Do you take your Dbols in the morning?

[Madcow2]

I agree that being sore doesnt NECESSARILY mean that you had a good workout, but to ignorantly state that there is virtually NO correlation makes madcow sound, well... ...like an idiot.
Bionic

Dude - you have two problems. 1) You are ignorant of statistical terminology and basic strength and conditioning 2) You don't even realize it yet insist on name calling

It's okay to be wrong - that's how everyone learns. But it not okay to call people names when you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Reread my explanation post. Many athletes never get sore from a workout (unless they've had a long layoff) yet make excellent strength and size gains - generally far better progress than those who do get sore after their workouts since the programs are in balance and generally the result supperior coaching or knowledge. This is true accross the board and is undisputed in the field. The only similarity between the sore and unsore group is the same activity, weighttraining - but that merely defines the target population we are evaluating. Within a population of weight trained athletes the gains/progress found are not related to the soreness achieved from a workout (THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF UNCORRELATED).

Actually we could go a step further because what one will almost certainly find is that the unsore athletes gain significantly more than the sore athletes - so in fact, we would find that gains and progress are NEGATIVELY CORRELATED to soreness. However, this is more a factor of the supperior programs employed so the conclusion reached would be erroneous since an untrained group never gets sore.

I think you need to get a better foundation of knowledge in strength training and also improve your vocabulary with regard to statistical terms before arguing further. I might sound like an idiot to you but that is because you don't understand what the word 'uncorrelated' means and you don't have an adequate foundation in either statistics or strength training to converse intelligently. This is where the term 'muscle-head' comes from.

BTW - I'm reporting your posts to a moderator simply because it is attitudes and name calling that negatively impact this board and hurt the inherent collaborative nature of a forum (you could call this a strong positive correlation). Since you are slow to learn from common sense and patient explanation perhaps this will facilitate the process or at least minimize your negativity going forward.

 

[kahbab]

people need to realize why we have "pier review" all science is based on it. information is put out there ( usually in the form of a theroy with supporting research and tests) except in our case we use these boards. people use there knowledge from college or from there jobs (fields of expertise) or maybe information they found on the net. the main point is to take all we can find and try to help each other out because that is why we are all here, we are here to get the best information we can for our plans or problems. remember this before you start calling people idiots or stupid. happy holiday all....

 

[DIVISION]

I've rocked D-bol to my nuts at all times of the day, bro.

Morning, Afternoon, Night, Latenight.........Midpiss.......

With 17AA it doesn't matter when you take them or with food or empty stomach.



DIV

 

[LVTitan]

I know it has no what you would call scientific backing. I don't claim for that there is in this scenario. But what i was driving home is that ALL the users including myself have noted much better and faster results from once per day dosing. Including many members on this board in past discussions. The half life theory makes sense to split up the dosage, but this is one of those things where the results on paper don't necessarily translate to the real world application. Once per day dosing is optimal with dball.

NEEDSIZE: I have been through this for 8 years now, going from Europe to the USA and discussed and experimented with this for a long time. And while i can't comment on once per day dosing with other orals Dball really works best with a single dose. This is the real world evidence from people that cycle it, WITHOUT other compunds. They get a very clear picture vs someone that is stacking their cycle. Their opinion does not count to me as it's impossible to know what's kicking in when and how.

good post greg.. cant give ya anymore love yet though. took all 5 this morning with my honey smacks...

 

[BionicBC]

Dude - you have two problems. 1) You are ignorant of statistical terminology and basic strength and conditioning 2) You don't even realize it yet insist on name calling

It's okay to be wrong - that's how everyone learns. But it not okay to call people names when you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Reread my explanation post. Many athletes never get sore from a workout (unless they've had a long layoff) yet make excellent strength and size gains - generally far better progress than those who do get sore after their workouts since the programs are in balance and generally the result supperior coaching or knowledge. This is true accross the board and is undisputed in the field. The only similarity between the sore and unsore group is the same activity, weighttraining - but that merely defines the target population we are evaluating. Within a population of weight trained athletes the gains/progress found are not related to the soreness achieved from a workout (THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF UNCORRELATED).

Actually we could go a step further because what one will almost certainly find is that the unsore athletes gain significantly more than the sore athletes - so in fact, we would find that gains and progress are NEGATIVELY CORRELATED to soreness. However, this is more a factor of the supperior programs employed so the conclusion reached would be erroneous since an untrained group never gets sore.

I think you need to get a better foundation of knowledge in strength training and also improve your vocabulary with regard to statistical terms before arguing further. I might sound like an idiot to you but that is because you don't understand what the word 'uncorrelated' means and you don't have an adequate foundation in either statistics or strength training to converse intelligently. This is where the term 'muscle-head' comes from.

