The AM Dbol bridge...Garbage.

[Anthony Roberts]

When I first started out in this world, I was a mod on Triedia with Nandi (Karl Hoffman). I bought into the Dbol for PCT bullshit, and he set me straight. Later I was a mod with him on SynergyMuscle, and he offered me a spot on a couple of his sites, and we corresponded regularly. Then he passed away tragically...and I dedicated my first book to him (and duchaine). He, dispite their claims, thought that the AnaFit boys were full of it, and he hated this theory that they always claimed was true. Anyway, because I can not do it better than he did, here is his explanation of why the AM Dbol theory is total bullshit:

Question: The D-Bol bridge theory claims that at the suggested dose of 10 mg each morning the HTPA will not be suppressed. Is there any truth to this?

Karl Hoffman: None whatsoever that I have ever seen. I would say to the people making this claim that the burden is on them to present some evidence that bridging does NOT suppress the HPTA. There is ample evidence that very low doses of Dianabol and Anavar, two drugs often cited as being good for bridging, significantly suppress the HPTA. Advocates of bridging counter this fact with the claim that while that may be true, the studies where the HPTA was suppressed do not specify at which time of the day the drugs were taken. The claim made by bridging advocates is that LH and testosterone levels are highest in the morning, and if one were to take say 10 mg of dbol so that plasma dbol levels peaked at the same time plasma test levels peaked, the body would somehow fail to notice the extra plasma androgen and hence there would be no suppression. There is just no evidence the body works this way.

There are other points to consider as well. The observation that testosterone peaks in the AM is true in the majority of young people, but not in all. And as we age, this AM peak is blunted and the pattern becomes one of a series of rather uniform peaks throughout the 24-hour period. (In fairness to bridging advocates some very recently published data are at odds with this previously widespread reported loss in the diurnal fluctuations in testosterone with aging [11].) There is tremendous individual variation in in the timing of these peaks and troughs. We also talked above about how androgens can act directly on the hypothalamus to block LH and testosterone production. Not enough is know about the temporal relationship between hypothalamic GnRH pulses, LH production, and test secretion to conclude that taking dbol when test peaks will have no effect on the GnRH signal(s) responsible for that peak. Moreover, some research has shown that 5 and 10 mg of dbol administered daily can reduce endogenous testosterone by 66 and 73% respectively, WITHOUT depressing LH, leaving open the possibility that the dbol is having a direct effect on testicular testosterone production without any hypothalamic or pituitary action. So we may not even fully understand all the mechanisms by which dbol (and other AAS) affects testosterone production (12). Lacking a complete knowledge of androgen actions, how can re reasonably conclude bridging does not suppress endogenous testosterone production?

If someone wants to stay "on" all the time and call it bridging, that is fine and is his or her choice. I just don't think they should try to justify the practice by claiming it is not suppressive of the HPTA or of endogenous testosterone production. I'm not making a value judgement here. There may not even be any serious health consequences to taking low doses of something like dbol between cycles, but on the other hand there in fact may be health implications. We saw above, for example, how very low doses of certain oral AAS can have dramatic effects on HDL. Steroids have traditionally been cycled to help avoid any long-term detrimental health effects associated with their use. Now we have certain individuals essentially advocating being "on" all the time, and using what are potentially the most dangerous steroids, 17 alpha alkylated orals, for this purpose. Am I overstating potential risks? Perhaps, but since there is little research to guide us, I'd rather err on the side of caution. If an individual wants to bridge, that is their business, but I don't think they should jump on the soapbox encouraging others to do so

 

[5x10]

When I first started out in this world, I was a mod on Triedia with Nandi (Karl Hoffman). I bought into the Dianabol - methandrostenolone - for PCT - post cycle therapy - bullshit, and he set me straight. Later I was a mod with him on SynergyMuscle, and he offered me a spot on a couple of his sites, and we corresponded regularly. Then he passed away tragically...and I dedicated my first book to him (and duchaine). He, dispite their claims, thought that the AnaFit boys were full of it, and he hated this theory that they always claimed was true. Anyway, because I can not do it better than he did, here is his explanation of why the AM Dbol theory is total bullshit:

Question: The Dianabol - methandrostenolone - bridge theory claims that at the suggested dose of 10 mg each morning the HTPA will not be suppressed. Is there any truth to this?

Karl Hoffman: None whatsoever that I have ever seen. I would say to the people making this claim that the burden is on them to present some evidence that bridging does NOT suppress the hpta - hypothalamic-pituitary-testicular axis - . There is ample evidence that very low doses of Dianabol and Anavar, two drugs often cited as being good for bridging, significantly suppress the HPTA. Advocates of bridging counter this fact with the claim that while that may be true, the studies where the HPTA was suppressed do not specify at which time of the day the drugs were taken. The claim made by bridging advocates is that lh - leutenizing hormone - and testosterone levels are highest in the morning, and if one were to take say 10 mg of Dianabol - methandrostenolone - so that plasma Dianabol - methandrostenolone - levels peaked at the same time plasma test levels peaked, the body would somehow fail to notice the extra plasma androgen and hence there would be no suppression. There is just no evidence the body works this way.

