?One reason to frequent dose is the shorter half life, but is it necessary and is the lower dose actually producing a lesser response? Given most of the compounds do not strongly bind to the androgen receptor what and where is protein synthesis being initiated and how long does that pathway stay activated?
Do we need the drug in circulation constantly or will a higher burst dose done less frequently yield a better response overall. We can hypothesize, but has anyone compared any of these? "try something different than what makes sense."
The only binding study was by Saartok et al 1984, that's the one frequently cited. In humans we really don't know or what other pathways are activated. No papers that I know of address it. I think there was a study done with corticosteroids for a particular condition where it was found that large intermittent dosing worked better than less daily, that is where the idea came from years ago. I just wondered if anyone had any further personal experience with it.What do u know about the binding ability?... What does this actually mean?...Say all compounds had the same binding affinity, which one would be the best to use then?...We are talking anabolic compounds of course...
Years ago I read on a few other boards where a few iron Bros had tried both scenarios....There was a 50% take....Some said there was a difference, some said not....
Do you have/know what the science indicates on it?....
.
The only binding study was by Saartok et al 1984, that's the one frequently cited. In humans we really don't know or what other pathways are activated. No papers that I know of address it. I think there was a study done with corticosteroids for a particular condition where it was found that large intermittent dosing worked better than less daily, that is where the idea came from years ago. I just wondered if anyone had any further personal experience with it.
There are currently 0 members watching this topic