Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
sarms-forsaleUGFREAKeudomestic
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsSarms for SaleUGFREAKeudomestic

Bro-Science Simplified

Here's one ...for all you lads who love "real scientific studies" and demand them whenever you can't comprehend a perspective.

Show me ONE SHREAD OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, that taking a steroid that needs to be injected daily is better for short cycles than one that is released slowly over the course of a week. Not only is that "bro-science" it's stupid as hell. And yet how may times have you heard that one?

Anyone?
 
^^^ learn how half lives work.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9876028/

no you can't run test cyp or E for 3 weeks and get the most out of it cause it won't even peak yet !!

Half lives just detect the presence of the metabolites. Deca can be detectable up to 6 months after injection. It sure isn't building muscle 6 months after injection!

So thank you -- you just proved how little you know, AND, on top of it, you're arrogant about it. THAT is bro science in a nutshell. You know a little bit, post a study and Voila! you think you're better informed. The truth is , I've been reading what you've been writing for some time now and you have no right telling anyone how to use these compounds. You are truly ignorant on the subject and only interested in selling crap to unsuspecting kids.
 
deca half life is 15 days, meaning that after 15 days half will be leftover.
deca detection time is up to 18 months, meaning that potentially you can piss positive for it up to 16 months from the time you take it

detection time and half life are 2 different things. COMPLETELY different things

how sad for you that we can pull up real information today, gone are the 80's when you were writing for magazines publishing trash with zero citations or studies to back them up. it must trigger you so much that people can look up actual science and facts and no longer just take 'bro advice' from the likes you of anymore and just believe it

now ZIP IT and stop insulting staff :)
 
Last edited:
deca half life is 15 days, meaning that after 15 days half will be leftover.
deca detection time is up to 18 months, meaning that potentially you can piss positive for it up to 16 months from the time you take it

detection time and half life are 2 different things. COMPLETELY different things

how sad for you that we can pull up real information today, gone are the 80's when you were writing for magazines publishing trash with zero citations or studies to back them up. it must trigger you so much that people can look up actual science and facts and no longer just take 'bro advice' from the likes you of anymore and just believe it

now ZIP IT and stop insulting staff :)

Ooh, you're staff! Now, I'm impressed. Once again, you completely lost the point. And you're conflating two separate points. It's very difficult trying to explain logic to someone who has no comprehension of it.
 
deca half life is 15 days, meaning that after 15 days half will be leftover.
deca detection time is up to 18 months, meaning that potentially you can piss positive for it up to 16 months from the time you take it

detection time and half life are 2 different things. COMPLETELY different things

how sad for you that we can pull up real information today, gone are the 80's when you were writing for magazines publishing trash with zero citations or studies to back them up. it must trigger you so much that people can look up actual science and facts and no longer just take 'bro advice' from the likes you of anymore and just believe it

now ZIP IT

bro i gonna call cops on you for elder abuse

you just PWNED her hard. lolz

 
deca half life is 15 days, meaning that after 15 days half will be leftover.
deca detection time is up to 18 months, meaning that potentially you can piss positive for it up to 16 months from the time you take it

detection time and half life are 2 different things. COMPLETELY different things

how sad for you that we can pull up real information today, gone are the 80's when you were writing for magazines publishing trash with zero citations or studies to back them up. it must trigger you so much that people can look up actual science and facts and no longer just take 'bro advice' from the likes you of anymore and just believe it

now ZIP IT and stop insulting staff :)

While understanding both of these (and of importance to some (tested for example)) I suspect the point is about what people actually use the roid for - results.

There's also the usual reason for an ester that takes ages to build up to vs one that's quicker to 'max out' and it's less results and more 'less or more pinning'.

Hence the idea of calling all the rest BroScience. Neither of you will win a prize for arguing the toss vs actually growing, adding muscle or getting stronger. It's up there with watching the super slow protocol guys arguing about a 3 second rep vs a 6 second one all the while possessing a 12-inch arm
 
While understanding both of these (and of importance to some (tested for example)) I suspect the point is about what people actually use the roid for - results.

There's also the usual reason for an ester that takes ages to build up to vs one that's quicker to 'max out' and it's less results and more 'less or more pinning'.

Hence the idea of calling all the rest BroScience. Neither of you will win a prize for arguing the toss vs actually growing, adding muscle or getting stronger. It's up there with watching the super slow protocol guys arguing about a 3 second rep vs a 6 second one all the while possessing a 12-inch arm

Actually that is my very point. What works? That's should ALWAYS be the objective! But when people think a short acting ester is better for short cycles, it's just such a misconception -- but that's neither here nor there. Where is the "scientific evidence of it?" It's just speculation. (As stupid as it may be, it's still speculation, aka, "bro-science")

Now we can argue if it's a valid one, but THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC STUDIES TO PROVE IT, and that is EXACTLY what everyone has been trying to pin on me. Ergo, it's hypocritical and ignorant on their part. But really, it's just a joke at this point. And getting them to see the reasoning is like trying to teach a pig how to sing -- it's a waste of time and it just annoys the pig.
 
Holy shit fukkk.

