Leucine rant

Afternoon all,

Hope you are having good thursdays so far.

Some of you may be familiar with this research:

Combined ingestion of protein and free leucine with carbohydrate increases
postexercise muscle protein synthesis in vivo in male subjects - R.
Koopman, A. J. Wagenmakers, R. J. Manders, A. H. Zorenc, J. M. Senden, M.
Gorselink, H. A. Keizer, L. J. van Loon (Apr 2005); Am. J. Physiol.
Endocrinol. Metab. 288(4):E645 [PMID 15562251]

In which guys were given either a whey shake, or a whey shake with extra
leucine, and tested the hell out of. The extra leucine guys did better in
all sorts of ways, and hence it is concluded that leucine is great.

But let's look at the composition of those shakes:

Whey shake:

33 g/l whey
bunch of carbohydrates and flavouring

Whey shake:

33 g/l whey
16.6 g/l leucine
bunch of carbohydrates and flavouring

So one way of looking at this experiment is that they're comparing protein
to protein + leucine, but another is that they're comparing protein to ONE
AND A HALF TIMES AS MUCH PROTEIN. Okay, so leucine isn't strictly protein,
but it all boils down to amino acids in the gut. You can't conclude
anything specific about leucine from this! How the fuck did this get
published? A control to exclude a generic amino acid effect would have
been *so* easy to do - instead of just whey, your control condition is
whey plus however much of a different amino acid (i'd say aspartic acid,
as this gives you a similar molar quantity for the same mass).

The rest of the literature seems to be looking at biochemical responses to
leucine; i can't find any other study that shows that leucine has an
effect on strength or mass. Am i missing it, or is this whole leucine
thing founded on bullshit?

tom

--
Crazy week so far, which at one point involved spewing down the inside
of my jeans! -- D

Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>The rest of the literature seems to be looking at biochemical responses to
>leucine; i can't find any other study that shows that leucine has an
>effect on strength or mass. Am i missing it, or is this whole leucine
>thing founded on bullshit?

<sigh> Leucine is not an anabolic steroid or a growth hormone. It is
a common amino acid. If you're going to be one of those whiny babies
who won't try anything unless there's a study that shows huge muscle
and strength gains, then, no, there's nothing out there.

However, if you could be satisfied with studies that repeatedly show
the effect of leucine on mTOR signaling of muscle protein synthesis,
there are a number of studies out there, and a few have been around
for several years. That's why I've been loading my protein drinks
with 2-3 grams of extra leucine for a while now. 16.6 grams seems a
bit extreme, especially since a few grams of leucine gives your
protein drink a kinda shitty taste, anyway.

In article <6e9f23lco30ptbsd8jj9fh3ul1f0sosnqj@4ax.com>,
JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

> Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> >
> >The rest of the literature seems to be looking at biochemical responses to
> >leucine; i can't find any other study that shows that leucine has an
> >effect on strength or mass. Am i missing it, or is this whole leucine
> >thing founded on bullshit?
>
> <sigh> Leucine is not an anabolic steroid or a growth hormone. It is
> a common amino acid. If you're going to be one of those whiny babies
> who won't try anything unless there's a study that shows huge muscle
> and strength gains, then, no, there's nothing out there.
>
> However, if you could be satisfied with studies that repeatedly show
> the effect of leucine on mTOR signaling of muscle protein synthesis,
> there are a number of studies out there, and a few have been around
> for several years. That's why I've been loading my protein drinks
> with 2-3 grams of extra leucine for a while now. 16.6 grams seems a
> bit extreme, especially since a few grams of leucine gives your
> protein drink a kinda shitty taste, anyway.

huh? TA is a whiny baby? He seems to understand science and noted a
research flaw in the study and commented on it. He said nothing about
anabolic steroids and the author of the study commented it has an effect
on protein synthesis post-exercise. A better way to do the study would
have been equal amounts of protein with one group having a leucine
component. Is it suprising the group who ingested more protein post
exercise had greater protein synthesis post exercise?

Or they could have given massive amounts of protein with one including
leucine, so that any effect could actually be attributed to the leucine.
I thought Tom pointed out a real flaw in this study.

Someone piss in you cheerios this am, John?

:^)

--
Keith

On Apr 19, 3:03 pm, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> JMW <jmwilli...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
> > Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
> > >The rest of the literature seems to be looking at biochemical responses to
> > >leucine; i can't find any other study that shows that leucine has an
> > >effect on strength or mass. Am i missing it, or is this whole leucine
> > >thing founded on bullshit?
>
> > <sigh> Leucine is not an anabolic steroid or a growth hormone. It is
> > a common amino acid. If you're going to be one of those whiny babies
> > who won't try anything unless there's a study that shows huge muscle
> > and strength gains, then, no, there's nothing out there.
>
> > However, if you could be satisfied with studies that repeatedly show
> > the effect of leucine on mTOR signaling of muscle protein synthesis,
> > there are a number of studies out there, and a few have been around
> > for several years. That's why I've been loading my protein drinks
> > with 2-3 grams of extra leucine for a while now. 16.6 grams seems a
> > bit extreme, especially since a few grams of leucine gives your
> > protein drink a kinda shitty taste, anyway.
>
> huh? TA is a whiny baby? He seems to understand science and noted a
> research flaw in the study and commented on it. He said nothing about
> anabolic steroids and the author of the study commented it has an effect
> on protein synthesis post-exercise. A better way to do the study would
> have been equal amounts of protein with one group having a leucine
> component. Is it suprising the group who ingested more protein post
> exercise had greater protein synthesis post exercise?
>
> Or they could have given massive amounts of protein with one including
> leucine, so that any effect could actually be attributed to the leucine.
> I thought Tom pointed out a real flaw in this study.
>
> Someone piss in you cheerios this am, John?
>
> :^)

[1] I did not respond to Tom's whole post. I responded to the quoted
material. Specifically, I responded to "[t]he rest of the literature
seems to be looking at biochemical responses to leucine" as if that
has no real significance unless there's some study specifically
showing that you get HYOOOOOGE from taking leucine. If you aren't
interested in biochemical responses and only want to ingest things
supported by studies that say, "EAT THIS AND GET HYOOOOGE," then stick
to SuperSize BigMac meals.

