If you want to double your gains then double your dose.

[Silent Method]

Hehe. I haven't been on the anabolic board in a bit and this is what I come back to? I like this thread.

First thing, let me say flat out - I like "big" doses. That is, playing around with small doses is short-changing yourself in terms of the ratio of side effects and gains.


However, I think it is short-sided to proclaim that doubiling any dose will double the gains.

The study cited only examines supraphysiological doses up to 600mg/week. I have seen at least two studies which found that the accelerated anabolic effects of exogenous testosterone on healthy, athletically trained males basically doesn't even come on-line untill around 500mg/week as opposed to a lower dosage.

In a system as dynamic and complex as the human body, concluding that a given dosage of a compound will impart a response in a fixed linear ratio to all possible dosages, simply because the equation works at some level, is absurd.

Perhaps this theory holds up in the case of 300 mg to 600 mg. This does not mean that the dosage/response ratio will remain linear with higher dosages.

 

[Ulter]

"This does not mean that the dosage/response ratio will remain linear with higher dosages."

On the other hand it doesn't mean it won't.

I will admit the thread title was only to draw attention, and it did, and that's why I stated that I am not arguing outside of what was used in the study. Even though I believe that line would continue being pretty straight at 400-800 or 500-1000 I won't take that position in this thread.

 

[Silent Method]

"This does not mean that the dosage/response ratio will remain linear with higher dosages."

On the other hand it doesn't mean it won't.

Very true - but at some point it simply couldn't.

In general I agree with the thrust of your thread. All things being the same, less gear = less muscle, more gear = more muscle. However, at some point we will smack right into a wall called the law of diminishing returns.

 

[wyld1g]

I think the law of dimished returns applies. I'd rather stay as relatively safe as I can with 300mg a wk and gain a respectable 10 pounds of actual muscle, than say gainning 12 lbs at 600mg a wk. That to me is true logic!!

 

[wyld1g]

Let me say this too, it would also depend on genetics a great deal!!! Some are hard gainers so maybe this is were someone needs to do 600mg a wk in order for them to gain! Diet boys, you can't eat crackers and get big!

 

[Fonz]

I'll tell you what this low-dose person says....Yes, I can accept that 600mg works twice as well as 300mg. I don't buy for a millisecond that 1.5grams/week works twice as well as 750mg/week. The laws of diminishing returns has to show it's face at some point.

I agree with that.

I think the cutoff is 750mg Week-1500mg/week as well.

I just found it really funny that all the low-dose people kept suggesting 300mg Test/week, when 600mg/week would double your gains yet give you the same side effects. Yet, they mentiones SEVERAL times that you would not get double the gains...just more side effects.

Personally, I run test at the 300mg/week level as it makes me irritable at high doses. My main AAS is Fina.

Fonz

 

[sk*]

I think the law of dimished returns applies. I'd rather stay as relatively safe as I can with 300mg a wk and gain a respectable 10 pounds of actual muscle, than say gainning 12 lbs at 600mg a wk. That to me is true logic!!

What part don't you get that in the study the gains were doubled from 300mg to 600mg.

At least don't be ignorant.

-sk

 

[wyld1g]

considering that I am a health care pro..gee let me guess...you believe everything you read?

 

[Fonz]

considering that I am a health care pro..gee let me guess...you believe everything you read?

That was a truly stupid response.

Fonz

 

[wyld1g]

That was a truly stupid response.

Fonz

And why would that be stupid? Do people believe everything people tell you?