Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Which is better and why?
Proviron Vs. Winstrol
- Thread starter Smokescreen
- Start date
L
lartinos
Guest
What about masteron.
I didn't like Masteron when I first used it. I noticed nothing.
whats better?
well what are you looking for. its kind of a pritty usless question you just asked without telling us what your looking for and wanting.
Iknow i like GP provarion during cycle to help freeup test and add to gains.
winny is harsh on blood/ lipids and well i think there are better options out there liek tbol.
again what you asked was to blund to give you feed back.
well what are you looking for. its kind of a pritty usless question you just asked without telling us what your looking for and wanting.
Iknow i like GP provarion during cycle to help freeup test and add to gains.
winny is harsh on blood/ lipids and well i think there are better options out there liek tbol.
again what you asked was to blund to give you feed back.
I like this stuff also!
felt more agressive on it then tren (notsomthing ilike) but it was nice stacked with test.
A
ALIN
Guest
Proviron will compliment ANY steroid cycle by freeing up bound testosterone,
increasing libido and hardening up the physique.
Winstrol when stacked with something like testosterone is the best over the two
for muscle building overall.
Didn't even realize that I didnt' ask this question properly. LOL But after reading your answer. This is what I meant to ask. Which was better to help muscle building?
Thank you Alin.
Proviron isn't much of a muscle builder.
tinytim-nor
Banned
SHBG does not soak up free test, nor release amounts that are even remotely interesting. Total myth!
From T-nation:
"Bill Roberts
Join date: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 7474
What you say on SHBG has indeed been said and written countless times.
The problem is that it's not so. SHBG does not consume or in any way use up testosterone; it is merely (along with having some cell signalling properties of its own) a transport mechanism. Having more of that transport does not reduce free T.
The amount actually bound to SHBG is also so tiny that any period of reducing SHBG does not release significant testosterone nor does any period of increasing SHBG soak it up, so to speak. At for example 1000 ng/dL of T bound to SHBG, since there are only about 5 liters of blood, the grand total of T bound to SHBG would work out as only about 50,000 nanograms... fifty thousand BILLIONTHS of a gram, or put in other ways 50 millionths of a gram or 1/20th of one milligram.
You can see that there is not some vast depot sucking up or releasing lots of testosterone.
It's one of those things that sounds logical but actually has no measured factual basis and when examined closely, not only isn't logical at all but is absolutely contrary to facts such as chemical equilbrium equations and chemical potential."
What SHBG does do is that it provides a reservoir, tiny as it is, such that T can be added to a small volume of blood such as that entering the testes without the transport being limited by the extremely low water solubility of T. And also there must be some biological reason for why SHBG itself has cell signalling properties, but why that is I don't know, about all I know on it is that it exists (Once I knew more specifically what it did but have since forgotten.) "
http://tnation.tmuscle.com/free_onl...uilding_senior/when_is_bioavailable_t_too_low
I know Nelson Montana in a thread a while back attempted to discredit Bill Roberts. I don't know if he confused Bill with Anthony Roberts, but saying Bill Roberts doesn't know what he is talking about... Well, anyone who does that has something to sell.
Oh wait... Nelson does! A product that lowers SHBG no less... and to think it doesn't matter? Bad for business, of course.
From T-nation:
"Bill Roberts
Join date: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 7474
What you say on SHBG has indeed been said and written countless times.
The problem is that it's not so. SHBG does not consume or in any way use up testosterone; it is merely (along with having some cell signalling properties of its own) a transport mechanism. Having more of that transport does not reduce free T.
The amount actually bound to SHBG is also so tiny that any period of reducing SHBG does not release significant testosterone nor does any period of increasing SHBG soak it up, so to speak. At for example 1000 ng/dL of T bound to SHBG, since there are only about 5 liters of blood, the grand total of T bound to SHBG would work out as only about 50,000 nanograms... fifty thousand BILLIONTHS of a gram, or put in other ways 50 millionths of a gram or 1/20th of one milligram.
You can see that there is not some vast depot sucking up or releasing lots of testosterone.
It's one of those things that sounds logical but actually has no measured factual basis and when examined closely, not only isn't logical at all but is absolutely contrary to facts such as chemical equilbrium equations and chemical potential."
What SHBG does do is that it provides a reservoir, tiny as it is, such that T can be added to a small volume of blood such as that entering the testes without the transport being limited by the extremely low water solubility of T. And also there must be some biological reason for why SHBG itself has cell signalling properties, but why that is I don't know, about all I know on it is that it exists (Once I knew more specifically what it did but have since forgotten.) "
http://tnation.tmuscle.com/free_onl...uilding_senior/when_is_bioavailable_t_too_low
I know Nelson Montana in a thread a while back attempted to discredit Bill Roberts. I don't know if he confused Bill with Anthony Roberts, but saying Bill Roberts doesn't know what he is talking about... Well, anyone who does that has something to sell.
Oh wait... Nelson does! A product that lowers SHBG no less... and to think it doesn't matter? Bad for business, of course.
Similar threads
