Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply US-PHARMACIES UGL OZ
Raptor Labs UGFREAK OxygenPharm
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplyUS-PHARMACIES UGL OZUGFREAKRaptor LabsOxygenPharm

**The Anabolic BRIDGE: By Ross**

Ross

Grand Master Junior
Platinum
The Bridge

By Ross​



Post-cycle regimens containing Aromatase Inhibitors and SERM's are simply not enough for the SERIOUS bodybuilder to maintain his muscular gains post-cycle. Once a bodybuilders reaches a certain point of muscular development, the continued use of a mild anabolic becomes justified..

The steroid user has TWO options:

1.) A Bridge
2.) A Cruise


In this chapter, we discuss the purpose of the BRIDGE.

The Bridge allows you to remain in an anabolic state while simultaneously having a MINIMAL intereference with HPTA function. Once you are FULLY RECOVERED and your PCT is complete, you can begin bridging while awaiting your FULL CYCLE. This will allow you to make GREATER THAN NATURAL GAINS, while still maintaining normal testosterone levels.

Bridging can ONLY be accomplished using a very specific and limited number of compounds. The selected compound must first be MINIMALLY supressive to the HPTA, and secondly, must still be healthy and effective in small dosages.

The following steroid combinations can be used effectively for Bridging.

Anavar/Proviron= 20mgs/25mgs
Anavar/Masteron= 20mgs/300mgs
Primobolan/Masteron= 200mgs/200mgs
Turinabol/Proviron= 30mgs/25mgs
Turinabol/Masteron= 30mgs/300mgs
Winstrol/Masteron= 25mgs/200mgs
Dianabol/Proviron= 15mgs/25mgs
Dianabol/Masteron= 15mgs/200mgs


**ADD AndroGenerator to COMPLETELY minimize HPTA inhibition!


NOT ALL ANDROGENS CAUSE SHUTDOWN*

"Shutdown", is defined by a COMPLETE inhibition of the Pituitary/Testes, resulting in a TOTAL cessation of endogenous androgen production.

SOME androgens will only SUPPRESS endogenous androgen production, resulting in a DECREASED testosterone level, but not a complete shutdown. (Tbol, Var, Wistrol, EQ, Dianabol, masteron, proviron, halo, primo)

Very Androgenic/Progestenic/Estrogenic steroids(Tren, Deca, Drol, Test) cause a COMPLETE shutdown of endogenous hormone production.

The distinction between SUPRESSION and SHUTDOWN is utterly important, as steroids that cause LESS supression of endogenous hormones will allow for greater retention of gains upon ending the cycle, and a quicker, easier PCT.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Horm Metab Res. 1984 Sep;16(9):492-7.Related Articles, Links

Effect of non aromatizable androgens on LHRH and TRH responses in primary testicular failure.

Spitz IM, Margalioth EJ, Yeger Y, Livshin Y, Zylber-Haran E, Shilo S.

We have assessed the gonadotropin, TSH and PRL responses to the non aromatizable androgens, mesterolone and fluoxymestrone, in 27 patients with primary testicular failure. All patients were given a bolus of LHRH (100 micrograms) and TRH (200 micrograms) at zero time. Nine subjects received a further bolus of TRH at 30 mins. The latter were then given mesterolone 150 mg daily for 6 weeks. The remaining subjects received fluoxymesterone 5 mg daily for 4 weeks and 10 mg daily for 2 weeks. On the last day of the androgen administration, the subjects were re-challenged with LHRH and TRH according to the identical protocol. When compared to controls, the patients had normal circulating levels of testosterone, estradiol, PRL and thyroid hormones. However, basal LH, FSH and TSH levels, as well as gonadotropin responses to LHRH and TSH and PRL responses to TRH, were increased. Mesterolone administration produced no changes in steroids, thyroid hormones, gonadotropins nor PRL. There was, however, a reduction in the integrated and incremental TSH secretion after TRH. Fluoxymesterone administration was accompanied by a reduction in thyroid binding globulin (with associated decreases in T3 and increases in T3 resin uptake). The free T4 index was unaltered, which implies that thyroid function was unchanged. In addition, during fluoxymesterone administration, there was a reduction in testosterone, gonadotropins and LH response to LHRH. Basal TSH did not vary, but there was a reduction in the peak and integrated TSH response to TRH. PRL levels were unaltered during fluoxymesterone treatment.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS



[R]
 
The notion that you are either "ON OR OFF" is based on the FALSE ASSUMPTION that all steroids cause HPTA shutdown, when this is NOT TRUE.

I have successfully bridged with MANY COMPOUNDS, meaning, I was able to maintain an AVERAGE testosterone level while still receiving additional anabolic support, allowing me to make MUCH GREATER THAN NATURAL GAINS.