BTW - I'm reporting your posts to a moderator simply because it is attitudes and name calling that negatively impact this board and hurt the inherent collaborative nature of a forum (you could call this a strong positive correlation). Since you are slow to learn from common sense and patient explanation perhaps this will facilitate the process or at least minimize your negativity going forward.

yes, im name calling, you whiny b**ch. That isnt the definition of uncorrelated.
Definition: [adj] not varying together





ENOUGH!!!!!

Digging up a past thread from Dec solely for the sake of an argument, I have about had it.
Next time a ban will go into effect!

RADAR

 

[Madcow2]

yes, im name calling, you whiny b**ch. That isnt the definition of uncorrelated.
Definition: [adj] not varying together

Synonyms: unrelated

So if muscle soreness and growth are COMPLETELY UNRELATED, then why do i get sore on most of my workouts and continue to grow? I agree, there may not be a DIRECT correlation, but they are related, and you sound, well... like an IDIOT saying they are NEGATIVELY correlated. Show me one mass monster who doesnt get sore regularly from his workouts.
Oh, and by the way, name calling wont kill you bro. Try to quit being a little narc over getting your feelings hurt. Youre just the type to run to the cops when the shit hits the fan in a bad situation. Take it like a man, but you dont have to go run to a mod to solve your problems. Take the damn titty out of your mouth, cut the umbilical cord, and GROW THE FUCK UP.
Bionic

Thanks for PMing me with this too. You are such an attention seeker.

I took the liberty of cutting and pasting portions of my previous posts in this thread and they appear in italics below. They will be referenced by number.

So first I said they were uncorrelated (see #1) - and you called me an idiot. In the above post you say that they are related and that's true - the population is that of weight trainers and weight training can be responsible for soreness (DOMS) and strength/size gains (progress). Within that population there is no correlation between soreness and progress (see #3). You will note that this is exactly the same as your definition, adj. not varying together/unrelated. The population is one you pull from, once you pull from the population of weighttrainers, it will not bear whatsoever on the coefficients. This is part of where you are confused.

Now in the above post you accuse me of calling them negatively correlated and being an idiot. Please refer to #4 and read it in full because I clearly say this is an erroneous conclusion. I hypothesize that you will find negative correlation but that is because you are not controlling for the quality of the program. Most people get routinely sore and have shitty programs - hence they make little progress. Many well trained athletes hardly ever get sore and have very good programs - hence they make progress. The program quality factor, if not controlled for, will likely bias the coefficient one obtains from the soreness factor.

So we've established a few things. First, your posts reveal extreme immaturity. Second, you are not reading carefully as evidenced by the paragraph above. Third, you really don't know how bad this sounds - you'd be laughed at by every single knowledgable strength coach and researcher in the world - this is very commonly accepted and welll known stuff. Fourth, it's fairly likely I know more than a just little bit about statistics and you should not be arguing on terminology that requires you to use a dictionary. Fifth, you are desperate for attention. Sixth, you are tenacious and hard headed - an admirable quality for someone who is intellectually curious and open to reason (your posts reflect neither of these) but you will also find it common to populations referred to as bigots and boneheads.

So, like I offered in the PM. I'd be happy to post a summary of my thoughts and your questions on a board frequented by some knowledgeable people. I'll do this for you to protect your reputation because you'd be flamed pretty badly for this given your propensity to not only be wrong but to resort to name calling and anger. Let me know if that works, you are also welcome to post it yourself. Contact me via PM and keep the name calling to a minimum because you will quickly find out the truth (which I imagine you will ignore and label some of the best strength coaches in the country as idiots). Offer is on the table.

----
Here are excerpts from my posts in this thread:

1) Sometimes it might seem that way but there is virtually no correlation between a pump (or DOMS soreness for that matter) and increased strength and hypertophy.
----
2) They mean nothing and many many many highly successful athletes at the world level train with enough frequency and are acclimated well enough to the volume/intensity that they hardly ever get sore.
----
3) The only similarity between the sore and unsore group is the same activity, weighttraining - but that merely defines the target population we are evaluating. Within a population of weight trained athletes the gains/progress found are not related to the soreness achieved from a workout (THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF UNCORRELATED).
----
4) Actually we could go a step further because what one will almost certainly find is that the unsore athletes gain significantly more than the sore athletes - so in fact, we would find that gains and progress are NEGATIVELY CORRELATED to soreness. However, this is more a factor of the supperior programs employed so the conclusion reached would be erroneous since an untrained group never gets sore.

 

[ednhoss12]

uhhhhh........I take my d-bol in the morning.

 

[RADAR]

Bionic i suggest you read my edit in your post!

RADAR