There are other points to consider as well. The observation that testosterone peaks in the AM is true in the majority of young people, but not in all. And as we age, this AM peak is blunted and the pattern becomes one of a series of rather uniform peaks throughout the 24-hour period. (In fairness to bridging advocates some very recently published data are at odds with this previously widespread reported loss in the diurnal fluctuations in testosterone with aging [11].) There is tremendous individual variation in in the timing of these peaks and troughs. We also talked above about how androgens can act directly on the hypothalamus to block LH and testosterone production. Not enough is know about the temporal relationship between hypothalamic GnRH pulses, LH production, and test secretion to conclude that taking Dianabol - methandrostenolone - when test peaks will have no effect on the GnRH signal(s) responsible for that peak. Moreover, some research has shown that 5 and 10 mg of Dianabol - methandrostenolone - administered daily can reduce endogenous testosterone by 66 and 73% respectively, WITHOUT depressing LH, leaving open the possibility that the Dianabol - methandrostenolone - is having a direct effect on testicular testosterone production without any hypothalamic or pituitary action. So we may not even fully understand all the mechanisms by which Dianabol - methandrostenolone - (and other anabolic androgenic steroids) affects testosterone production (12). Lacking a complete knowledge of androgen actions, how can re reasonably conclude bridging does not suppress endogenous testosterone production?

If someone wants to stay "on" all the time and call it bridging, that is fine and is his or her choice. I just don't think they should try to justify the practice by claiming it is not suppressive of the HPTA or of endogenous testosterone production. I'm not making a value judgement here. There may not even be any serious health consequences to taking low doses of something like Dianabol - methandrostenolone - between cycles, but on the other hand there in fact may be health implications. We saw above, for example, how very low doses of certain oral AAS can have dramatic effects on HDL. Steroids have traditionally been cycled to help avoid any long-term detrimental health effects associated with their use. Now we have certain individuals essentially advocating being "on" all the time, and using what are potentially the most dangerous steroids, 17 alpha alkylated orals, for this purpose. Am I overstating potential risks? Perhaps, but since there is little research to guide us, I'd rather err on the side of caution. If an individual wants to bridge, that is their business, but I don't think they should jump on the soapbox encouraging others to do so

awesome post
i agree, bridging is just staying on, nothing else

i also agree people need to come off steriods for extended periods of time

 

[Anthony Roberts]

Karl was the man. I corresponded with him quite a bit, as we were both mods on 2 seperate sites for 2 seperate periods of time. I think his thoughts on the Dbol Bridge are the definitave answer.

 

[JarheadChiro]

I agree whole heartedly.

Also, I feel some think they can "wean' by using this method also.

Realizing your gonna get a little moody and suck it up, is something to be preached.

Most users who fit this profile probably don't even know what LH is anyway.

 

[needsize]

good post.
I tried the bridge once, and could tell within a few weeks that it wasnt working, my hpta was suppressed.
I dont come off much anymore, difference is I dont kid myself into calling anything a bridge, its periods of high doses, and periods of low doses

 

[Triple J]

i agree this method of "bridging" will still result in suppresion of h.pta

however one should keep in mind suppression has various degrees. some claim that any cycle will result in "total shutdown". based on the research I have seen this is not true, it depends on the gear, dose, and duration. certain orals at modest dosages, will retain some degree of h.pta function. so with that in mind, a bridge that provides some level of improvement over "total shutdown" still gives the h.pta a little break and restores partial function. so 50% suppression is an improvement over 100% suppression. this is the argument some people will make. the other argument is the morning dbol approach is preferable to a "crash". i agree with that having experienced a crash before and it is no fun. the best way to avoid a crash however is to avoid progestins (especially long-acting ones like deca), and to know how to come off. come off slowly, not rapidly, as follows:

when compared to orals or any short acting gear, long ester steroid administration will lead to a higher level of suppression. when coming off these cycles many people run PCT too soon. so when coming off such a cycle utilize orals for as long as 1-2 months in a tapered dose fashion while waiting for the long esters to clear your system. usually once the long esters clear the system the hpta will start its recovery slowly, and initially the orals if taken at a modest dose, will allow some level of partial recovery. taper the orals into a PCT. this is a pre-PCT approach when coming off a cycle of long ester injectable anabolics. obviously i did not invent this approach it has been around forever. it works well in my experience

 

[Anthony Roberts]

People feel good on the "bridge" and assume that's because it's working. It's not. It's because the dbol is making you feel good.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Karl is right of course.

A little history.

The AM Db "bridge" was invented (i.e. pulled out of his ass) by Bill Roberts. Bill was a kid with no degree but some formal training in chemestry and pharmacology. Dan Duchain sort of took him under his wing and before long he had a little rep -- mostly as a self appointed message board guru/bully on the old Meso board.

Bill strikes me as one of these guys whose parents overpraised him. He thought that everything that came out of his mouth was genius. Of course, he never had an original idea in his life. Any theory he proposed was proven to be incorrect. He took my short cycle concept, changed a couple of things and took credit for inventing THAT. He called the owners of T-Nation "lying scumbags" and then went to work for them for the right price. He invented a transdermal pro-hormone which was the most horribly suppressive compound to ever hit the market. He himself, had little muscle to speak off.

Roberts came up with the Db bridge idea and for some reason it caught on -- mostly for the fact that it appealled to people who didn't want to face coming off. It's completely idiotic. But this is the way of the industry as it stands. The passing of time seems to weed out the frauds from those who have something positive to contribute. In the meantime, it's a good thing for this board where guys can get the real story.

