Is there one steroid that works better than another that can help build up a certian muscle when doing spot injections?
Do spot injections really make a difference?
Welcome to The Iron Den
Where strength athletes share techniques for building muscle, burning fat and the proper use of anabolc steroids to help you meet your fitness goals.
...then you have come to the right place!
we will try to help you with your problem.
Is there one steroid that works better than another that can help build up a certian muscle when doing spot injections?
Do spot injections really make a difference?
Other than synthol I would say no. I've seen some guys that will spot inject right before training that muscle hoping that the oils will help stretch the fascia but there is no proof that it inhibits more growth.
Spot injections don't work. Temporary swelling from the shot make people think they do, they dont. And I have heard people say the exact opposite, dont work out where you inject because of the "damage" from the oil and pin in the muscle.
im not calling anyone wrong because everyone has there own oppion but my oppion is base on real life experiance .......YES site injections DO WORK...It takes alot of sticking and months and even years before u start to see any results...Im the ****ing king of site injections and i know what it takes for it to work...I have written many post concerning site injection.How does it work?After awile when u stick a spot u began to build scar tissue within the muscle...Well this scare tissue becomes like a wall inside the muscle....So anything u pump in there stays in there..I mean oil will travel sooner or later but the process is very slow...So when u start injecting oil into that muscle it streches the muscle...the more oil u pump in there the better the strech...Its the same effect like useing synthol....i wish i could explain more but i will have to come back to this topic.....maybe i can post the threads i wrote about site injections and why they work and how it works...one thing is for sure..im not just makeing things up...im living proff it works....and if it works on me then it will work on others as well...the process takes alot of time and effort...and takes alot sticking...If anyone hates to use neddles then they will never gain from it....dw
Haha, nice sig DW!
I will say this... Site injections DO work, but only in the same way that synthol works. You have to pin the muscle often to get results. Pinning a drug in a certain muscle WILL NOT give that specific muscle a chance to "absorb" more of the drug than any other part of the body. I think this is the misconception that most people have. As soon as a portion of the drug becomes de-esterified it is released into the blood stream to travel throughout the body. This has nothing to do with it's point of origin other than the fact that some spots take longer to release the ester than others (that's for a different convo on a different day). It's the same as the idea of site specific fat loss (naturally) it's just not possible. You have to reduce the overall amount of body fat to lose it in certain areas.
The only thing that has shown SOME merit as a site specific growth enhancer is IGF-1 LR3. This peptide is receptor specific and can be utilized by the receptors within a certain muscle when injected. Very few of the peptide molecules will make their way throughout the body in search of a home. Most will find their receptor home within the injected muscle. However, oversaturation can occur, hence the need for bilateral, multiple times per day injections with IGF. However, there are far more receptors compatible with what IGF is looking for in the abdomen area. So, I still think the drug is most effective when pinned subcutaneously into the abdomen. However, several IM injections per day into lagging muscles may promote some extra growth. There just aren't enough studies done with IGF-LR3 to argue one way or the other scientifically. Exogenous IGF-1 LR3 reacts differently within the body compared to endogenous IGF. The same can be said of exo GH and endo GH. I've seen the results personally and can say that from my experience it does work.
Just temporary swelling, ive injected into my biceps many times and theres no diff after the swelling goes down. So short term (few days) will it create a larger look, probably. Long term NO, its not going to increase the size of THAT specific muscle. Its absorbed throughout the body, not in THAT muscle.
Btw take a look at those forearms in my avatar people... LEAN
u seem to forget bro.....once you build raw hide within the muscle it builds a barrier inside..this is what fills up within the muscle...once that barrier is formed the more oil u pump the bigger the muscle becomes....yes it will spread sooner or later but thats why u need to maintain with injections to keep the size u built....but at the same time the muscle strechs with allows more blood flow inside the muscle and it allows u to inject more oil into that muscle .ed i try to inject atleast 3 ccs in each bicept head....i can tell you ,,its not going no where.only but bigger peaks.....dwOriginally Posted by KBD
If that were the case my right thigh would be 3 inches bigger than my left.. Yet they both measure the same. I wont believe it until i see it, not that im calling you a liar. It may work for you. But it still hasnt for me.
give it time good buddy...and no i dont think your calling me a lair..its all gravy bro...we are here to learn by our self experiance...but i will say this....bigger muscle groups have a harder time building a barrier for some reason...i find that site injections only work on your smaller muscle groups...this seems to be the case for me...like for the chess area...you would have to stick upper chess,then the middle and lower...each day u would have to move around the injections because there is so much to cover..and your talking about alot of oil....now for the tear drops on your legs...site injections around that part will work good...once u can get pass the pain and build that barrier im talking about u will see them stick out like a baseball..i know...and even traps work good..mine got so knoted out i ended up draining 20ccs out each head to make them look some what natrual...i looked like i had no neck and looked like i had inplants that was the size of golf balls...Not a good look...So,rememeber smaller muslce work much better then your bigger ones...as a matter of fact ive had no luck with the larger ones...Im still trying to figure it out...But **** man i got a life time sticking....dw
I am with DW and here is why, muscles have androgen receptors and the more androgen you expose to that area the more growth. SEO's aside delts and traps have more AR' followed by the upper body with less in the lower body (fewest in calves which explains a few things). BBers have been pinning their delts for yrs and proportionately speaking they have over developed traps and delts compared to their natural (no AAS using) cousins.
Also, this study is on chickens, but it's the best we got at the moment:
Histol Histopathol. 2010 Feb;25(2):133-40.
