose of forward progress (gains).


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Oct 22, 2013)

TheLupinator said:


> I agree TRT and cruising are not the same thing. TRT is just a specific type of cruise. and I agree 100% why talk about "Genetic Potential". Most people won't come close to their genetic potential even with AAS. why? because we all have families, jobs, hobbies, etc that take time. Time that could be spent sleeping, training, eating, or planning. Until you time every meal to the second and measure your food out to the nearest mg how can you say you've reached your natural limit for growth? And the same lifestyle constraints that make reaching your "Genetic Potential" near impossible, even with gear, also make maintaining muscle below that limit just as difficult without gear.
> 
> Not to mention "Genetic Potential" is theoretical and is limited in application (application --> what we debate here). If I send you a blood, hair, and urine sample along with my family tree could you tell me what my genetic potential is?
> 
> Lastly Aus & Doc, one of you even said something along the lines of changing your routine --> decrease volume, increase intensity, and kept strength when coming off. So you're saying you had to decrease volume to keep strength? that's still a loss of performance (gains) as you can now preform less total work. Not to mention what would happen if you didn't come off the blast and did the same thing i.e. drop volume and raised intensity --> your strength would more than likely increase rather than just be maintained, again lose of forward progress (gains).



Lupinator, that was me that said that about volume reduction but do not take it out of context. The context for me reducing volume was so that I can maintain intensity and drive strength progress. I am geared towards powerlifting not bodybuilding. Intensity is my most important variable so I'll keep taking strength gains at the expense of volume any day. I was also on PCT at the time so my test levels were tanked below my normal physiological levels and I was eating in a calorie deficit. Genetic potential or not, when in a calorie deficit my training suffers since strength gains come slower. I didn't lose performance, I purposely manipulated one out of the three main training variables, volume....it's not that I couldn't physically do it, I most certainly could, it's that doing so would hinder my main goal of keeping forward strength progress


----------



## Austinite (Oct 22, 2013)

That wasn't me who said that but I'm happy to touch on the subject. Muscle cell endurance decreases when you end your cycle, but muscles do not require extreme stimulation to be maintained. Muscle is maintained with food and training. Intake surplus coupled with heavy stimulation that leads to damage and later repair of muscle fibers are required for growth, not retention. Therefore; a reduction in muscular cell endurance, or strength is not catastrophic to retention. 

If genetic potential is theoretical, then according to your counts, TheLupinator, anyone and everyone who does not eat enough, train enough or have acceptable levels of testosterone would develop muscular dystrophy. You see, genetic potential can work in reverse as well. Otherwise,  a body would expire when all sources of energy are completely depleted. This is not the case. A body can expire at 2 percent body fat, yet another body may expire at 3 % body fat. On the counterpart, keeping with genetic limits as a theory, if we ate heavily and trained excessively we should be able to gain non-stop. This is certainly inaccurate. There is a reason why the body is able to hold onto some muscle with little to no effort. We eat to maintain, we increase intake to maintain more. Unfortunately, our body's are not designed for mammoth amounts of food, as that could also be problematic and even fatal.

As for genetic potential, 'the term',  it's often used loosely. It's scientifically unacceptable to assume that a human body can hold an unlimited amount of lean mass. Whether someone said it or not, when we assume that genetic limits don't exist, it is exactly what the example provided would prove. In the event that you've provided your body with sufficient nutritional intake from both; Macro and Micro, while testosterone levels are not depleted and you are still unable to add any lean mass, this would indicate nearing or reaching potential. The problem with this is that there are very few people who monitor their progress this closely. Which is why it's mind boggling for some folks to understand that there are limits and/or assume that they've reached limits. Most folks prefer to assume, it's much easier than thinking or researching.

There are limits to everything. As I've studied the fascinating human body, which most couldn't possibly fathom how wonderfully complicated it is, I can assure you that we all have limits. From the smallest, an atom, to the  largest, the skin; all have  limits prior to expiration. Red blood cells for example, you cannot produce an unlimited amount before the event is treated, otherwise it causes death. Your hands do not continue to grow, neither do your feet, brain, pituitary gland, etc... Your nose and ears are 2 of the the longest lasting growth parts of your body, hence why many elderly have large noses and ears. This is not any different for muscle, unless induced by foreign compounds. It's just how the human body works. 

Honestly, anyone's argument should be directed at God (or whomever/whatever one believes is responsible for the human body), not another human. Luckily we've developed enough, scientifically, as a human race to provide, literally, hundreds of thousands of unquestionable research material on this very topic. I understand that it is not an easy thing to grasp at times, but it really and truly, for some, as simple as stating that the Sun produces heat. 

I won't be posting in this thread again as this would be a never ending battle at this stage. So all are welcome to have the last words here. I hope what I've said sheds some light on the topic for some and more importantly, I hope none of the members take offense to anything I've said. Certainly not the intention here. 

Have a powerful day.


----------