The thing about endocrinology is that it is incredibly complex. And the scientific studies are mostly specific to specific pharmaceutical medications/hormones. Individuals can have vastly different results and thus an endo is usually involved. Even with the endocrinologist the field is behind.
We all know that endos are behind. But they have to stick within certain government regulations and things they have learned/prescribing guidelines.
Not to mention 'abusing' them like we do isn't studied at all.

The absolute sheer complexity of hormones is the exact reason why we have this broscience problem.

One bro will have amazing success with specific doses of compounds and ai and sware that's how you do it. But he has to know what works for him is differnt to somone else.
In the end it's about gaining as much 'broscience' experience as you can while you Guinea pig on yourself and learn what works for you. Using the broscience as a guide...
But the reality is..... It's the blind leading the blind.

Not to mention the individuals/athletes/celebrities that have worked it out really well keep that shit a secret. For competitive reasons amongst others.

Then you have factors like ugl dosing variations, fake products, incorrectly labelled. You name it.


No one should be sooo sure of themselves that they know 100% anything in the way we use gear.
Its a fatal flaw actually.

So unless you're 'the rock' or arnold with a team of PHD elites prepping your gear/bloods ect than unfortunately it's mostly broscience for you.
 
Actually that is my very point. What works? That's should ALWAYS be the objective! But when people think a short acting ester is better for short cycles, it's just such a misconception -- but that's neither here nor there. Where is the "scientific evidence of it?" It's just speculation. (As stupid as it may be, it's still speculation, aka, "bro-science")

Now we can argue if it's a valid one, but THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC STUDIES TO PROVE IT, and that is EXACTLY what everyone has been trying to pin on me. Ergo, it's hypocritical and ignorant on their part. But really, it's just a joke at this point. And getting them to see the reasoning is like trying to teach a pig how to sing -- it's a waste of time and it just annoys the pig.

So if running test e for 3 weeks how would it be run?
If you run 100mg prop Ed for 3 weeks you have very consistent blood levels. That's 700 a week. So 2.1g in 3 weeks. If running test e would you inject 2.1g on day one and that's it? Just think about it.
The test e will follow the curve on the graph and peak and slowly taper off as per its half life.
100mg prop ED is superior no question. But that's just my 2 cents.
If you can explain how enanthate is better than go for it.
 
We can use deductive reasoning by being educated on as many scientific studies as possible as well as broscience to try to come to the best logical conclusion as to what might work best in the area of 'steroid abuse'.
 
So if running test e for 3 weeks how would it be run?
If you run 100mg prop Ed for 3 weeks you have very consistent blood levels. That's 700 a week. So 2.1g in 3 weeks. If running test e would you inject 2.1g on day one and that's it? Just think about it.
The test e will follow the curve on the graph and peak and slowly taper off as per its half life.
100mg prop ED is superior no question. But that's just my 2 cents.
If you can explain how enanthate is better than go for it.

Your question ia separate issue (Which I'll answer). The original point is that people think short esters are better for 6 weeks cycles and long esters are better for 16 weeks cycles and that is simply a guess -- and a dumb one. At any rate, there's no scientific evidence for it. It's just attempting to use logic, but it's off base. Meanwhile, I can give a detailed answer to something and the response I get from the message board morons is is -- "where's the scientific evidinece?" Eh, it's just tiresome.

As to your question...

If you wanted to do a short cycle, yes the test e will have a curve, but it's only a matter of a couple of days. It takes about two days to peak, after which it remains stable for a few days and then slowly dissipates over the course of two days. But if you're injected 2-3 times a week for 8 weeks, what's the difference? It'll provide relatively the same dosage throughout.

Now if you pin everyday, there's are still peaks. It'll hit hard and peak fast and then die out pretty quickly. And that's daily. How does that make it better for a short cycle? It makes no sense.

If you wanted 700 mgs of test enth a week, do 200 on monday, 200 on wednesday, 200 on friday and 100 on saturday. After a couple of weeks that'll provide a pretty stable dose in your system.

So tell me -- why wouldn't that work for a 4 week cycle? And why couldn't daily pinning of prop work for a 16 week cycle?

The only difference is that the enth would provides a slight taper for a few days at the end -- which is actually a good thing. But still..you hear guys saying short esters for short cycles and long esters for long cycles. Not only is it not necessarry, it's convoluted logic. Hence, bro-science. AND there are no studies to back it up, but all the "bros' love to use that argument when it's something they disagree with.
 
Your question ia separate issue (Which I'll answer). The original point is that people think short esters are better for 6 weeks cycles and long esters are better for 16 weeks cycles and that is simply a guess -- and a dumb one. At any rate, there's no scientific evidence for it. It's just attempting to use logic, but it's off base. Meanwhile, I can give a detailed answer to something and the response I get from the message board morons is is -- "where's the scientific evidinece?" Eh, it's just tiresome.

As to your question...

If you wanted to do a short cycle, yes the test e will have a curve, but it's only a matter of a couple of days. It takes about two days to peak, after which it remains stable for a few days and then slowly dissipates over the course of two days. But if you're injected 2-3 times a week for 8 weeks, what's the difference? It'll provide relatively the same dosage throughout.

