mjunkie's picture
mjunkie
  • 173
16715

+ 7 Tren and test fight for the same receptors or is it bullshit internet parroting?

ad

Iv'e been talking about this in several different forums today, and nobody can really provide any proof of this, YES we know tren has a higher binding affinity then test, but so what?! There are thousands of receptors, so fine tren gets there first but that doesn't mean all that test goes to shit and turns to estro, if it did then why run test with it at all? That would be a waste of good gear right? Wrong. Because if you asked anyone who actually did run high test with tren they will tell you they got much BIGGER results, yes sides were higher but the results were bigger, and i didn't say better either-just bigger.

So assuming that tren really does win the receptors every time, then there would have to be a certain amount of tren you would take that would make test completely useless, but when you look at pro BB's all over they are running high dosages of both test and tren and are making huge gains, if this receptor thing is true i am positive they would know that and would not waste 2-3g of test every week.

So my point is that - YES you will get less sides with low test, BUT that doesn't mean the tren is taking up all the receptors and leaving no room for the test to go to. So why are the sides higher with test?? I have no idea. That's what i am trying to figure out myself.

This is all just my take/opinion and if someone can prove me wrong then please go right ahead, i am here to learn after all. Thank you for reading.

snuka2012's picture

I appreciate these type of posts that question conventional wisdom w/ reasoned assertions. This stimulates discussion and though a consensus may not necessarily be reached there's a lot of learning that goes on, especially when the big guns come out. +1 for good sht

mjunkie's picture

Thanks man, hopefully we will get to the bottom of this soon

VIKING EVOLUTION's picture

Agreed great debate!.. to conclude as mentioned earlier my personal test tren ratio would be goal specific due to tren being the only 19nor i can comfortably tolerate,no scientific study led me to that conclusion, the true fact is that 32yrs of trial and error with multiple attempts with different ratios and compounds (test blends) have left me with the current successful stacks i choose to run with minimal or mostly zero bad sides.. again i must outline always goal specific.

Bring more science folks i love to read and have OCD were knowledge is concerned Smile

eastcoastmuscle's picture

i ran high tren, low test last cycle, now i am running high test low tren.. i will let you guys know if i see any difference

mjunkie's picture

Awesome, i suggest getting your bloods taken 3-4 weeks in and check your estro levels, i think this would show how much test is actually being converted, not so accurate but it would give us some sort of idea, obviously you'd have to keep your ai at the same dose you normally would..

P's picture

Great debate, i've got nothing to add, but learned a lot.
+1

Nitti's picture

This thread turned out to be pretty informative. I think it cleared things up a bit. Anyone agree or do you still have questions?

mjunkie's picture

Definitely cleared some things up for me

Nitti's picture

I agree. Good post. +3

mjunkie's picture

thank u nitti, i appreciate it

Nitti's picture

So based on what you've learned from this, will you be using tren at higher doses than test? Just curious

mjunkie's picture

I have and will continue to do it that way. For me 25mg test ED is perfect, no sexual sides, no anxiety, i do get a bit of insomnia but melatonin helps. So, even if the conclusion is that more test 'can' bring bigger gains i won't do it, the sides are not worth the gains IMO.

fast48's picture
mjunkie's picture

So let's say someone is taking 500test/500tren and tren of course beats test to the receptors leaving extra test to turn into estro/dht. Now we have another guy taking 1000mg of test, shouldn't he have the same issues as the other guy because the test is filling up the receptors and there's going to be just as much left over in both cases?

(Not sure if i explained that well enough lol)

fast48's picture

Even on the video from yesterday, the dude said the tren only caused the cows to be too lean. So they added estro because they don't use testosterone. The added estro added MORE mass and marbling(fat). In HUMANS that test that's not used converts to estro and gives us bad side effects. Cows just get killed 2Weeks later. So WE are the gunea pigs. The stronger tren wins receptors(500:500) and leftover test is converted.

mjunkie's picture

yes i think i'm starting to understand, correct me if i'm wrong--test converts to estrogen and tren doesn't so because tren beats test to the receptors, during the time that test is waiting for the tren to "settle down" some or most of it converts to estro/dht causing issues? Whereas when someone takes a gram of test there is no waiting time for the test so there will be no issues?