 

[Papa Lion]

good post.
I tried the bridge once, and could tell within a few weeks that it wasnt working, my hpta - hypothalamic-pituitary-testicular axis - was suppressed.
I dont come off much anymore, difference is I dont kid myself into calling anything a bridge, its periods of high doses, and periods of low doses

agreed and when I've heard people speak intelligently about bridging that is the basic concept!! high doses then low doses... a more honest concept of bridging being the blast & cruise method. bridging to me essentially says the same thing... though I think there was some misleading claims when it came to bridging!! the blast an cruise I figure for example is like alcohol... if I binge for an extended period of time, then my system becomes adjusted to drinking larger amounts and my tolerance increases... if I cut back to a beer or two eod or so my liver still isn't gonna thank me like it would if I wasn't drinking at all... and my tolerance will lessen to a degree... when I go back to binging my tolerance isn't where I left off... thus it doesn't take me as much alcohol to get drunk. I figure it's about the same with the blast an cruise methodolgy ie honest bridging... not the kid yourself into thinking you are undergoing recovery theory

 

[slat1]

Exellent thread.

 

[needsize]

agreed and when I've heard people speak intelligently about bridging that is the basic concept!! high doses then low doses... a more honest concept of bridging being the blast & cruise method. bridging to me essentially says the same thing... though I think there was some misleading claims when it came to bridging!! the blast an cruise I figure for example is like alcohol... if I binge for an extended period of time, then my system becomes adjusted to drinking larger amounts and my tolerance increases... if I cut back to a beer or two eod or so my liver still isn't gonna thank me like it would if I wasn't drinking at all... and my tolerance will lessen to a degree... when I go back to binging my tolerance isn't where I left off... thus it doesn't take me as much alcohol to get drunk. I figure it's about the same with the blast an cruise methodolgy ie honest bridging... not the kid yourself into thinking you are undergoing recovery theory

true
I have always used hcg throughout my cycles, and have now gotten my wife pregnant twice on heavy cycles, she is due is 4 weeks with the second one....that was always my biggest worry. I have had regular blood tests done over the years, never had anything out of whack.
I stopped kidding myself a long time ago that bridging was anything other than just a lower dose; I dont worry about suppression as hcg has been the equalizer for me...I worry more about long term damage. Thats why in my low periods, I will go with 200-300mg of test per week, enough to keep my mass, but I figure low enough to give my body a bit of a break. Every now and then I come off completely, maybe 4-6 weeks at a time, not enough I know, but the most I can force myself into at this point

 

[Anthony Roberts]

Karl is right of course.

A little history.

The AM Db "bridge" was invented (i.e. pulled out of his ass) by Bill Roberts. Bill was a kid with no degree but some formal training in chemestry and pharmacology. Dan Duchain sort of took him under his wing and before long he had a little rep -- mostly as a self appointed message board guru/bully on the old Meso board.

Bill strikes me as one of these guys whose parents overpraised him. He thought that everything that came out of his mouth was genius. Of course, he never had an original idea in his life. Any theory he proposed was proven to be incorrect. He took my short cycle concept, changed a couple of things and took credit for inventing THAT. He called the owners of T-Nation "lying scumbags" and then went to work for them for the right price. He invented a transdermal pro-hormone which was the most horribly suppressive compound to ever hit the market. He himself, had little muscle to speak off.

Roberts came up with the Db bridge idea and for some reason it caught on -- mostly for the fact that it appealled to people who didn't want to face coming off. It's completely idiotic. But this is the way of the industry as it stands. The passing of time seems to weed out the frauds from those who have something positive to contribute. In the meantime, it's a good thing for this board where guys can get the real story.

I've got nothing against Bill, but I'll provide a photo of him, just because it was brought up (Bill Roberts, first from Left):

Again, I've got nothing against him.

 

[Nelson Montana]

I've got nothing against Bill, but I'll provide a photo of him, just because it was brought up (Bill Roberts, first from Left):

Again, I've got nothing against him.

And I'm guessing the fat guy is Lyle McDonald the diet guru?

Where's Big Cat? -- the steroid expert who never took steroids.

This industry is such a joke sometimes.

In the old days we were all a little naive but now we have geeks who know a little science and people hang on their every word like it's gospel. I'd take Weiders bullshit promises over what most of these guys say anyday.

I have nothing against anyone who tries to contribute. It's the arm chair experts who act as if they know everything (such as Bill O' Reilly) that I have a problem with.

 

[nydj66]

That explanation by Karl is one of the most well though-out, articulate, and accurate things I have ever seen posted.

Thank you for sharing that.

 

[Jacob Creutzfeldt]

And I'm guessing the fat guy is Lyle McDonald the diet guru?

Where's Big Cat? -- the steroid expert who never took steroids.

This industry is such a joke sometimes.

In the old days we were all a little naive but now we have geeks who know a little science and people hang on their every word like it's gospel. I'd take Weiders bullshit promises over what most of these guys say anyday.

I have nothing against anyone who tries to contribute. It's the arm chair experts who act as if they know everything (such as Bill O' Reilly) that I have a problem with.

Using this reasoning I guess it is safe to conclude you are not qualified to speak out against bridging unless you have tried it. Everything I've read about bridging with Dbol, and my reading is not exhaustive, sold it as a means of reducing the imediate post cycle crash. There are plenty of posts from people who found success with bridging on this board.

