Re:Tell us how esiclene doesn't work then.....
Posted by Lou on March 24, 1997 at 19:39:05:
In Reply to: Re:Tell us how esiclene doesn't work then..... posted by Animal on March 24, 1997 at 01:05:07:
Animal, I respect many of your post on the more basic
aspects of anabolism and steroid chemistry such as dosages and
some cycle theories but when you start arguing with me you
are getting way out of your league(cohorting with someone as
childish as Vincent does not help me respect you any more
either). First off lets start with you message title. Esiclene
is an execlent drug for putting size onto a specific body part
through injection. The size added through the usage of this drug
however has nothing to do with any anabolism of the muscle cell. It
has to do with a TEMPORARY inflamation of the muscle. This is why
Esiclene comes ready mixed with a pain killing agent and why the increased
size fades away in a fairly short peroid of time.
Next up, the oil sitting around the muscle tissue longer. This
is a ridiculous comment. Muscle receptor sites can only be activated
by so many steroid molecules before they become saturated and will no
longer recognize any extra amount of steroid. That is why taking
"super doses" of drugs does not work unless you have trained your body
to do so throughout time as most of the top pros have done.
DMSO is used as a carrier to move substances through the skin
and into the blood stream. You must be aware though that not all substances
can be brought through the skin because their molecules are much to large. While
this does not apply in this specific case it is a fact. The DMSO however works
much like an injection does. The steroid that has been transported through the
skin does not just act on the applied area but it is diffused into the blood stream
and is able to act upon the entire body. Some does get caught up in the fat cells but
when you are dealing with steroids this is insignifigant.
As far as your disproving theory goes I disagree. I would tend
to deviate toward the thoery of until someone goes out and proves it
with a variable controlled study then it is only speculation.
I would love to spend more time trying to explain these statements
in further detail but I hope that this helps clear a few things up.