Nandrolone decanoate increases satellite cell numbers in the chicken pectoralis muscle.
Allouh MZ, Rosser BW.
College of Medicine, Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, University of Saskatchewan, 107 Wiggins Road, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Abstract
The anabolic androgenic steroid nandrolone decanoate has minimal androgenic effects and, thus, is widely used to induce muscle hypertrophy in both patients and athletes. Although increases in satellite cell numbers and satellite cells giving rise to new myonuclei are associated with hypertrophy in many experimental models, the relationship between nandrolone and satellite cells is poorly understood. Here we test the hypothesis that nandrolone administration is associated with an increase in satellite cell numbers in muscle. Nandrolone was injected at weekly intervals for four weeks into the right pectoralis muscle of female white leghorn chickens aged 63 days post hatch. Age/size/sex matched control birds received saline injections. The contralateral pectoralis was excised for study from each control and nandrolone treated bird. An antibody against Pax7 and immunocytochemical techniques were used to identify satellite cells. Nandrolone significantly increased mean pectoralis mass by approximately 22%, and mean fiber diameter by about 24%. All satellite cell indices that were quantified increased significantly in chicken pectoralis with administration of nandrolone. Nandrolone injected birds had on average higher satellite cell frequencies (#SC nuclei/all nuclei within basal lamina), number of satellite cells per millimeter of fiber, and satellite cell concentrations (closer together). Myonuclei were further apart (less concentrated) in nandrolone injected muscle. However, an overall increase in myonuclear numbers was revealed by a significantly greater mean number of myonuclei per millimeter of fiber in nandrolone injected muscle. Our results suggest that satellite cells may be key cellular vectors for nandrolone induced muscle fiber hypertrophy.
Very nice study Hawk, although I'm not sure this applies to humans. I have a very long study in the form of a powerpoint presentation that I'm not sure how to put on here. It basically discusses that the human body has a finite number of receptors for each hormone and each hormone has a different binding affinity for that receptor. The amount of receptors has not been shown to increase with site specific AAS use.
However, the use of IGF-1 LR3 site specifically has been shown to induce cell duplication and mutation (hyperplasia) at larger doses. Increasing the number of cells would increase the number of receptor sites, logically speaking. Straight AAS use induces muscle cell growth, but NOT duplication. So, it would seem likely that gains made with peptides, slin, gh, etc are far more permanent than AAS gains. With a lack of receptors available for each drug to occupy, you have to plan your cycles wisely. It would be great if there were an accurate way for us to know when the receptors were saturated dosage-wise for each drug. For example, Trenbolone has a higher binding affinity to the AR than Testosterone. So, when they compete for the same receptor, Tren wins more than test. But, Tren also attempts to bind to the PR, which leaves some room for the test to slide in. So, my thought being if someone got good gains from 1 gram of test per week, they could logically lower that test dose a couple hundred mg and add 400mg Tren to the cycle and come up with slightly to significantly better gains. Does that make sense?
If there were people interested in studying this kinda stuff that I think about on a daily basis, the answer to my question would most likely already be answered. Hmmm, I may have to pioneer something myself.
BTW, Hawk I meant no disrespect to your post and I was just trying to shed some light on the situation. From that info I would have to assume that hypertrophy caused by oil pressure within the muscle fibers is a cause of muscle cell expansion, not duplication. In which case the neumber of receptors would reamin the same. But, may be it works differently in humans. There's a reason the bodybuilders of today are so much bigger than the pros in years past.... I think Hyperplasia is the answer. All made possible by good ol slin, IGF, GH, peptides, etc.
seen the Greg Valentino videos? I have read some other articles on spot injections, the summary seems to be that growth occurs not because of anabolic response but rather the "stretching" for lack of a better word of the muscle. Which is why some guys use special oils with no anabolic/androgenic properties, similar to an implant which takes lots of time and injections. From what I read it works, but the main danger is the possibility of deformity (Greg Valentino). Second hand info...for what it's worth.
this inplant is what im talking about which is a barrier within the muscle..once this barrier is formed this it starts to fill up...Im living proff of this because ive build these inplants with my bicepts and i know by experiance..**** all the stuides..im the ****ing lab rat...ive also built barries with my tircept too and traps...as i stated above..site injections seem to only work on small muslce groups..ive been doing site injections for YEARS now..ED i stick them..Every dam day..By no means i mean no dicrepect to anyone..u all have your own oppion but if u have no experiance in this feild how can u know?You think the people that has written all the stuides has been doing site injections themselfs?..Are is the one writtening this studies are nothing more then a pencil neck nerd?..For site injections to work u have to put in alot of time for it to work..u have to get pass that swelling part and that muscle has to build a tolerance to sticking it...how do i know the muslce builds this barrier within the muscle?..because i had to drian 20ccs of fuild from both traps heads because they were the size of golf balls....and im telling you that fuild was traped inside the muslce..it wasnt going no where unless i drained it myself...this is how i know what im talking about..im the study by experiance...those of u can take it or leave it...i just know my theories are right..and im no professer with no degree other then hands on training..and useing my human body as the lad rat to get answers..no text book...just real life every day experiance.....as far as im concern im done debateing...ive given the facts....dw
Last edited by deadweight; 02-17-2011 at 05:46 AM.
Haha, ya but see lets compare doses... your 16cc in each bicep to my half cc EOD of prop lolllllllll.. Just messin with ya man
Or in his case, synthol was his drug of choice..
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