Now if you pin everyday, there's are still peaks. It'll hit hard and peak fast and then die out pretty quickly. And that's daily. How does that make it better for a short cycle? It makes no sense.

If you wanted 700 mgs of test enth a week, do 200 on monday, 200 on wednesday, 200 on friday and 100 on saturday. After a couple of weeks that'll provide a pretty stable dose in your system.

So tell me -- why wouldn't that work for a 4 week cycle? And why couldn't daily pinning of prop work for a 16 week cycle?

The only difference is that the enth would provides a slight taper for a few days at the end -- which is actually a good thing. But still..you hear guys saying short esters for short cycles and long esters for long cycles. Not only is it not necessarry, it's convoluted logic. Hence, bro-science. AND there are no studies to back it up, but all the "bros' love to use that argument when it's something they disagree with.

I don't run short cycles. I blast/cruise 8+years now. But from my knowledge...


No one's saying you 'can't' run long esters for a short cycle. Buuut...
I can see several reasons why short esters may be the superior choice for a short cycle.
Firstly they kick in straight away. It's extremely controlled. You can jump straight to prop, npp/tren ace 100mg ED and you're ON. within a few days of stopping if the person needs to run pct boom it's so controlled. They don't have lingering low levels of hormone in their system preventing PCT.

Why run a short cycle? Maybe the ability to stop when/if sides pop up. Hence the INCREASED level of control over what's happening during the short cycle is the exact reason why people use short esters and run short cycles...

You litterally only run a short cycle for reasons that include control. Greater control IS the desired outcome of short cycles and short esters.

Annnd absolutely, iv pinned tren ace every day for 10 weeks....
The short ester gave me the ability to control when to stop. Had I experienced heaps of sides I could have cut it short to a 'short' cycle.

I don't know if I can explain it any simpler. But yes, short esters are better for short cycles. Long esters for long cycles. It's no hard and fast rule. But the chosen ester will match the users desirable cycle length for a multitude of reasons.

But hopefully now I have opened your perspective. I think now you might understand.
 
I don't run short cycles. I blast/cruise 8+years now. But from my knowledge...


No one's saying you 'can't' run long esters for a short cycle. Buuut...
I can see several reasons why short esters may be the superior choice for a short cycle.
Firstly they kick in straight away. It's extremely controlled. You can jump straight to prop, npp/tren ace 100mg ED and you're ON. within a few days of stopping if the person needs to run pct boom it's so controlled. They don't have lingering low levels of hormone in their system preventing PCT.

Why run a short cycle? Maybe the ability to stop when/if sides pop up. Hence the INCREASED level of control over what's happening during the short cycle is the exact reason why people use short esters and run short cycles...

You litterally only run a short cycle for reasons that include control. Greater control IS the desired outcome of short cycles and short esters.

Annnd absolutely, iv pinned tren ace every day for 10 weeks....
The short ester gave me the ability to control when to stop. Had I experienced heaps of sides I could have cut it short to a 'short' cycle.

I don't know if I can explain it any simpler. But yes, short esters are better for short cycles. Long esters for long cycles. It's no hard and fast rule. But the chosen ester will match the users desirable cycle length for a multitude of reasons.

But hopefully now I have opened your perspective. I think now you might understand.

Long esters kick in fully after 24 hours. Is that really a big factor in a 12 week cycle? You're not maing any sense. You're just following the bro science.
 
Long esters kick in fully after 24 hours. Is that really a big factor in a 12 week cycle? You're not maing any sense. You're just following the bro science.

So deca/tren e kicks in like magic?
So running tren ace to cut a cycle SHORT in case of sides has no merit?
Fuk me dead. When people talk about the fuk wits and broscience bullshit Ur the exact fukin iddddiot they are talking about. You're the problem. You! it's you man... Holy shit fuker
 
It's all in Ur first post man... It screams 'analy retentive retard'.

Sorry man I cannot deal... Check Ur hormone levels. They're out
 
Also, the saying is actually this - the more you know about a subject, the more you realise you don't know.

Dumb people think they know everything. They have no idea how complex and deep everything gets.
So they are over confident in what they say and believe.

Smart people that perhaps do a little bit of research on many subjects realise that the more they know, the deeper and more complex each subject actually becomes. And they realise they actually don't know fuck all.
This in turn gives the smarter people less confidence in what they say.

So see what happens now with fb and all that. The idiots preach all the bullshit and think they know it all. While the intelligent ones who know how complex every topic can get aren't as loud or 'absolute certain'
 
Also, the saying is actually this - the more you know about a subject, the more you realise you don't know.

Dumb people think they know everything. They have no idea how complex and deep everything gets.
So they are over confident in what they say and believe.

Smart people that perhaps do a little bit of research on many subjects realise that the more they know, the deeper and more complex each subject actually becomes. And they realise they actually don't know fuck all.


This in turn gives the smarter people less confidence in what they say.

So see what happens now with fb and all that. The idiots preach all the bullshit and think they know it all. While the intelligent ones who know how complex every topic can get aren't as loud or 'absolute certain'

Well, you're obviously a moron, so there's no point discussing it any further.
 
Back
Top Bottom