Here's a post from one of the Dbol bridging proponent's Ulter:

"Again??
Okay. 10mg of Dianabol - methandrostenolone - is about 7mg of test. You make 7mg/day of test. Dianabol - methandrostenolone - is cleared in a few hours. So taking it upon rising looks like the morning spike that you get naturally to your hpta - hypothalamic-pituitary-testicular axis - . By night time your E levels have fallen again and your HPTA signals for more lh - leutenizing hormone - and test from your testes. It may cause some level of suppression. In one study the men were given 50mg upon rising and the STILL had an LH reading. You can not get an LH reading if your HPTA is shut down."

Ulter in the same thread:

"It's only used when people are having a hard time recovering. That's because there is a chance of some suppression at a time when you're trying to recover. It's used mainly to avoid a crash but many cyclers who have many years experience use it every time they do PCT - post cycle therapy - ."

Vshape claiming success with it in the same thread:

"I have used the Dianabol - methandrostenolone - brigde twice in the past with success. Once post cycle and another time for 8 weeks with proviron. Post cycle I kept all my gains while on it."

I'm not sure what Bill Roberts specifically says about the theory, but Anthony is incorrect about one major proponent's application of the theory.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Using this reasoning I guess it is safe to conclude you are not qualified to speak out against bridging unless you have tried it.

.......................................................................

A RIDICULOUS COMMENT. THAT'S LIKE SAYING; HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T JUMP OUT A 10 STORY WINDOW AND FLY UNTIL YOU TRY?


..........................................................................


Everything I've read about bridging with Dianabol - methandrostenolone - , and my reading is not exhaustive, sold it as a means of reducing the imediate post cycle crash. There are plenty of posts from people who found success with bridging on this board.

Here's a post from one of the Dbol bridging proponent's Ulter:

"Again??
Okay. 10mg of Dianabol - methandrostenolone - is about 7mg of test. You make 7mg/day of test. Dianabol - methandrostenolone - is cleared in a few hours. So taking it upon rising looks like the morning spike that you get naturally to your hpta - hypothalamic-pituitary-testicular axis - - hypothalamic-pituitary-testicular axis - . By night time your E levels have fallen again and your HPTA signals for more lh - leutenizing hormone - - leutenizing hormone - and test from your testes. It may cause some level of suppression. In one study the men were given 50mg upon rising and the STILL had an LH reading. You can not get an LH reading if your HPTA is shut down."

................................................................


WELL, FOR STARTERS, ULTER IS AN IDIOT. HE HAS NO CREDENTIALS OR CREDABILITY WHATSOEVER. HE ISN'T PUBLISHED, NEVER COMPETED AND HE ISN'T RECOGNIZED BY ANYONE IN THE INDUSTRY. HE'S A SALESMAN. THOSE COMMENTS HAVE NO VALIDY NOR DO THEY HAVE ANYTHING, NOT EVEN A HYPOTHESEIS TO BACK THEM UP. THIS IS YOUR INFORMATION SOURCE?


.................................................

Ulter in the same thread:

"It's only used when people are having a hard time recovering. That's because there is a chance of some suppression at a time when you're trying to recover. It's used mainly to avoid a crash but many cyclers who have many years experience use it every time they do PCT - post cycle therapy - - post cycle therapy - ."

.......................................................

YES, THAT'S LIKE SAYING THE WAY TO AVOID HEROIN WITHDRAWAL IS TO NOT STOP TAKING HEROIN. BRILLIANT.



..........................................................


Vshape claiming success with it in the same thread:

"I have used the Dianabol - methandrostenolone - brigde twice in the past with success. Once post cycle and another time for 8 weeks with proviron. Post cycle I kept all my gains while on it."


............................................................

YES, THAT'S CALLED NOT YET STOPPING THE CYCLE. MORE BRILLIANCE!

..................................................................

I'm not sure what Bill Roberts specifically says about the theory, but Anthony is incorrect about one major proponent's application of the theory.

..............................................................

A GUY WITH NO NAME ON A MESSAGE BOARD IS A MAJOR PROPONENT?

WELL, I'M CONVINCED.






...............................................................

..

 

[Anthony Roberts]

And I'm guessing the fat guy is Lyle McDonald the diet guru?

Yes...the guy with Black Hair is Lyle...

Here's a post from one of the Dianabol - methandrostenolone - bridging proponent's Ulter

Yes...and above is Karl Hoffman destroying that theory. 10mgs of Dbol provides full androgen replacement for a man, but it is not equal to 7mgs of test...it replaces it, and while it does that, it lowers it.

As for the AM "hiding" idea, Karl destroyed that as well. I think the above post just destroys AM bridging totally.

 

[rg78]

i agree this method of "bridging" will still result in suppresion of h.pta

however one should keep in mind suppression has various degrees. some claim that any cycle will result in "total shutdown". based on the research I have seen this is not true, it depends on the gear, dose, and duration. certain orals at modest dosages, will retain some degree of h.pta function. so with that in mind, a bridge that provides some level of improvement over "total shutdown" still gives the h.pta a little break and restores partial function. so 50% suppression is an improvement over 100% suppression. this is the argument some people will make. the other argument is the morning Dianabol - methandrostenolone - approach is preferable to a "crash". i agree with that having experienced a crash before and it is no fun. the best way to avoid a crash however is to avoid progestins (especially long-acting ones like Deca-Durabolin - nandrolone decanoate - ), and to know how to come off. come off slowly, not rapidly, as follows:

when compared to orals or any short acting gear, long ester steroid administration will lead to a higher level of suppression. when coming off these cycles many people run PCT - post cycle therapy - too soon. so when coming off such a cycle utilize orals for as long as 1-2 months in a tapered dose fashion while waiting for the long esters to clear your system. usually once the long esters clear the system the hpta - hypothalamic-pituitary-testicular axis - will start its recovery slowly, and initially the orals if taken at a modest dose, will allow some level of partial recovery. taper the orals into a PCT. this is a pre-PCT approach when coming off a cycle of long ester injectable anabolics. obviously i did not invent this approach it has been around forever. it works well in my experience