[2] As to the whole post, Tom's implication of "protein vs. protein +
protein" is inaccurate and perpetuates the standard dumbass pop
fitness view of muscle protein synthesis: EAT LOTS OF PROTEIN AND THE
PROTEINS WILL SWIM AROUND IN YOUR BODY AND GET PUSHED INTO YOUR
MUSCLES BY CARBS! I would expect that both you and Tom should know
that whole proteins never get past the gastrointestinal wall; it's the
individual amino acids that make a difference, and the question is
which ones really count the most.

If you actually read the study, you will learn that they used the 0.2
g/kg of a protein hydrolysate because it "far exceeded the calculated
amount of protein that was estimated to provide sufficient precursor
substrate to sustain maximal protein synthesis rates." They wanted to
cover themselves on having enough substrate amino acids to form muscle
protein. That wasn't the issue. The issue was whether a *specific*
amino acid tends to promote *signaling* of muscle protein synthesis.
The constitutent leucine in the protein hydrolysate was only about
10%, so they sextupled the amount of that *specific* amino acid, while
leaving just as much underlying substrate.

My point is that you and Tom *missed* the point. It's not about
substrates to form more muscle protein; it's specifically about
*signaling* within the muscle cells, telling the cells to *create*
more protein. You know, that boring, hard-to-read, biochemical-
response stuff. I understood the purpose because I have been
collecting journal articles about leucine's effect on mTOR signaling
of muscle protein synthesis, with and without insulin, for about a
year.

"JMW" <jmwilliams_56@yahoo.com> schreef:

> My point is that you and Tom *missed* the point. It's not about
> substrates to form more muscle protein; it's specifically about
> *signaling* within the muscle cells, telling the cells to *create*
> more protein. You know, that boring, hard-to-read, biochemical-
> response stuff. I understood the purpose because I have been
> collecting journal articles about leucine's effect on mTOR signaling
> of muscle protein synthesis, with and without insulin, for about a
> year.

Jesus, i really should spend more time reading about nutrition.

I didnt understood this messages.

Its pathetic.

--
Pete

"Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> schreef:

> You can't conclude anything specific about leucine from this! How the fuck
> did this get published?

I dont know...

When i tested both Dianabol, and Anadrol for the first time, i took it
together with 300mg nandrolone.

Several guys argued with me that this way, i would NEVER know the effect of
both orals, since an injectable was present.

But i explained them that i allready knew the effect of 300mg nandrolone,
and since both orals were going to be used in a stack, i wanted to see how
they would behave inside a stack.

Using them by themselves would be completely meaningless to me.

--
Pete

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, JMW wrote:

> On Apr 19, 3:03 pm, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> JMW <jmwilli...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>>> Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The rest of the literature seems to be looking at biochemical
>>>> responses to leucine; i can't find any other study that shows that
>>>> leucine has an effect on strength or mass. Am i missing it, or is
>>>> this whole leucine thing founded on bullshit?
>>>
>>> <sigh> Leucine is not an anabolic steroid or a growth hormone. It is
>>> a common amino acid. If you're going to be one of those whiny babies
>>> who won't try anything unless there's a study that shows huge muscle
>>> and strength gains, then, no, there's nothing out there.
>>>
>>> However, if you could be satisfied with studies that repeatedly show
>>> the effect of leucine on mTOR signaling of muscle protein synthesis,
>>> there are a number of studies out there, and a few have been around
>>> for several years.
>>
>> A better way to do the study would have been equal amounts of protein
>> with one group having a leucine component. Is it suprising the group
>> who ingested more protein post exercise had greater protein synthesis
>> post exercise?
>
> [1] I did not respond to Tom's whole post. I responded to the quoted
> material. Specifically, I responded to "[t]he rest of the literature
> seems to be looking at biochemical responses to leucine" as if that has
> no real significance unless there's some study specifically showing that
> you get HYOOOOOGE from taking leucine.

There isn't. You can do all the western blots and ELISAs and whatever you
like, but until you've demonstrated that your intervention gives the
physiological response you're talking about, you can't say it's true.
Don't get me wrong, the signalling stuff is valid and interesting, but so
far, i can't see any direct evidence that it translates into increased
strength or muscle mass.

> [2] As to the whole post, Tom's implication of "protein vs. protein +
> protein" is inaccurate and perpetuates the standard dumbass pop fitness
> view of muscle protein synthesis: EAT LOTS OF PROTEIN AND THE PROTEINS
> WILL SWIM AROUND IN YOUR BODY AND GET PUSHED INTO YOUR MUSCLES BY CARBS!

This is kind of my point - if that isn't true (and i can well believe it
isn't), i'd like to see some evidence for it.

> I would expect that both you and Tom should know that whole proteins
> never get past the gastrointestinal wall;

We do. Did i say otherwise?

> it's the individual amino acids that make a difference, and the question
> is which ones really count the most.

Right. And i can't find any studies which do that at the physiological
level.

