ulter, the study first of all did not implicate traps, I never said that. All studies, old, young, low-dose, and one high-dose in bodybuilders in europe show more shoulder girdle and trunk growth. Of course this is possible, ulter, as the concentration of androgen receptors is not uniform in the body. The receptors are concentrated where the changes in puberty need to occur. It so happens that there are more receptors in the shoulder girdle and genitals (where men are supposed to be different from women), and less receptors in the legs (where men and women are less different). This is really quite logical. Androgen receptors are concentrated in the body in places where men need to change in puberty to become men. When administering testosterone only, areas with higher androgen receptor concentrations will show greater IGF levels, more m-RNA (protein) synthesis, and subsequently more growth.
Also, you really need to read my first post more critically. I already agreed with everything you said. There are many differences between these studies and what most guys do (doses, stacks, etc). The thing that bothered me was morons shouting "ridiculous" "bullshit" etc. This is not ridiculous that androgens would cause differential growth, Turner staging is all about that . . . I was saying that these studies are probably where these guys generated this "theory", and its not so crazy, but basically they took an idea in one context and ran with it a little far. I picked that study because the methodology was good, and simply looked at the differential body changes with testosterone. Using old men for this is good, as a study with young men would be hard to eliminate huge aberations in test levels. A group of 65 yo men (properly screened) is more homogenous in that regard. Also, a low dose study of test would be similar to a high-dose study (of which there are some, not a gram per week, but 500-750mg ew, a common elite dose), but the high-dose study would be similar, just with a different effect size. I think it would be interesting if we could say different stacks might produce different growth patterns and exactly how. Looking at differential androgen receptor concentrations, differential igf levels in the body, and different anthropometric results at different doses would go a long way to making these ideas scientific. A lot of ideas aren't so crazy when you look at them the right way. Now, truthfully, I stack things both in my medical practice and in my personal bodybuilding with various successful results, and I've never practically noticed a clear growth pattern from a certain stack, but I never controlled variables or defined outcomes very clearly (like with MRI), but just measured gains in LBM. Maybe, there is something there. I just don't like people automatically closed to novel ideas, that is the anti-thesis of science. There is data to suggest probably that anabolics cause different growth patterns, and also that because of variable concentrations of androgen receptors in different tissues, that differential growth with anabolic administration is very probable. While we certainly don't have clear scientific data on all this stuff, it's well past the stage of laughing it off, unless you are a knee-jerk irrationalist. . . In my hypothesis, therefore, winny/dbol or some non-androgen receptor anabolic alone would cause a more even growth of the body than the shoulder-and-trunk-oriented growth of testosterone alone. This would be easily tested (though it hasn't been done yet).
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
it is pretty funny tho
I like to play with ideas, even bad ones, as something fun usually pops out anyway.