Well said

 

[Svengali]

I think BRR should allow Mac and Ulter 1 post each to defend themselves. I dig AR and NM. But, people should have a right to face their accusers.... It seems as though there are compelling arguments on both sides as to the effectiveness of this method.

 

[lartinos]

Did they ever say it didn't have any impact on hpta - hypothalamic-pituitary-testicular axis - ? I don't really remember that. The real point of your thread instead of attacking people should just be the common knowledge answer that bridging in general isn't the greatest thing in the world to do. I agree that coming off is the way to go.........but if you are somone who likes to bridge anyway, which plenty of people I know like to do, it isn't a bad bridge. Throwing in a little proviron for sex drive is all I'd say to add on to it.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Did they ever say it didn't have any impact on hpta - hypothalamic-pituitary-testicular axis - - hypothalamic-pituitary-testicular axis - ? I don't really remember that. The real point of your thread instead of attacking people should just be the common knowledge answer that bridging in general isn't the greatest thing in the world to do. I agree that coming off is the way to go.........but if you are somone who likes to bridge anyway, which plenty of people I know like to do, it isn't a bad bridge. Throwing in a little proviron for sex drive is all I'd say to add on to it.

The funny thing about briding is that it does sorta makes sense -- in a theoretical kinda way. It just doesn't work simply by the fact that 12 hours is not enough time for the HPTA is start rebounding. So in a sense, it's a bust.

No, it doesn't "shut you down" completely. It's funny because that was another mistake made by Bill Roberts. He claimed that ANY amount of steroid will SHUT YOU DOWN and that's simply not true. I'd say it takes at least a gram a week for 12 weeks before your numbers are at near zero.

Even Proviron will supress. It is not a drug that was meant to be taken (at least in traditional medical reasons) for long periods of time.

 

[lartinos]

The funny thing about briding is that it does sorta makes sense -- in a theoretical kinda way. It just doesn't work simply by the fact that 12 hours is not enough time for the hpta - hypothalamic-pituitary-testicular axis - is start rebounding. So in a sense, it's a bust.

No, it doesn't "shut you down" completely. It's funny because that was another mistake made by Bill Roberts. He claimed that ANY amount of steroid will SHUT YOU DOWN and that's simply not true. I'd say it takes at least a gram a week for 12 weeks before your numbers are at near zero.

Even Proviron will supress. It is not a drug that was meant to be taken (at least in traditional medical reasons) for long periods of time.

I totally agree with you Nelson. I've actually done this before and I could feel myself coming back to normal, though I don't think coming completley back to normal functioning is a possibility.

 

[Anthony Roberts]

I think BRR should allow Mac and Ulter 1 post each to defend themselves. I dig AR and NM. But, people should have a right to face their accusers.... It seems as though there are compelling arguments on both sides as to the effectiveness of this method.

Sort of like when I was arguing with Micro and he banned me from here?

 

[Jacob Creutzfeldt]

Before I go hide in under the bed from the bully using all caps, I would like to clarify points where you are incorrect, Nelson. Essentially all of your points.

“Using this reasoning I guess it is safe to conclude you are not qualified to speak out against bridging unless you have tried it.

.................................................. .....................

A RIDICULOUS COMMENT. THAT'S LIKE SAYING; HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T JUMP OUT A 10 STORY WINDOW AND FLY UNTIL YOU TRY?”

I’m glad you agree with me on this point. The original comment of that nature was made by you. Mine was to mirror your faulty reasoning. You simply took my statement out of context.

WELL, FOR STARTERS, ULTER IS AN IDIOT. HE HAS NO CREDENTIALS OR CREDABILITY WHATSOEVER. HE ISN'T PUBLISHED, NEVER COMPETED AND HE ISN'T RECOGNIZED BY ANYONE IN THE INDUSTRY. HE'S A SALESMAN. THOSE COMMENTS HAVE NO VALIDY NOR DO THEY HAVE ANYTHING, NOT EVEN A HYPOTHESEIS TO BACK THEM UP. THIS IS YOUR INFORMATION SOURCE

Where are you published? What are all the items listed in your signature? Aren’t those items for sale? Are you trying to tell me Ulter is motivated to speak about a Dianabol - methandrostenolone - bridge because he’s a salesman? I think Ulter sells Thermorexin, Neurogenix, and other AF items, not Dbol. He isn’t recognized in the industry? Was Scott Chinery of Cybergenix fame recognized? Chinery was not only recognized, but also imitated. Were his theories correct? I'm doubtful. Where does one pick up the official plaque granting recognition and since when is recognition synonymous with correct? There is a hypothesis and beyond a hypothesis there is a theory behind the bridge. Do you even know what a hypothesis is? I’m willing to bet many of the scientific researchers cited on this board never even lifted a weight, yet they are believed. I never stated I believed a Dianabol - methandrostenolone - bridge effective, I stated that attributes and weaknesses in the bridging system have been acknowledged by proponents and the original post in this thread claimed that weaknesses were not acknowledged.

