Bicept Injections?

[Bruce]

tuxy is a wizard i take his word, all i know is the most ripped motherfucker i personally know swears by winstrol spot injections and i definitely think it works, it just hurts my delts too much.

 

[krishna]

Krishna, here's your exact scientific method, believe I work with it enough to know how to use it. 1) I, and thousands of others, have observed site injections. 2) Our hypothesis is, they work, for a variety of reasons, otherwise people would have long ago stopped doing them. 3) Our prediction? That one's tougher, but it's something like, site-injecting AAS and IGF-1/GH, along with other growth factors, will have a localized effect higher than that of the systemic effect. 4) This has BEEN tested, dozens if not hundreds of times, in both fully double-blind, placebo-controlled studies and in the real world by bbers. 5) Yes, we are still testing discrepancies, but this has been done enough times by enough studies and enough people with positive results to be considered a proven theory for certain, if not yet a scientific FACT. It took over 2000 YEARS to PROVE that the Earth wasn't round, so are you willing to wait 2 more millenia to believe that site injections are a FACT? If so, your loss. There's enough evidence, and enough testing of hypotheses, to easily support this as a well-established theory, and I see no reason to try and discredit 1000's of medical studies and personal experiments by implying I have no knowledge of something which I can obviously use better than you Ok, so if you can have a comeback to that, a GOOD one, you win



1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.



I edited this for the reason stated.... we mostly all have valid points of view, and we're going to stick by them until someone can unequivocally prove us wrong... and none of us is likely going to be around long enough for that to happen. Let's agree to disagree, and if it works for you, yay. If it doesn't, well then it doesn't. That's all there is to it

Hey Tux I wasn't saying it isn't reasonable to suggest that site injections exist. I'm a reasonable man, and presented with reasonable evidence in light of something, that's almost always the way I align my beliefs. I never said site injections didn't work. I was simply sick of watching you two argue over it and both saying eachother's side was proven. The goal in science is to disprove things. If you try to disprove a hypothesis over and over and it always stands, then any reasonable person would believe that since it could not be disproved, then it is inlign with reality. Again, you haven't "proven" anything, you've simply shed light on reality. A true scientist will never say they've proven anything; that's just not how they think. There is always a possibility of even a time tested fact not being right upon further evidence. I'm not doubting that you truely believe in site injections. You know way more about this than I do. In fact, seeing that you have such a strong conviction on the matter causes me to lean toward your views on it. You are a smart bro, and I give you credit. I was simply pointing out one of the most fundamental concepts of science that any scientist would know. I wasn't saying you were wrong in your beliefs; I hope you didn't see it that way (apparently you did). Peace Tux.

 

[Tux]

I didn't take it personally at all Krishna, in point of fact, I'm glad you pointed that out. I do tend to rely more on my personal knowledge and experience more than I do on actual "scientific" evidence, i.e. medline studies and the like. The problem is, most of those studies don't exist, so the experiments are done in the field, under rather uncontrolled conditions, so it's difficult to judge. I was just explaining to you that yes, I did remember the scientific method, and I could support my theory quite easily by using it. However, since this "theory", nor any of us, has been around long enough to consider "site injections DO work" a LAW, like gravity, you were right to remind me of that. I'll hit you with K when I can bro! I still stand by site injections, especially of non-ester steroids and IGF-1/GH, as being effective

 

[Singleton]

Site injections DO NOT WORK via AR to cause localized growth. Ester, no ester, oil, water suspension- It does not matter.

Finally, localized injections of test suspension have been proven to have higher affinity for AR receptors in the muscle injected into

If either of you are able to pull up some proof, well, that would help.

I felt like they helped. Tux felt like they worked. Needsize felt like they did not do anything special. I really think a study is needed.

Here's a study you can do:

The Efficacy of Site Injections

Procedure:
1) measure biceps.
2) Inject only into 1 bicep throughout cycle.
3) train biceps equally
4) measure biceps throughout cycle, and 1 week after cycle, so as not to be fooled by swelling

materials:
This can be done with either esterified (suspension, winny) or non-esterified (prop), but not both. that way, it will be known which works.

 

[Tux]

Singleton, you don't need a medical study for proof. You have a certain # of AR receptors in your muscles yes? And at NO time are all of them full, there will always be some empty ones. So, by injecting something like test base directly into a muscle group, THAT muscle has a much higher local concentration of that steroid, and therefor will bind more of the hormone in it's AR receptors. Sure, it may not be a lot more, but when you have 100mg in a muscle like the bicep, you really think that NONE of it gets used first by that muscle? The blood supply through the bicep itself, the capillary bed in the muscle, makes SURE that AR's in the bicep get first pick at the hormone. Obviously there's far more hormone than the AR's in the bicep alone can attach to, so the rest is carried throughout the body like normal. To say that the biceps don't get first pick of attaching is ludicrous though. That's like saying, if you inject novocaine into your gums, your cheeks will become numb before your gums do, when obviously that's not the case. The tissue injected into gets higher priority, and there are plenty of studies on that. I'll grant that novocaine is a localized agent. So take morphine. You're telling me, when you inject morphine into a muscle, your whole body pain diminishes at the same rate? I can tell you from experience that's NOT true. I've injected pentazocine HCL, an opiate stronger than nubain, into my stomach, sub-q. What lost pain sensation first? You guessed it, my stomach... then the feeling spread out from there. IM, sub-q, as long as it's not IV it will have the same effect. Higher % attachment at the site of injection. The science is there, it's just not written down in a medical journal b/c the experiment would be deemed unethical and against the hypocratic oath. If anyone still chooses to believe that site injects of IGF-1/GH or un-esterified gear don't work TO SOME DEGREE... well, they're the ones who you can never convince, even when the whole world can see they're wrong. I'm done with this topic, man I typed waaaay too much.