> If you actually read the study, you will learn that they used the 0.2
> g/kg of a protein hydrolysate because it "far exceeded the calculated
> amount of protein that was estimated to provide sufficient precursor
> substrate to sustain maximal protein synthesis rates." They wanted to
> cover themselves on having enough substrate amino acids to form muscle
> protein. That wasn't the issue.

No, and i didn't say it was.

> The issue was whether a *specific* amino acid tends to promote
> *signaling* of muscle protein synthesis. The constitutent leucine in the
> protein hydrolysate was only about 10%, so they sextupled the amount of
> that *specific* amino acid, while leaving just as much underlying
> substrate.

Right. However, they also increased by 50% the amount of *all* amino
acids, so if there's a *signalling* effect of *all* amino acids, that
would also come into play here. This is my point. The experiment is not
capable of discriminating between a specific effect of leucine and a
generic effect of amino acids.

> My point is that you and Tom *missed* the point. It's not about
> substrates to form more muscle protein; it's specifically about
> *signaling* within the muscle cells, telling the cells to *create* more
> protein. You know, that boring, hard-to-read, biochemical- response
> stuff.

No need be patronising, John. I'm aware that this is a matter of
signalling - my apologies if i didn't make that clear. But, as i say just
above, this paper does not adequately demonstrate the claims it makes
about signalling at the physiological level.

> I understood the purpose because I have been collecting journal articles
> about leucine's effect on mTOR signaling of muscle protein synthesis,
> with and without insulin, for about a year.

Excellent. Any direct links between leucine and physiological outcomes in
your collection?

tom

--
Thinking about it, history begins now -- sarah

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Pete wrote:

> "Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> schreef:
>
>> You can't conclude anything specific about leucine from this! How the
>> fuck did this get published?
>
> I dont know...
>
> When i tested both Dianabol, and Anadrol for the first time, i took it
> together with 300mg nandrolone.
>
> Several guys argued with me that this way, i would NEVER know the effect of
> both orals, since an injectable was present.
>
> But i explained them that i allready knew the effect of 300mg nandrolone,
> and since both orals were going to be used in a stack, i wanted to see how
> they would behave inside a stack.
>
> Using them by themselves would be completely meaningless to me.

The analogous critique here is that you should have compared 300 mg
nandrolone + X mg dianabol/anadrol to 500+X mg of nandrolone.

Really, it'd be a bit more complicated than this, because the different
steroids presumably have different potencies, so you can't compare X mg of
dianabol/anadrol to x mg of nandrolone, but you'd want to demonstrate that
nandrolone + dianabol/anadrol was more effective than an 'equivalent'
amount of just one of them.

You might find that it wasn't, but that the side effects weren't as bad
with the combination, i don't know.

tom

--
Thinking about it, history begins now -- sarah

"Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> schreef:

>> But i explained them that i allready knew the effect of 300mg nandrolone,
>> and since both orals were going to be used in a stack, i wanted to see
>> how
>> they would behave inside a stack.

>> Using them by themselves would be completely meaningless to me.

> The analogous critique here is that you should have compared 300 mg
> nandrolone + X mg dianabol/anadrol to 500+X mg of nandrolone.

I assume you mean X amount Dianabol/Anadrol with 500mg nandrolone instead of
300?

Actually, i compared a certain amount of Anadrol with nandrolone to a
certain amount of Dianabol with nandrolone.
I wanted to see how strong 35mg Dianabol was compared to 50mg Anadrol was.
With the presence of an injectable.

First, i wanted to see how strong the orals were with the presence of
injectable, and the second thing, i wanted to see how strong Dianabol was
compared to Anadrol.

I allready knew the effect of 300mg of nandrolone by itself. Which isnt
spectacular.

Several people who knew i did this told me i should have taken Dianabol by
itself and later Anadrol by itself. Sounds fair, but meaningless to me. I
would never use them by itself.

> Really, it'd be a bit more complicated than this, because the different
> steroids presumably have different potencies, so you can't compare X mg of
> dianabol/anadrol to x mg of nandrolone, but you'd want to demonstrate that
> nandrolone + dianabol/anadrol was more effective than an 'equivalent'
> amount of just one of them.

Exactly. I wasnt interested how strong both Dianabol and Anadrol were
compared to nandrolone, but *with* nandrolone. So, i compared Dianabol to
Anadrol. I wanted to find out the potency of Dianabol *with** Deca and the
potency of Anadrol *with* Deca.

> You might find that it wasn't, but that the side effects weren't as bad
> with the combination, i don't know.

I only tested both once, but i allready knew for years how i responded to
injectables. The combination gave a good effect and side-effects were very
acceptable. Which only confirmed my assumption.

BTW, i agree with what you wrote about the protein/leucine, but i am sure if
i comprehended everything.

Sounds like a gram of test taken by itself compared a gram with 50mg
Dianabol daily. I can predict why the latter gives better results. Not only
do they work well together, but the latter is also 35% more AS total, which
i believe, was your point to begin with. People might praise the Dbol for
the spectacular results, but forget the gram of test, that was "underneath."

--
Pete

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Pete wrote:

> "Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> schreef:
>
>>> But i explained them that i allready knew the effect of 300mg
>>> nandrolone, and since both orals were going to be used in a stack, i
>>> wanted to see how they would behave inside a stack.
>>
>> The analogous critique here is that you should have compared 300 mg
>> nandrolone + X mg dianabol/anadrol to 500+X mg of nandrolone.
>
> I assume you mean X amount Dianabol/Anadrol with 500mg nandrolone
> instead of 300?

Oops, typo - i meant "300+X of nandrolone".