YES, THAT'S LIKE SAYING THE WAY TO AVOID HEROIN WITHDRAWAL IS TO NOT STOP TAKING HEROIN. BRILLIANT.

No, it is not the same. It would be the same as saying taking a small morning dose of methadone will offset some of the effects of withdrawal from heroin. If it was the same as saying the way to avoid withdrawal from heroin would be to stay on heroin, the advocate would say, “Stay on your current cycle with current doses permanently.”


YES, THAT'S CALLED NOT YET STOPPING THE CYCLE. MORE BRILLIANCE!

No one ever claimed that when you are bridging you are not still on cycle. Much like PCT - post cycle therapy - can be considered part of a cycle, so can the bridge. It is a portion of the cycle with a different goal and different compound or use of compound. With the bridge you are attempting to regain production of a portion of your lh - leutenizing hormone - and mitigate some of the post cycle crash. The main focus of bridging is not further enhancement of muscle mass.

A GUY WITH NO NAME ON A MESSAGE BOARD IS A MAJOR PROPONENT?

WELL, I'M CONVINCED.

The ‘major proponent’ was mentioned several times in my post. I was referring to Ulter as the ‘major proponent’.

Later on you state,

“he funny thing about briding is that it does sorta makes sense -- in a theoretical kinda way.”

I thought you just reamed me out because there isn’t even a hypothesis to bridging. Now you admit that there is a theory. You cannot have a theory without a hypothesis. Which is it? Does bridging have a hypothesis or not? A theory or not? Which side of your mouth are you talking from in this post, Willie Lohman?

 

[Nelson Montana]

Before I go hide in under the bed from the scary man using all caps, I would like to clarify points where you are incorrect. Essentially all of your points.
.................................................. .....................
THE ONLY REASON I USE CAPS IS WHEN IT'S IN A RESPONSE IN ORDER TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR. THAT'S ALL.

.............................................................................
Where are you published?
.......................................................

MUSCLEMAG, AMERICAN HEALTH AND FITNESS, MUSCULAR DEVELOPMENT, MUSCLE MIND AND POWER, TESTOSTERONE MAGAZINE, ANABOLIC EXTREME, NATURAL BODYBUILDING, MEN'S HEALTH, MUSCLE AND FITNESS AS WELL AS OTHER NON BODYBUILDING PUBLICATIONS JOURNALS AND NEWSPAPERS. SHALL I CONTINUE OR DO YOU NEED TO FEEL MORE RIDICULOUS?


............................................................................


What are all the items listed in your signature? Aren’t those items for sale? Are you trying to tell me Ulter is motivated to speak about a Dianabol bridge because he’s a salesman?

...............................................................
BECAUSE THAT'S ALL HE IS. I DESIGNED THE PRODUCTS IN MY SIGNITURE FROM YEARS OF STUDY AND EXPERIMENTING. ULTER BUYS STOCK AND SELLS IT FOR A PROFIT. BIG DIFFERENECE, WOULDN'T YOU SAY?


..................................................................................


I think Ulter sells Thermorexin, Neurogenix, and other AF items, not Dbol. He isn’t recognized in the industry?

.............................................

NOPE. AFRAID NOT.


..................................................

Was Scott Chinery of Cybergenix fame recognized?


..........................................................
YES, FOR BEING A CON ARTIST. WHAT'S YOUR POINT?

............................................................
There is a hypothesis and beyond a hypothesis there is a theory behind the bridge. Do you even know what a hypothesis is?

.......................................................
GOOD ONE.


............................................................

No one ever claimed that when you are bridging you are not still on cycle. Much like PCT - post cycle therapy - can be considered part of a cycle, so can the bridge. It is a portion of the cycle with a different goal and different compound or use of compound. With the bridge you are attempting to regain production of a portion of your lh - leutenizing hormone - and mitigate some of the post cycle crash. The main focus of bridging is not further enhancement of muscle mass.


........................................................

WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW IS PYRAMIDING OR "WINDING DOWN" WITH A DECREASING DOSAGE. THAT IS NOT A BRIDGE. DON'T RE-SHUFFLE THE DECK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME BRO.


.............................................................
The ‘major proponent’ was mentioned several times in my post. I was referring to Ulter as the ‘major proponent’.

........................................................

SO A NOBODY IS A MAJOR PROPONENT? OKAY.

......................................................

Later on you state,

“he funny thing about briding is that it does sorta makes sense -- in a theoretical kinda way.”

I thought you just reamed me out because there isn’t even a hypothesis to bridging. Now you admit that there is a theory. You cannot have a theory without a hypothesis. Which is it? Does bridging have a hypothesis or not? A theory or not? Which side of your mouth are you talking from in this post, Willie Lohman?
.....................................................


DO YOU KNOW WHAT A THEROY IS? IT'S AN IDEA THAT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE BUT SOMETIMES THEY JUST DON;T WORK. BRIDGING JUST DOESN'T WORK. WE COOL BRO?

..

 

[Jacob Creutzfeldt]

“Where are you published?
.................................................. .....