Have I convinced you my bro? :)
 
Ross, no offense, but you're arguing about something by providing evidence from something you've written. how is that evidence? Can we have an accredited source?
 
blackthunder said:
so, it's been a while since I have visited EF. When did Ross get allowed back in?


So this is the ross noone wanted back huh. I didnt want to ask the question my self but not that someone has i guess i know now. :)
 
so you do not have a problem with non-stop use of gear?

the problem i have is there is much more to the equation than just hpta shutdown ---
 
eddymerckx said:
so you do not have a problem with non-stop use of gear?

the problem i have is there is much more to the equation than just hpta shutdown ---

That is a misconception about Bridging, you don't bridge ALL YEAR.

At the most, I stay on a bridge for 3-4 months TOPS.
 
Ross said:
That is a misconception about Bridging, you don't bridge ALL YEAR.

At the most, I stay on a bridge for 3-4 months TOPS.


but the bridge is between one cycle and another--correct?
 
What I'd like to see are some reports and studies that have been done showing people who were shutdown harshly from a major cycle being tested to show how low their hpta was, then being given a smaller dose of different compounds and test being done along the way to show what percentages their hpta increased during the low dose administration.

This is something I've been thinking about, and I thought I remembered reading somewhere that a small dose (10mg) of dianabol hindered hpta recovery none, but provided enough of the compound to preserve muscle gains and strength made during cycle at a much more effective rate.

I'd love to see some studies further into this concerning different compounds.
 
JumpBallWinner said:
What I'd like to see are some reports and studies that have been done showing people who were shutdown harshly from a major cycle being tested to show how low their hpta was, then being given a smaller dose of different compounds and test being done along the way to show what percentages their hpta increased during the low dose administration.

This is something I've been thinking about, and I thought I remembered reading somewhere that a small dose (10mg) of dianabol hindered hpta recovery none, but provided enough of the compound to preserve muscle gains and strength made during cycle at a much more effective rate.

I'd love to see some studies further into this concerning different compounds.

This is absolutely correct!

I have an article published on our SSF forums, just google "Supreme Sports Enhancements"
 
the_alcatraz said:
Ross, no offense, but you're arguing about something by providing evidence from something you've written. how is that evidence? Can we have an accredited source?

Repost.
 
the_alcatraz said:
Horm Metab Res. 1984 Sep;16(9):492-7.Related Articles, Links

Effect of non aromatizable androgens on LHRH and TRH responses in primary testicular failure.

Spitz IM, Margalioth EJ, Yeger Y, Livshin Y, Zylber-Haran E, Shilo S.

We have assessed the gonadotropin, TSH and PRL responses to the non aromatizable androgens, mesterolone and fluoxymestrone, in 27 patients with primary testicular failure. All patients were given a bolus of LHRH (100 micrograms) and TRH (200 micrograms) at zero time. Nine subjects received a further bolus of TRH at 30 mins. The latter were then given mesterolone 150 mg daily for 6 weeks. The remaining subjects received fluoxymesterone 5 mg daily for 4 weeks and 10 mg daily for 2 weeks. On the last day of the androgen administration, the subjects were re-challenged with LHRH and TRH according to the identical protocol. When compared to controls, the patients had normal circulating levels of testosterone, estradiol, PRL and thyroid hormones. However, basal LH, FSH and TSH levels, as well as gonadotropin responses to LHRH and TSH and PRL responses to TRH, were increased. Mesterolone administration produced no changes in steroids, thyroid hormones, gonadotropins nor PRL. There was, however, a reduction in the integrated and incremental TSH secretion after TRH. Fluoxymesterone administration was accompanied by a reduction in thyroid binding globulin (with associated decreases in T3 and increases in T3 resin uptake). The free T4 index was unaltered, which implies that thyroid function was unchanged. In addition, during fluoxymesterone administration, there was a reduction in testosterone, gonadotropins and LH response to LHRH. Basal TSH did not vary, but there was a reduction in the peak and integrated TSH response to TRH. PRL levels were unaltered during fluoxymesterone treatment.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS



[R]
 
xrsist said:
1984... seems you keep up to date with recent studies then lol

lol...

Was just about to say that. Tatyana already said smthg about providing more recent studies.
 
the_alcatraz said:
lol...

Was just about to say that. Tatyana already said smthg about providing more recent studies.

Did the TESTICLES change in the past 20 years?

Is the male HPTA somewhow DIFFERENT than it was in 1984?

LOL, you guys... :Chef:
 
Ross said:
Did the TESTICLES change in the past 20 years?

Is the male HPTA somewhow DIFFERENT than it was in 1984?