fast48's picture

I believe Llewellyn stated test converts at the rate of 50%. Tren has no estro conversion. Prolactin raise exacerbates estro raise as well.

mjunkie's picture

so then it isn't really 'leftover' test, it's just test that has been waiting around for too long and converted

fast48's picture

Bingo! Nothing is really just "leftover" . Everything is used, converted, decayed, expelled. Carbs....carbs not used "leftover" can be stored in liver or as fat. Test is broken down by alpha5reductase. Broken Dow, converted....used in a different way.

mjunkie's picture

this clears a lot up for me, i was under the impression that tren was taking up all the receptors leaving no room for the test, which wouldn't make sense for reasons listed..

fast48's picture

Tren is strong enough to take more receptors. Test fills in til there's excess. Both tren and test breakdown and the cycle continues as long as injections do.

Nitti's picture

CAN ANYONE FIND A STUDY OF SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT ALL AAS COMPETE FOR THE SAME AR?

This would be extremely helpful. Not the bro-science that you read on another board. Frankly I don't care what another bodybuilder says (Pro or not) on another board. I know what works best for me. I'd like to see the science behind it. I think we need it to better educate the community!!

mjunkie's picture

But if all aas competed for the same AR then wouldn't any other compound with tren would cause side effects? Not just test..

Nitti's picture

I remember reading about a different reaction after strenuous activity. A different kind of receptor taking in androgens. So there is the AR and there are other receptors at work. I wish I had the time to read right now. But anyway, what I should have said was a study on the binding affinity of different compounds and what that means when choosing test and tren. Tren hex was once approved for human consumption. They didn just decide to approve it without thorough study. Anyone have a reference?

Nitti's picture

I know the studies exist but they are hard to dig up. Parabolin had to have been studied prior to approval and I'm sure they compared it to the effectiveness of test for a number if different diseases and or deficiencies

mjunkie's picture

for some reason it is extremely hard to find any studies on it...

Nitti's picture

Either way its am excellent point you bring up and challenges what we think we know. All I can say for certain is I have done it both ways and what you describe is what happened. I had more sides with higher test but the same gains. Why? But I'm not on board with crazy high doses of anything anyway. I'm not at the point where I need a gram or more of test with another gram of another compound. I still make good gains at moderate doses. Praise Jesus!

mjunkie's picture

Nobody is denying that low test high tren is the most comfortable way to run tren, i agree 100% that the less test u add the less sides u will get, but that doesn't prove anything about fighting over receptors. That is just an assumption because 'it makes sense'. Still if anyone came to me for advice about running tren i'd suggest no more then 200mg test. My point was that tren and test fighting for receptors should not be preached as a fact because it IS NOT A FACT. All we know is that lower test=lower sides.

Again, i personally would go with lower test too. This whole discussion is about receptors, and whether there is some truth to it or not. So because we have a limited amount of receptors, at some point/dosage tren will fill every single one of them leaving no room for any test at all, so at that point running test with tren even at a low dose would be pointless. But how do we know what point that is? For all we know we shouldn't be running test at all with tren...but we don't know.

FinMan's picture

I started on tren only cycles and I did PHENOMENALLY good. No libido problems, no real anything problems. I mutated pretty damn well. The I threw in test and have run it with test ever since. It has been different eve since... Not better not worse. Just different. But at this stage of the game and my age... I'm not too sure I wanna try no test again.
BTW... This is probably the best thread I have read on here bar none. Plus one Mjunkie.....
Everyone on here with their input deserves a plus one in fact.

eastcoastmuscle's picture

if thats the case and you are running both, would you shoot the tren everyday while shooting test pro say every other? if the tren falls off more quickly

mjunkie's picture

This is outside my realm of knowledge...i wish i knew all the answers ha

VIKING EVOLUTION's picture

Correct bro... but you certainly got yourself a healthy thread going on here Smile

mjunkie's picture

Yessir this question has been bothering for quite some time, and i wanted to hear what the eroids community has to say about it..

VIKING EVOLUTION's picture

I preffered the chicks and ferraris analogy too... i hate doctors fuck him lmao!

VIKING EVOLUTION's picture

lol.. i have no hate cells in my bod bro.. the tren ate em years back Smile

and you got a +3