Two very good responses -
lean said:
TT is an extreme case, i don't know that it's instructive.
body builders are able to maintain some hypertrophy beyond they're natural gains . . .
Ok. KEY to this statement is "beyond their (sic) natural gains". We don't really know that this is true. Neither do the body builders. We can, imo, take it as truth if amended by the modifier "during that time period". I.e. if they cycle a gain period for 6 weeks - at 12 weeks they could still have more mass than they would have had if they had only done the same sets and reps over the 12 weeks naturally. Feel free to correct the timeframes, I'm speaking hypothetically. What I am saying is that eventually, with continued training they would have gotten to the same spot naturally. Another way to look at it is this: eventually, even WITH the supplemented gain period, AND with continued training, their mass will return to the level that their natural hormone production levels will support.
. . .even when they cycle "off" which they must do to overcome burnout/disaster. this is in fact, the real determinant of a successful program. adding mass while using anabolic androgenic steroids for a few weeks is actually the easy part, success is really measured by how well losses are limited when drugs are removed from the equation to restore some hormonal balance. female hormones are even sometimes added to limit side effects and to kick start the production of natural male hormones ie saving as many ill gotten gains as possible. after a short period of time the cycle begins again, probably with a different or percieved to be better cocktail of anabolics, followed by an off cycle, and so on and so on...
i think (my opinion) adaptations are more lasting than it appears through your posts but i could be misinterpreting your meaining. my thinking is that if someone uses AAS's skillfully for 10 years it may be a few years until the PE/hypertrophy/etc have completely faded if, and this is a very important if, they continue dedicated training.
Btw - very good description of the gain process. Now, note the highlighted portion. Ok - and maybe so. You think they might maintain some hypertrophy for a few years. I don't think any such gain (the unnatural, supplemented portion) would last that long. I'm saying weeks, or at best, a few months. But, this is not my field, and I am not aware of any long-range studies of this. You might be.
sideshadow said:
I suppose due to the negative feedback, that might occur, this could happen, but I don't think if you do it correctly and conservatively that you will return completely to baseline levels if you keep training. What do you think about GH/IGF-1?
Notice I didn't comment on growth hormones. I think, from what I've read, this is the most promising area, when looking for long-term results and benefits. However, also from what I've read, we ain't there yet. Not by a long shot. Our knowledge of how this stuff works is woefully inadequate to insure a long-term low risk benefit. It's like interferon - supposedly we have refined and duplicated a natural occurring body substance. But, our knowledge of how it works is so incomplete that administering interferon is still "chemotherapy" - therapy by chemicals - with results far less positive than one would have thought 50 years ago when it was first played with. Does it help? Yes. Is it as good a discovery as penicillin? No way. The same with growth hormones. A lot of promise, not a lot delivered, and no real surety of WHAT is delivered long-term.
. . .Mmm, what would be the point of an study on the effects of EPO without administration of EPO? Those studies simply show that EPO produces effects, other than simply increasing [Hb], which of course will return to baseline when rhEPO is discontinued. The question is, in the context of a professional athlete, who has used rhEPO for years and who has a training stimulus nearly every day, will these changes (increased mitochondrial mass and increased vessel density) return to the levels they once were? If we had a study showing it either way I wouldn't ask. Neither mitochondria nor endothelial cells need continuous EPO stimulation, above baseline levels, to prevent destruction or to keep functioning. So why should it reverse?
I will accept that if those changes do occur they won't allow the athlete to perform supra-physiologically (>6w/Kg) but they could possibly get as close as possible, possibly closer than they ever could've without it.
Thanks. I'm not saying I'm sure one way or the other, just asking the question.
Notice I specified that these results were detailed DURING the administration of EPO. It is clear from your response, that you understand this, but many other readers will not, if it is not clear.
You say you see no reason for those changes that occur to revert. And, that you are not aware of studies looking at these changes long-term. Neither am I. However, normal cell death, while apparently reduced during the study, still occurs. Why would the new replacement cells imitate the artificially enhanced cells? Even according to the evidence referred to by this study, one would not expect that to happen. So, best possible situation would be that the changes stuck around so long as some of the cells that got changed stuck around and functioned. As those cells die and get replaced, part of the natural process, one would expect regression to the natural, pre-enhancement, levels, yes? The question, and I think you said the same thing, pretty much, is then - which cells get changed, and how long do they normally live? I know, for red blood cells, this is normally a fairly rapid process (rbc life cycle ~ 105-120 days). Similar for liver cells. Muscle cells go for years.
Actually, thinking about the cell aging process - I might have to change my opinion. Above, lean mean & green thinks that the reversion process might take years. If some of the hypertrophy adaptation to
gtg - I'll finish this later.
Back. Srry. Ok - had to tcob. Now, to stop and think WHY I originally came to the conclusions I've held to. It is because we know, through what research exists, and practical experience, that most of the effect of steroids and O2 vector doping is gone within weeks of cessation. Most is gone within days. Given that we have decades worth of testing that could still be done - in other words we don't have a lot of answers yet that we could have - I will grant the possibility that SOME benefit may be retained for years. I am still very sceptical, but it could be. I would have to estimate 10% or less, but that could still be significant in certain cases. But this could account for my experience and reading indicating benefit retention measured in weeks, and L M & G's experience and reading leading him to believe there is some benefit that could be measured in years.