MUSCLEMAG, AMERICAN HEALTH AND FITNESS, MUSCULAR DEVELOPMENT, MUSCLE MIND AND POWER, TESTOSTERONE MAGAZINE, ANABOLIC EXTREME, NATURAL BODYBUILDING, MEN'S HEALTH, MUSCLE AND FITNESS AS WELL AS OTHER NON BODYBUILDING PUBLICATIONS JOURNALS AND NEWSPAPERS. SHALL I CONTINUE OR DO YOU NEED TO FEEL MORE RIDICULOUS?”

I don’t feel ridiculous at all. Which peer reviewed journal are you published in? I should have been more clear. Gregg Valentino is published in rags like Muscular Development as was Mike Mentzer. Do you take everything they say as gospel?

“What are all the items listed in your signature? Aren’t those items for sale? Are you trying to tell me Ulter is motivated to speak about a Dianabol bridge because he’s a salesman?

.................................................. .............
BECAUSE THAT'S ALL HE IS. I DESIGNED THE PRODUCTS IN MY SIGNITURE FROM YEARS OF STUDY AND EXPERIMENTING. ULTER BUYS STOCK AND SELLS IT FOR A PROFIT. BIG DIFFERENECE, WOULDN'T YOU SAY?”

You pimp your inventions as does Ulter. He sells stock and you don’t.
There’s one difference. Still that difference does nothing to take away from the validity of what he has to say. If he’s successful selling stock, his knowledge of physiology and pharmacology isn’t null and void. Your argument would be better forwarded by portraying the man as a failure at his endeavors, not a success. It also would lend evidence that Ulter has economic freedom and doesn’t need to financially whore himself.

“I think Ulter sells Thermorexin, Neurogenix, and other AF items, not Dianabol - methandrostenolone - . He isn’t recognized in the industry?

.............................................

NOPE. AFRAID NOT.”

You took this quote out of context. The point I made in the proceeding sentences is that recognition in this industry in no way means competence and validity of theories. It only means recognition. Truth isn’t determined by proxy. The earth is round no matter how many people believe it to be flat.

“Was Scott Chinery of Cybergenix fame recognized?


.................................................. ........
YES, FOR BEING A CON ARTIST. WHAT'S YOUR POINT?”

See the previous point. This is part of the same stream of reasoning on my behalf as the previous point. During the Cybergenix heyday the bodybuilding supplement industry imitated his business model and granted that model recognition. By your own account a man with recognition (Chinery) one day was later vilified as a charlatan. ‘The industry’ is not historically a good judge of useful, truthful knowledge.

“No one ever claimed that when you are bridging you are not still on cycle. Much like PCT - post cycle therapy - - post cycle therapy - can be considered part of a cycle, so can the bridge. It is a portion of the cycle with a different goal and different compound or use of compound. With the bridge you are attempting to regain production of a portion of your lh - leutenizing hormone - - leutenizing hormone - and mitigate some of the post cycle crash. The main focus of bridging is not further enhancement of muscle mass.


.................................................. ......

WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW IS PYRAMIDING OR "WINDING DOWN" WITH A DECREASING DOSAGE. THAT IS NOT A BRIDGE. DON'T RE-SHUFFLE THE DECK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME BRO.”

Your accusation of ‘reshuffling’ is unfounded. The dbol bridge is specific to a morning dose of 10 mgs of dbol. You cannot dbol bridge with an injectable or any other oral compound, but you can in a pyramid. Nor do you attempt to maintain a stable level of synthetic androgens in a slowly descending fashion as in pyramiding. Maintenance of stable blood levels of androgens is exactly what you do not want to do with the dbol bridge.

.................................................. ...........
“The ‘major proponent’ was mentioned several times in my post. I was referring to Ulter as the ‘major proponent’.

.................................................. ......

SO A NOBODY IS A MAJOR PROPONENT? OKAY.”

Even the most widely revered theorists in any field were ‘nobodies’ at some point. Their theories eventually made them ‘somebodies’. Again you appeal to truth by proxy. I don’t care how many Catholics thought the earth to be the center of the solar system. Galileo was correct in claiming it was not.

“Later on you state,

“he funny thing about briding is that it does sorta makes sense -- in a theoretical kinda way.”

I thought you just reamed me out because there isn’t even a hypothesis to bridging. Now you admit that there is a theory. You cannot have a theory without a hypothesis. Which is it? Does bridging have a hypothesis or not? A theory or not? Which side of your mouth are you talking from in this post, Willie Lohman?
.................................................. ...


DO YOU KNOW WHAT A THEROY IS? IT'S AN IDEA THAT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE BUT SOMETIMES THEY JUST DON;T WORK. BRIDGING JUST DOESN'T WORK. WE COOL BRO?”

I know exactly what a theory is. You however do not. A theory is, “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses."

We are entirely cool. I think if you want to attack a theory you should have a grasp of it. Perhaps bridging does not ‘work’ whatever ‘work’ is. Your never define the parameters of what disqualifies it. The title of the thread calls dbol bridging garbage. It has it’s pros and cons and the thread is not balanced or informative because it simply blackballs the theory instead of looking at some potential applications.

 

[nydj66]

No, it doesn't "shut you down" completely. It's funny because that was another mistake made by Bill Roberts. He claimed that ANY amount of steroid will SHUT YOU DOWN and that's simply not true. I'd say it takes at least a gram a week for 12 weeks before your numbers are at near zero.