 

[needsize]

I'm not trying to start shit here, but I can tell that some of you havent been around here long enough.....
The amount of people whose opinion on this stuff, or anything else having to do with chemical enhancement, I would take as gospel I can count on maybe 2 or 3 fingers.....and Andy13 is one of them. I have an honours degree myself, and half of his posts, I am lucky to understand every 2nd or 3rd word. He is easily the most knowlegeable guy on the subject of steroids and their effect on the body, that I have EVER met
And I'm not just saying that because he happens to agree with my findings after the extensive research I've done on my own

 

[Tux]

Well when I get my medical degree NS, I'll come back and give you all the studies you want, even if I have to do the studies myself lol. And I'm not starting shit either, but an honours degree in even a related field doesn't mean he actually KNOWS what he's talking about, or that you do. We all have to take what we read here with a big ass grain of salt. No disrespect to you or Andy13, but I believe otherwise, and scientific THEORY does back me up. Not scientific PROOF, or a LAW... but THEORY. And remember, Einstein's ideas about relativity are believed by basically every one of the smartest men and women on earth, and they're still THEORIES... hence Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I'll leave it at that, again no disrespect to anyone, I just happen to disagree with Andy13... and yes, I actually DO understand every word of every post I've ever read by him, being in medicine myself. Well, g'day

 

[needsize]

well if spot injects work, can you explain then why several cycles of suspension into my bis did absolutely nothing, as well as 3cc of oil a week for 12 weeks, and still nothing

 

[Tux]

If you'll note, in most of my posts I DID say that how well it worked was questionable, and it certainly differs from person to person. I can personally attest that my calves have gone from pathetic 13's to 15's in under a year due mainly to site injects. I did the same exercises, same cycles, didn't change very much overall weight, but my calves freakin' grew alright. They're still small, but the site injections definitely helped. Oh and I used inj. winny that I made myself, PEG-based so it didn't make me limp for a week. 1cc in each calf on calf day, took it orally the rest of the week. If it wasn't due to the site injections, then why did the 2 years of prior workouts with the same basic diet and routine do almost nothing? Worked for me, didn't work for you. That's why people keep doing it bro, b/c it DOES work for some people. I'm sorry it didn't for you, test suspension in the biceps, you're more a man than I'll ever be, even if I weren't a penguin As for the oils, 3cc's a week probably just wasn't enough to stretch the fascia very much, you already have big arms. Problem with that is, enough oil to stretch the fascia just enough to allow growth is probably just a tiny bit less than the amount that'll make you look like Greg Valentino, and few people are willing to take that kind of risk and pain. Again, it worked for me, it didn't for you... scientifically, we have no proof one way or the other, and there are valid theories on both sides. We'll leave it at that aight? One man's trash is another man's treasure

 

[needsize]

If you'll note, in most of my posts I DID say that how well it worked was questionable, and it certainly differs from person to person. I can personally attest that my calves have gone from pathetic 13's to 15's in under a year due mainly to site injects. I did the same exercises, same cycles, didn't change very much overall weight, but my calves freakin' grew alright. They're still small, but the site injections definitely helped. Oh and I used inj. winny that I made myself, PEG-based so it didn't make me limp for a week. 1cc in each calf on calf day, took it orally the rest of the week. If it wasn't due to the site injections, then why did the 2 years of prior workouts with the same basic diet and routine do almost nothing? Worked for me, didn't work for you. That's why people keep doing it bro, b/c it DOES work for some people. I'm sorry it didn't for you, test suspension in the biceps, you're more a man than I'll ever be, even if I weren't a penguin As for the oils, 3cc's a week probably just wasn't enough to stretch the fascia very much, you already have big arms. Problem with that is, enough oil to stretch the fascia just enough to allow growth is probably just a tiny bit less than the amount that'll make you look like Greg Valentino, and few people are willing to take that kind of risk and pain. Again, it worked for me, it didn't for you... scientifically, we have no proof one way or the other, and there are valid theories on both sides. We'll leave it at that aight? One man's trash is another man's treasure

some good points...as much as I want those 20" guns bad, I hate bi injects and only do them now when I run out other places to make holes.
For what its worth, that 3cc was all in one shot, thats huge volume for a shot into a small muscle like a bi