> Actually, i compared a certain amount of Anadrol with nandrolone to a
> certain amount of Dianabol with nandrolone. I wanted to see how strong
> 35mg Dianabol was compared to 50mg Anadrol was. With the presence of an
> injectable.

Okay. For this purpose, you did exactly the right experiment, of course.

> First, i wanted to see how strong the orals were with the presence of
> injectable,

I take it what you mean is really "is it worth taking an oral on top of
nandrolone?". In that case ...

> and the second thing, i wanted to see how strong Dianabol was compared
> to Anadrol.

(you're bang on for this)

> I allready knew the effect of 300mg of nandrolone by itself. Which isnt
> spectacular.

.... this is your control.

If you wanted to know whether it was worth taking nandrolone as well as an
oral, this experiment didn't help you.

I mean, i guess it's well known from general experience that those doses
of orals on their own would not be enough. But looking at this experiment
in isolation, you can't address that question.

> Several people who knew i did this told me i should have taken Dianabol
> by itself and later Anadrol by itself. Sounds fair, but meaningless to
> me. I would never use them by itself.

Right. Even in a much bigger dose?

>> Really, it'd be a bit more complicated than this, because the different
>> steroids presumably have different potencies, so you can't compare X mg of
>> dianabol/anadrol to x mg of nandrolone, but you'd want to demonstrate that
>> nandrolone + dianabol/anadrol was more effective than an 'equivalent'
>> amount of just one of them.
>
> Exactly. I wasnt interested how strong both Dianabol and Anadrol were
> compared to nandrolone, but *with* nandrolone. So, i compared Dianabol
> to Anadrol. I wanted to find out the potency of Dianabol *with** Deca
> and the potency of Anadrol *with* Deca.

I think really, you were comparing the potencies of those particular doses
dianabol and anadrol. If you'd found that neither combination was
different to nandrolone alone, you wouldn't have used either, but you
pretty much knew that wasn't going to be the case.

> Sounds like a gram of test taken by itself compared a gram with 50mg
> Dianabol daily. I can predict why the latter gives better results. Not
> only do they work well together, but the latter is also 35% more AS
> total,

Exactly!

Do i infer correctly that the testosterone is weekly, whereas the dianabol
is daily? Remember i actually know nothing about the use of steroids!

> which i believe, was your point to begin with. People might praise the
> Dbol for the spectacular results, but forget the gram of test, that was
> "underneath."

Not quite. It's more that they're praising the dianabol specifically,
rather than praising having 35% more steroids in general. In this case,
the right comparison (assuming dianabol and testosterone are 1:1
equivalent) would be between:

(a) 1000 mg/week of testosterone + 50 mg/day of dianabol
(b) 1350 mg/week of testosterone

tom

--
Don't trust the laws of men. Trust the laws of mathematics.

Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, JMW wrote:
>
>>
>> The issue was whether a *specific* amino acid tends to promote
>> *signaling* of muscle protein synthesis. The constitutent leucine in the
>> protein hydrolysate was only about 10%, so they sextupled the amount of
>> that *specific* amino acid, while leaving just as much underlying
>> substrate.
>
>Right. However, they also increased by 50% the amount of *all* amino
>acids, so if there's a *signalling* effect of *all* amino acids, that
>would also come into play here. This is my point. The experiment is not
>capable of discriminating between a specific effect of leucine and a
>generic effect of amino acids.

That's where prior studies come into play. For instance, there are
the Tipton/Wolfe studies that showed essential amino acids, ingested
after resistance exercise, increased muscle protein synthesis, but
adding in the non-essential aminos (also found in whey) had no
additive effect. Then there were studies that found that BCAAs
increased mTOR signaling of muscle protein synthesis; another study
narrowed it down to leucine that was really doing the trick. It's not
as though the study you posted was blazing a trail into an unexplored
area.

>> I understood the purpose because I have been collecting journal articles
>> about leucine's effect on mTOR signaling of muscle protein synthesis,
>> with and without insulin, for about a year.
>
>Excellent. Any direct links between leucine and physiological outcomes in
>your collection?

Perhaps your terminology needs some work. Showing a clear cellular
response *is* a "physiological outcome."

"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
>BTW, i agree with what you wrote about the protein/leucine, but i am sure if
>i comprehended everything.

OK. Here's an analogy that you and Brink and Cohen will like.

You want to see how many tracer rounds are needed in the belt of a
..50BMG to accurately place a reasonable number of depleted uranium
rounds into an armored vehicle in low-light conditions. The tracer
rounds won't provide adequate penetration by themselves, so you need
the depleted uranium rounds for that purpose. You load one strip with
20 depleted uranium and 2 tracers. On the other strip, you want to
see if 12 tracers will better illuminate the path to the target, but
since those rounds won't adequately penetrate, and since penetration
is an essential element of the experiment, you still need 20 depleted
uranium rounds to count the number of penetrations, not just 8.

The leucine, which previous studies show induces mTOR signaling, is
the tracer round that "illuminates" the path to muscle protein
synthesis. But you still the full amount of other constituent amino
acids that are used to build the protein chains which result from
signaling; you must assure that there is enough substrate to confirm
you outcome, i.e., more muscle protein. Those other amino acids are,
of course, the depleted uranium rounds that show the results of better
"illumination" or signaling.

"JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> schreef:

>>BTW, i agree with what you wrote about the protein/leucine, but i am sure
>>if
>>i comprehended everything.

> OK. Here's an analogy that you and Brink and Cohen will like.