Info I have seen shows that 200mg/wk of testosterone enanthate will have your endogenous testosterone production to near zero after 3 weeks.

200mg/wk is about 5 times what your body would produce (after you adjust for the weight of the ester).

 

[Svengali]

Sort of like when I was arguing with Micro and he banned me from here?

Lol, MICRO... You have me bustin up... Ok fair is fair. I guess payback is a bitch.

 

[Anthony Roberts]

Lol, MICRO... You have me bustin up... Ok fair is fair. I guess payback is a bitch.

Unfortunately, I can't post the stuff that I said to them just prior to their leaving (which was posted in a secure forum here)...but essentially I told them exactly what you just said. I'd hate to break my word to them...

 

[Nelson Montana]

Info I have seen shows that 200mg/wk of testosterone enanthate will have your endogenous testosterone production to near zero after 3 weeks.

200mg/wk is about 5 times what your body would produce (after you adjust for the weight of the ester).

That seems awfully extreme. 100mgs of enth will increase total T between 300 and 400 ngs. My T is usually around 800 and I've been on 100 mgs of enth for about 5 years now. That tells me I'm still producing some on my own.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Gregg Valentino is published in rags like Muscular Development as was Mike Mentzer. Do you take everything they say as gospel?

.....................................................


YOU ASKED. I TOLD YOU. NOW YOU WANT TO DISPARAGE THE SOURCE? LOOK, A LOT OF PEOPLE CAN GET AN OCCASIONAL ARTICLE PRINTED 9even though Ulter never has) BUT THE INDUSTRY DOESN'T CONTINUE TO USE SOMEONE'S WORK UNLESS THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING. I'VE HAD HUNDREDS OF PIECES PUBLISHED. THAT'S ALL I'M GOING TO SAY ABOUT THIS. LET IT GO DUDE.


.......................................................................
You pimp your inventions as does Ulter. He sells stock and you don’t.
There’s one difference. Still that difference does nothing to take away from the validity of what he has to say. If he’s successful selling stock, his knowledge of physiology and pharmacology isn’t null and void. Your argument would be better forwarded by portraying the man as a failure at his endeavors, not a success. It also would lend evidence that Ulter has economic freedom and doesn’t need to financially whore himself.

........................................


YEAH. OKAY. KEEP TELLING YOURSELF THAT.


.....................................................................

The point I made in the proceeding sentences is that recognition in this industry in no way means competence and validity of theories. It only means recognition. Truth isn’t determined by proxy. The earth is round no matter how many people believe it to be flat.

...............................................................

AGREED. NOW WHY DO YOU THINK ULTER SPEAKS THE TRUTH WHEN HE'S WORNG?


......................................................................
See the previous point. This is part of the same stream of reasoning on my behalf as the previous point. During the Cybergenix heyday the bodybuilding supplement industry imitated his business model and granted that model recognition. By your own account a man with recognition (Chinery) one day was later vilified as a charlatan. ‘The industry’ is not historically a good judge of useful, truthful knowledge.

.................................................................

I AGREE AGAIN. A PERFECT EXAMPLE IS MACRO, ULTER, BILL ROBERTS, CY WILSON, PAT ARNOLD, VICTOR CONTE AND A SLEW OF OTHERS WHO WERE ALL HERALDED AND NOW HAVE BEEN EXPOSED AS FRAUDS. I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN BODYBUILDING LONGER THAN ANY OF THEM AND I'M STILL STANDING.


.................................................
We are entirely cool. I think if you want to attack a theory you should have a grasp of it.

....................................................

I DO. I HAVE A VERY GOOD GRASP ON IT. I HAPPEN TO DISAGREE WITH IT BECUASE IT'S FLAWED, THAT'S ALL.


..........................................................................
Perhaps bridging does not ‘work’ whatever ‘work’ is. Your never define the parameters of what disqualifies it. The title of the thread calls Dianabol - methandrostenolone - bridging garbage. It has it’s pros and cons and the thread is not balanced or informative because it simply blackballs the theory instead of looking at some potential applications.
................................................................

I THINK YOU WERE MORE CORRECT THE FIRST TIME. LOWERING DOSAGES IS A VIABLE THEORY, BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO APPLY THAT THEORY IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO USE A LESS ANDROGENIC SUBSTANCE. IF SOMEONE WERE SEVERELY SUPPRESSED AND CONTINUED TO USE 10 MGS OF D BOL ONCE A DAY THEY'D STAY SUPPRESSED FOR THE DURATION OF THE INTAKE.

..

 

[Anthony Roberts]

Instead of quoting Ulcer and Micro, how about people recognize that the original post completely counter-argues successfully any proposed merit of the AM Dbol bridge. It just kills it. Re-read my first post, and you'll see that Karl DESTROYED the AM Dbol theory completely. If anyone has an issue with that, then maybe we ought to discuss Karl's thoughts, which I may add, are all cited and referenced.

 

[catulo]

very good topic

 

[Anthony Roberts]

Before I go hide in under the bed from the bully using all caps, I would like to clarify points where you are incorrect, Nelson. Essentially all of your points.
Which side of your mouth are you talking from in this post, Willie Lohman?

Lets keep it polite, without personal attacks to other people posting in this thread.

Also, congratulations on the semi- obscure dramatic reference at the end of your post, which as a former Engligh teacher, I appreciate...but as a point of fact, you the protagonist of Miller's "Death of a Salesman" is spelled "Willy Loman".