A Plea For Truth In our Lifestyle

[Silent Method]

Thanks for the support bro!

Just to reiterate a point, I'm all for exploring differing positions. This is why I'm still waiting for some argument, from Nelson or others, supporting the claims he put in that thread. "Proof" be damned, I'm simply looking for some explanation of his reasoning.

Hundereds of posts after his claim ---> NOTHING.

 

[Silent Method]

^

 

[Deleted member 33117]

Sure, research now shows that androgen receptors upregulate based on serum testosterone levels. Recent studies show that young men given various doses of testosterone enathate, showed, receptor upregulation, in proportion to the dose, if the dose yeilded supralogical testosterone levels. At the end of the study, on average, the 600 mg a week test subject had twice the number of totally androgen receptors present in their muscle tissue as the test subjects given 300 mg of test enathate a week. They also saw roughly twice the gains in lbm.

Actually, I'll skip the argument part, and just stick with the research results.

 

[Silent Method]

Good post. Blows some old theory, at least in part, right out of the water.

 

[Deleted member 33117]

SM, and it also says something about what type of doses might be best for a frist cycle... and they are higher than I used or would have normally recomended. The guys using 600 mg gained twice as much lean body mass as the 300 mg of test guys. The only side effect noted was slightly elevated cholesterol levels if I recall from memory. Maybe 600 mg of test a week is the ideal newbie cycle. It certainly does not seem to cause dimenished returns, like many of us thought would occur when we recomended 250-400 mg a week for first timers.

 

[Spidey]

Thanks for the support bro!

Just to reiterate a point, I'm all for exploring differing positions. This is why I'm still waiting for some argument, from Nelson or others, supporting the claims he put in that thread. "Proof" be damned, I'm simply looking for some explanation of his reasoning.

Hundereds of posts after his claim ---> NOTHING.

Your post was well written and I agree whole-heartedly.

HOWEVER, to be totally fair to Nelson, he did advance an explanation of his reasoning as I remember. It just wasn't a scientifically valid one. I think that whole milk post was based on his misunderstanding of gluconeogenesis.

I think you should probably just let it go. There is no way in hell he will provide references or even a rational scientific explanation for his claims in that post since they likely do not exist. You are just flogging a dead horse here. It used to bother me like this too but I finally just realized that I can't get all hot and bothered every time Nelson posts something absurd. The stress just isn't worth it. I Pm'd him and buried the hatchet (so to speak) and now I either simply ignore his posts or at least try to be civil and non-threatening in my reply.

With all due respect, posts like this one will go nowhere. Sure, you will get some pats on the back (it WAS well written) but in the end it will probably degenerate into just another flame war.

Live and let live bro. If there are fools out there willing to believe something without any scientific credibility whatsoever (and there are), let them. It's no skin off my nose (yours either ).

What still gets me a little are the sycophants who will jump on the bandwagon and just believe it "because the great (whomever) said so". It truly irks me. I can think of a few here...

 

[Silent Method]

Good post yourself bro.

HOWEVER, to be totally fair to Nelson, he did advance an explanation of his reasoning as I remember. It just wasn't a scientifically valid one. I think that whole milk post was based on his misunderstanding of gluconeogenesis.

I didn't see any reasoning, just a restatment with some different parameters.

I think you should probably just let it go. There is no way in hell he will provide references or even a rational scientific explanation for his claims in that post since they likely do not exist. You are just flogging a dead horse here.
>
>
With all due respect, posts like this one will go nowhere. Sure, you will get some pats on the back (it WAS well written) but in the end it will probably degenerate into just another flame war.

Live and let live bro. If there are fools out there willing to believe something without any scientific credibility whatsoever (and there are), let them. It's no skin off my nose (yours either ).

What still gets me a little are the sycophants who will jump on the bandwagon and just believe it "because the great (whomever) said so". It truly irks me. I can think of a few here...

To a degree I agree with everything you said here. But a point of contention - I'm not looking for pats on the back, I'm hoping some of those who read this will learn to be more discriminatory in what they choose to believe and why. This "Nelson" scenario is a great illustration why, but of course it will present itself again and again regardless of who presents the falacy.

In addition, I was looking for Nelson to show some argument for the statements he made (for which, in regard to his revisory statement, the only possible support i can forsee are the two mechanisms of action which I have already outlined myself in this thread). It looks like that's not going to happen.

 

[BigAndy69]

Some guys will always agree with the underdog. It doesn't matter what he says as long as he goes against popular convention we will support him!