> You want to see how many tracer rounds are needed in the belt of a
> .50BMG to accurately place a reasonable number of depleted uranium
> rounds into an armored vehicle in low-light conditions. The tracer
> rounds won't provide adequate penetration by themselves, so you need
> the depleted uranium rounds for that purpose. You load one strip with
> 20 depleted uranium and 2 tracers. On the other strip, you want to
> see if 12 tracers will better illuminate the path to the target, but
> since those rounds won't adequately penetrate, and since penetration
> is an essential element of the experiment, you still need 20 depleted
> uranium rounds to count the number of penetrations, not just 8.

Nice analogy.

Kinda reminds me of Alex P. Keaton when his parents tried to explain
something
and use money as an analogy.

Anyway, its not so hard to understand.

The only problem with this analogy, from Toms point of view, i THINK, is
that the leucine will actually penetrate and not only leaves a trail of
light. I think.

> The leucine, which previous studies show induces mTOR signaling, is
> the tracer round that "illuminates" the path to muscle protein
> synthesis. But you still the full amount of other constituent amino
> acids that are used to build the protein chains which result from
> signaling; you must assure that there is enough substrate to confirm
> you outcome, i.e., more muscle protein. Those other amino acids are,
> of course, the depleted uranium rounds that show the results of better
> "illumination" or signaling.

Okay, understood. Interesting stuff.

--
Pete

"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

>"JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> schreef:
>
>>>BTW, i agree with what you wrote about the protein/leucine, but i am sure
>>>if
>>>i comprehended everything.
>
>> OK. Here's an analogy that you and Brink and Cohen will like.
>
>> You want to see how many tracer rounds are needed in the belt of a
>> .50BMG to accurately place a reasonable number of depleted uranium
>> rounds into an armored vehicle in low-light conditions. The tracer
>> rounds won't provide adequate penetration by themselves, so you need
>> the depleted uranium rounds for that purpose. You load one strip with
>> 20 depleted uranium and 2 tracers. On the other strip, you want to
>> see if 12 tracers will better illuminate the path to the target, but
>> since those rounds won't adequately penetrate, and since penetration
>> is an essential element of the experiment, you still need 20 depleted
>> uranium rounds to count the number of penetrations, not just 8.
>
>Nice analogy.
>
>Kinda reminds me of Alex P. Keaton when his parents tried to explain
>something
>and use money as an analogy.
>
>Anyway, its not so hard to understand.
>
>The only problem with this analogy, from Toms point of view, i THINK, is
>that the leucine will actually penetrate and not only leaves a trail of
>light. I think.

Although leucine is one of the major components, it accounts for less
than a third of the amino acid substrate in muscle protein synthesis.

"Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> schreef:

>>> The analogous critique here is that you should have compared 300 mg
>>> nandrolone + X mg dianabol/anadrol to 500+X mg of nandrolone.

>> I assume you mean X amount Dianabol/Anadrol with 500mg nandrolone instead
>> of 300?

> Oops, typo - i meant "300+X of nandrolone".

Ah, okay.

>> Actually, i compared a certain amount of Anadrol with nandrolone to a
>> certain amount of Dianabol with nandrolone. I wanted to see how strong
>> 35mg Dianabol was compared to 50mg Anadrol was. With the presence of an
>> injectable.

> Okay. For this purpose, you did exactly the right experiment, of course.

I thought so. The outcome? Dianabol seems slightly stronger on a mg/mg
basis. With the presence of an injectable, of course. But other people have
a different opinion. The Anadrol though, is superior when it comes to
money/gaines.

50mg Anadrol is aprox. E 1.20 and 35mg Dianabol is E 2.10. If you
extrapolate this, than a comination of Androl + test gives the best gaines
for the buck. With the most side effects. If you can afford it, one should
take truckloads of Dianabol with Deca, or better yet, Primo. For a male,
1500 Primo/week with 100mg Dianabol daily is expensive, but side effects are
less when compared to 150mg Anadrol with 750 test. The latter is a lot
cheaper, though...

That Austrian SOB probably knew this.

>> First, i wanted to see how strong the orals were with the presence of
>> injectable,

> I take it what you mean is really "is it worth taking an oral on top of
> nandrolone?". In that case ...

Yes and no.

When you take 300mg Deca by itself, even a rookie can predict that the
addition of orals will make a difference.
Even the addition of 250mg test makes a difference. I allready did such a
cycle. And thats the reason i took 35mg Dianabol daily, so the total of Deca
+ Test and Deca + Dianabol would be the same.

Per milligram, *WITH* the addition of Deca, Dianabol is stronger than test.

But it gets better. It seems when you take 35mg Dianabol by itself, compared
to 250mg/week of test by itself, the results are more or less the same. (i
havent done this myself, but other people have...)

So, while a same amout, weekly, does the same by taken by itself, that very
same compounds can become stronger/weaker when taken with the addition of
another steroid. The reason i stopped figuring this out is because it gives
me high blood pressure and headaches. It is just too complex.

Both orals have weak binding, and both injectables high binding. Maybe its a
matter of high binding/weak signaling, low binding/strong signaling. Who
knows?

>> and the second thing, i wanted to see how strong Dianabol was compared to
>> Anadrol.

> (you're bang on for this)

>> I allready knew the effect of 300mg of nandrolone by itself. Which isnt
>> spectacular.

> ... this is your control.

> If you wanted to know whether it was worth taking nandrolone as well as an
> oral, this experiment didn't help you.

I allready knew what 300 Deca did. I have too admit that i didnt have a clue
what the orals, by themselves, did.

But like i said, i didnt care at all what the orals did by themselve,
because i would never construct a cycle of orals only. Perhaps it would be
better to get accurate data, but at that point, it was meaningless to me. I
just wanted to see the impact of certain orals with the presence of an
injectable.

> I mean, i guess it's well known from general experience that those doses
> of orals on their own would not be enough.

That depends. I think a 170 pound beginner can have amazing results with
35mg Dianabol.

> But looking at this experiment in isolation, you can't address that
> question.

I know.

The problem is, there is no data. Not availeble to me, anyway. Even doctors
admit they are pretty much clueless about certain combinations.

>> Several people who knew i did this told me i should have taken Dianabol
>> by itself and later Anadrol by itself. Sounds fair, but meaningless to
>> me. I would never use them by itself.

> Right. Even in a much bigger dose?

Well, the whole point, from the beginning, is too avoid doses of orals that
are too high. Which is why i was interested in the outcome of orals with
injectables. Your liver gets away with 1000mg of test weekly, but has a lot
of trouble with 1000mg Anadrol weekly.

So, even if it turnes out that 1000mg Anadrol weekly is just as strong, or
stronger than 1000mg test, i would still not do such a cycle. And again,
there is also the cost effective factor. 1000mg Dianabol weekly is E 60, -
compered to
E 30,- for 1000mg test. So, even if Dianabol turned out to be twice as
strong, it will still cost you just as much.

1000mg Anadrol is actually cheaper than 1000mg test.

>>> Really, it'd be a bit more complicated than this, because the different
>>> steroids presumably have different potencies, so you can't compare X mg
>>> of
>>> dianabol/anadrol to x mg of nandrolone, but you'd want to demonstrate
>>> that
>>> nandrolone + dianabol/anadrol was more effective than an 'equivalent'
>>> amount of just one of them.

>> Exactly. I wasnt interested how strong both Dianabol and Anadrol were
>> compared to nandrolone, but *with* nandrolone. So, i compared Dianabol to
>> Anadrol. I wanted to find out the potency of Dianabol *with** Deca and
>> the potency of Anadrol *with* Deca.

> I think really, you were comparing the potencies of those particular doses
> dianabol and anadrol.

Yes, exactly. But i think the effect of both orals with the presence of Deca
should not be overlooked.

> If you'd found that neither combination was different to nandrolone alone,
> you wouldn't have used either, but you pretty much knew that wasn't going
> to be the case.

Yes. Which is why i dosed low. An insanely high dose of orals would be
meaningless. If you take enough of anything you have results.

My conlusions were the following;

1) Dianabol is more effective on an mg/mg base, but Anadrol gives you the
same results for less money.
2) With the presence of an injectable, the results are good, even when dosed
low
3) An equal amount of Deca compared to Deca with Dianabol + Deca and Anadrol
+ Deca gives less results, IOW, the orals are, mg for mg, stronger. Compared
to Deca, that is.
4) 200 Deca + 250 test gives good results gives goods results, but 200 Deca
+ 245-350 orals does a much better job.
The last conclusion is the most interesting, i think. A total of 450
injectables was weaker then 445 total of injectables and orals.

Of course, since n=1 is doesnt much, but still.

In the late eighties i added Proviron to Deca, and the Deca seemed almost
twice as strong, while Proviron is "famous" for not having any anabolic
properties. I have to say that Proviron is a good appetite, mood and libildo
enhancer, so maybe i wasnt 100% objective ;-O

>> Sounds like a gram of test taken by itself compared a gram with 50mg
>> Dianabol daily. I can predict why the latter gives better results. Not
>> only do they work well together, but the latter is also 35% more AS
>> total,

> Exactly!

And THAT was on my mind the whole time!

Each and every time you add orals to the injectables, you raise the total
amount of AS.

> Do i infer correctly that the testosterone is weekly, whereas the dianabol
> is daily?

Yes. And the reason i selected 35mg, is because it equals 245 weekly, and an
amp of test is 250.
I really didnt have time to use a razor blade on the Anadrol.

> Remember i actually know nothing about the use of steroids!

Haha!

That doesnt matter at all. Its just logic.

>> which i believe, was your point to begin with. People might praise the
>> Dbol for the spectacular results, but forget the gram of test, that was
>> "underneath."

> Not quite. It's more that they're praising the dianabol specifically,
> rather than praising having 35% more steroids in general. In this case,
> the right comparison (assuming dianabol and testosterone are 1:1
> equivalent) would be between:

> (a) 1000 mg/week of testosterone + 50 mg/day of dianabol
> (b) 1350 mg/week of testosterone

And 1350mg Dianabol weekly. Which is almost 200mg day. Bad news for the
liver, i gues...

I have a strong suspicioun that 1350 total of Dianabol and test is superior.

Tthe reason i immedeately thought about AS cycles when i read your comment
on Johns post is because of the following;

I created one last cycle for myself, with 6 components; Test + Deca +
Dianabol + Anadrol + Winstrol + Proviron.

The reason for those components? Well, the first four have proven their
potency. And instead of taking a gram of test, 500 test + 400 Deca might
give the same effect, but with less conversion to E + DHT = less side
effects.
Still enough DHT + E to "profit" from.

Same for the Dianabol and Anadrol. Instead of taking 100mg Anadrol, which is
cheaper, 50 of each seem to better choice to avoid side effects. Still, its
1600mg total.

Both Winstrol, at 25mg, and Proviron, at 50mg are thrown in to reduce SHBG.
In theory, also, both can lower side effects from the first 4 mentioned.

Still, its 75mg daily, and that equals 500 weekly. I did a cycle once with
1000 test and 400 Deca. (and orals) The test is reduced to 500. With less
SHBG, you need less steroids to get the same effect. But with the addition
of Winstrol and Proviron, i INcreased the total amount of steroids. And that
amount is the same as the reduction of test.

This is just a hypothetical cycle. I have never done it, and perhaps i never
will.

But if it proves to be effective, i will NEVER know what caused it to be
effective. Yes, the test is reduced, but Winstrol and Proviron is added.

--
Pete

"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:4629d8b7$0$98758$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl...
> "Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> schreef:
>
>>>> The analogous critique here is that you should have compared 300 mg
>>>> nandrolone + X mg dianabol/anadrol to 500+X mg of nandrolone.
>
>>> I assume you mean X amount Dianabol/Anadrol with 500mg nandrolone
>>> instead of 300?
>
>> Oops, typo - i meant "300+X of nandrolone".
>
> Ah, okay.
>
>>> Actually, i compared a certain amount of Anadrol with nandrolone to a
>>> certain amount of Dianabol with nandrolone. I wanted to see how strong
>>> 35mg Dianabol was compared to 50mg Anadrol was. With the presence of an
>>> injectable.
>
>> Okay. For this purpose, you did exactly the right experiment, of course.
>
> I thought so. The outcome? Dianabol seems slightly stronger on a mg/mg
> basis. With the presence of an injectable, of course. But other people
> have a different opinion. The Anadrol though, is superior when it comes to
> money/gaines.
>
> 50mg Anadrol is aprox. E 1.20 and 35mg Dianabol is E 2.10. If you
> extrapolate this, than a comination of Androl + test gives the best gaines
> for the buck. With the most side effects. If you can afford it, one should
> take truckloads of Dianabol with Deca, or better yet, Primo. For a male,
> 1500 Primo/week with 100mg Dianabol daily is expensive, but side effects
> are less when compared to 150mg Anadrol with 750 test. The latter is a lot
> cheaper, though...
>
> That Austrian SOB probably knew this.
>
>>> First, i wanted to see how strong the orals were with the presence of
>>> injectable,
>
>> I take it what you mean is really "is it worth taking an oral on top of
>> nandrolone?". In that case ...
>
> Yes and no.
>
> When you take 300mg Deca by itself, even a rookie can predict that the
> addition of orals will make a difference.
> Even the addition of 250mg test makes a difference. I allready did such a
> cycle. And thats the reason i took 35mg Dianabol daily, so the total of
> Deca + Test and Deca + Dianabol would be the same.
>
> Per milligram, *WITH* the addition of Deca, Dianabol is stronger than
> test.
>
> But it gets better. It seems when you take 35mg Dianabol by itself,
> compared to 250mg/week of test by itself, the results are more or less the
> same. (i havent done this myself, but other people have...)
>
> So, while a same amout, weekly, does the same by taken by itself, that
> very same compounds can become stronger/weaker when taken with the
> addition of another steroid. The reason i stopped figuring this out is
> because it gives me high blood pressure and headaches. It is just too
> complex.
>
> Both orals have weak binding, and both injectables high binding. Maybe its
> a matter of high binding/weak signaling, low binding/strong signaling. Who
> knows?
>
>>> and the second thing, i wanted to see how strong Dianabol was compared
>>> to Anadrol.
>
>> (you're bang on for this)
>
>>> I allready knew the effect of 300mg of nandrolone by itself. Which isnt
>>> spectacular.
>
>> ... this is your control.
>
>> If you wanted to know whether it was worth taking nandrolone as well as
>> an oral, this experiment didn't help you.
>
> I allready knew what 300 Deca did. I have too admit that i didnt have a
> clue what the orals, by themselves, did.
>
> But like i said, i didnt care at all what the orals did by themselve,
> because i would never construct a cycle of orals only. Perhaps it would be
> better to get accurate data, but at that point, it was meaningless to me.
> I just wanted to see the impact of certain orals with the presence of an
> injectable.
>
>> I mean, i guess it's well known from general experience that those doses
>> of orals on their own would not be enough.
>
> That depends. I think a 170 pound beginner can have amazing results with
> 35mg Dianabol.
>
>> But looking at this experiment in isolation, you can't address that
>> question.
>
> I know.
>
> The problem is, there is no data. Not availeble to me, anyway. Even
> doctors admit they are pretty much clueless about certain combinations.
>
>>> Several people who knew i did this told me i should have taken Dianabol
>>> by itself and later Anadrol by itself. Sounds fair, but meaningless to
>>> me. I would never use them by itself.
>
>> Right. Even in a much bigger dose?
>
> Well, the whole point, from the beginning, is too avoid doses of orals
> that are too high. Which is why i was interested in the outcome of orals
> with injectables. Your liver gets away with 1000mg of test weekly, but has
> a lot of trouble with 1000mg Anadrol weekly.
>
> So, even if it turnes out that 1000mg Anadrol weekly is just as strong, or
> stronger than 1000mg test, i would still not do such a cycle. And again,
> there is also the cost effective factor. 1000mg Dianabol weekly is E 60, -
> compered to
> E 30,- for 1000mg test. So, even if Dianabol turned out to be twice as
> strong, it will still cost you just as much.
>
> 1000mg Anadrol is actually cheaper than 1000mg test.
>
>>>> Really, it'd be a bit more complicated than this, because the different
>>>> steroids presumably have different potencies, so you can't compare X mg
>>>> of
>>>> dianabol/anadrol to x mg of nandrolone, but you'd want to demonstrate
>>>> that
>>>> nandrolone + dianabol/anadrol was more effective than an 'equivalent'
>>>> amount of just one of them.
>
>>> Exactly. I wasnt interested how strong both Dianabol and Anadrol were
>>> compared to nandrolone, but *with* nandrolone. So, i compared Dianabol
>>> to Anadrol. I wanted to find out the potency of Dianabol *with** Deca
>>> and the potency of Anadrol *with* Deca.
>
>> I think really, you were comparing the potencies of those particular
>> doses dianabol and anadrol.
>
> Yes, exactly. But i think the effect of both orals with the presence of
> Deca should not be overlooked.
>
>> If you'd found that neither combination was different to nandrolone
>> alone, you wouldn't have used either, but you pretty much knew that
>> wasn't going to be the case.
>
> Yes. Which is why i dosed low. An insanely high dose of orals would be
> meaningless. If you take enough of anything you have results.
>
> My conlusions were the following;
>
> 1) Dianabol is more effective on an mg/mg base, but Anadrol gives you the
> same results for less money.
> 2) With the presence of an injectable, the results are good, even when
> dosed low
> 3) An equal amount of Deca compared to Deca with Dianabol + Deca and
> Anadrol + Deca gives less results, IOW, the orals are, mg for mg,
> stronger. Compared to Deca, that is.
> 4) 200 Deca + 250 test gives good results gives goods results, but 200
> Deca + 245-350 orals does a much better job.
> The last conclusion is the most interesting, i think. A total of 450
> injectables was weaker then 445 total of injectables and orals.
>
> Of course, since n=1 is doesnt much, but still.
>
> In the late eighties i added Proviron to Deca, and the Deca seemed almost
> twice as strong, while Proviron is "famous" for not having any anabolic
> properties. I have to say that Proviron is a good appetite, mood and
> libildo enhancer, so maybe i wasnt 100% objective ;-O
>
>>> Sounds like a gram of test taken by itself compared a gram with 50mg
>>> Dianabol daily. I can predict why the latter gives better results. Not
>>> only do they work well together, but the latter is also 35% more AS
>>> total,
>
>> Exactly!
>
> And THAT was on my mind the whole time!
>
> Each and every time you add orals to the injectables, you raise the total
> amount of AS.
>
>> Do i infer correctly that the testosterone is weekly, whereas the
>> dianabol is daily?
>
> Yes. And the reason i selected 35mg, is because it equals 245 weekly, and
> an amp of test is 250.
> I really didnt have time to use a razor blade on the Anadrol.
>
>> Remember i actually know nothing about the use of steroids!
>
> Haha!
>
> That doesnt matter at all. Its just logic.
>
>>> which i believe, was your point to begin with. People might praise the
>>> Dbol for the spectacular results, but forget the gram of test, that was
>>> "underneath."
>
>> Not quite. It's more that they're praising the dianabol specifically,
>> rather than praising having 35% more steroids in general. In this case,
>> the right comparison (assuming dianabol and testosterone are 1:1
>> equivalent) would be between:
>
>> (a) 1000 mg/week of testosterone + 50 mg/day of dianabol
>> (b) 1350 mg/week of testosterone
>
> And 1350mg Dianabol weekly. Which is almost 200mg day. Bad news for the
> liver, i gues...
>
> I have a strong suspicioun that 1350 total of Dianabol and test is
> superior.
>
> Tthe reason i immedeately thought about AS cycles when i read your comment
> on Johns post is because of the following;
>
> I created one last cycle for myself, with 6 components; Test + Deca +
> Dianabol + Anadrol + Winstrol + Proviron.
>
> The reason for those components? Well, the first four have proven their
> potency. And instead of taking a gram of test, 500 test + 400 Deca might
> give the same effect, but with less conversion to E + DHT = less side
> effects.
> Still enough DHT + E to "profit" from.
>
> Same for the Dianabol and Anadrol. Instead of taking 100mg Anadrol, which
> is cheaper, 50 of each seem to better choice to avoid side effects. Still,
> its 1600mg total.
>
> Both Winstrol, at 25mg, and Proviron, at 50mg are thrown in to reduce
> SHBG. In theory, also, both can lower side effects from the first 4
> mentioned.
>
> Still, its 75mg daily, and that equals 500 weekly. I did a cycle once with
> 1000 test and 400 Deca. (and orals) The test is reduced to 500. With less
> SHBG, you need less steroids to get the same effect. But with the addition
> of Winstrol and Proviron, i INcreased the total amount of steroids. And
> that amount is the same as the reduction of test.
>
> This is just a hypothetical cycle. I have never done it, and perhaps i
> never will.
>
> But if it proves to be effective, i will NEVER know what caused it to be
> effective. Yes, the test is reduced, but Winstrol and Proviron is added.
>
> --
> Pete
>

Pete,
I always felt that Anadrol was better in just about every way vs Dianabol.
As long as you stay around 50 mg/day of Anadrol, with a peak of 100 mg/day
for a week or two, the side effects are really no different than with Dbol.
I always held less fluid with Anadrol too. I know that it is FAR superior
for strength gains vs Dbol too. Everyone's body is different though.

--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

"Hard Bop Drums" <nospam@hardbopdrums.com> schreef:

> Pete,
> I always felt that Anadrol was better in just about every way vs Dianabol.
> As long as you stay around 50 mg/day of Anadrol, with a peak of 100 mg/day
> for a week or two, the side effects are really no different than with
> Dbol. I always held less fluid with Anadrol too. I know that it is FAR
> superior for strength gains vs Dbol too. Everyone's body is different
> though.

I could easily afford 100mg Anadrol/day for several, even 8 weeks straight.
But i noticed i felt somewhat better on Dianabol.

The cost effectiveness of Anadrol is a lot better than Dianabol, though.

--
Pete