LOL, you guys... :Chef:

So let me get this, how come in supplement advertising, they use recent studies in supplements to prove / suggest an increase in natural test levels and gaining "14 lbs of bodyweight in 7 days" or whatever it is your products claim. Why do they come up with recent studies all the time. Is it becuase the human body has undergone some sort of a genetic mutation that I wasn't aware of in the past 20 yrs? Darwin will be flippin in his grave...tsk, tsk, tsk at your comments :)

Fact remains recent studies are credible. Old studies are a thing of the past. Bodybuilding and steroids has evolved immensly over the years.

Look at Arnold when he was Mr. Olympia and look at Jay Cutler now. See the difference?

Provide me with something credible and a recent study, then we have something to argue and discuss. I will NOT accept studies undertaken by the infamous Ross.
 
the_alcatraz said:
So let me get this, how come in supplement advertising, they use recent studies in supplements to prove / suggest an increase in natural test levels and gaining "14 lbs of bodyweight in 7 days" or whatever it is your products claim. Why do they come up with recent studies all the time. Is it becuase the human body has undergone some sort of a genetic mutation that I wasn't aware of in the past 20 yrs? Darwin will be flippin in his grave...tsk, tsk, tsk at your comments :)

Fact remains recent studies are credible. Old studies are a thing of the past. Bodybuilding and steroids has evolved immensly over the years.

Look at Arnold when he was Mr. Olympia and look at Jay Cutler now. See the difference?

Provide me with something credible and a recent study, then we have something to argue and discuss. I will NOT accept studies undertaken by the infamous Ross.

LOL, I didn't conduct those studies my friend. They are published in PubMed, they are highly reputable, believe what you want my man. :)
 
Ross said:
LOL, I didn't conduct those studies my friend. They are published in PubMed, they are highly reputable, believe what you want my man. :)

I'm not tryin to bust ur balls or un-credit you or anything like that. I have nothing against you. I'm just saying that why would I look at studies made in 1984...I read that book...people back then were different....steroids weren't as big as they are now.
 
I've bridged with 10mg Dbol every morning, and 10iu slin post workout (4 x EW), for 10 weeks between cycles.
It worked well for me.
 
Liquid2006 said:
Ross im still waiting on my free bottle of Andogenerator from months ago, lol.

What is your order#?

Have I spoken to you before? Have you called our customer service: 1800-777-0901?

Please don't make it seem like our customer service is lacking when you failed to even contact us. We respond to all emails within 24 hours and all orders are shipped within 24 hours.

I'll take care of this right away, just provide your order #.
 
the_alcatraz said:
I'm not tryin to bust ur balls or un-credit you or anything like that. I have nothing against you. I'm just saying that why would I look at studies made in 1984...I read that book...people back then were different....steroids weren't as big as they are now.


If the studies were properly performed and the data is good, there is no reason to discredit a study just because it is 20+ years old.

And to say that steroids aren't as big back then as they are now is just false...they didn't have the AI's or as many exotic drugs, but in 84 they weren't a controlled substance in the US...I would bet that usage might have been higher.

Yes, we know more about steroids and pct and other facets of supplementation than we did then, but that doesn't mean that studies are outdated. I myself am a scientist, and to discredit a study just because of its publishing date is...well, unscientific.

I see Ross as an addition to this board. His writing is articulate and motivating, so what if he pushes his products? Wouldn't you if you had a vested interest? Lay off the guy...
 
Sensational said:
If the studies were properly performed and the data is good, there is no reason to discredit a study just because it is 20+ years old.

And to say that steroids aren't as big back then as they are now is just false...they didn't have the AI's or as many exotic drugs, but in 84 they weren't a controlled substance in the US...I would bet that usage might have been higher.

Yes, we know more about steroids and pct and other facets of supplementation than we did then, but that doesn't mean that studies are outdated. I myself am a scientist, and to discredit a study just because of its publishing date is...well, unscientific.

I see Ross as an addition to this board. His writing is articulate and motivating, so what if he pushes his products? Wouldn't you if you had a vested interest? Lay off the guy...

+1 minus the scientist part lol
 
Sensational said:
If the studies were properly performed and the data is good, there is no reason to discredit a study just because it is 20+ years old.

I totally agree. A properly conducted scientific study/experiment does not lose any credibility over time. Facts are facts.

What should scientists do then? Redo all experiments over 10 years old?

Sure, advances are made over time, but they are usually based on older relevant studies/experiments.

For example, most of Einstein's theories are as relevant today as they were a century ago, and most modern physics is based on them.
 
tropo said:
I totally agree. A properly conducted scientific study/experiment does not lose any credibility over time. Facts are facts.

What should scientists do then? Redo all experiments over 10 years old?

Sure, advances are made over time, but they are usually based on older relevant studies/experiments.

For example, most of Einstein's theories are as relevant today as they were a century ago, and most modern physics is based on them.


yea, but this gravity thing is just a fad...








oh, wait, i just looked at myself in the mirror...maybe not a fad

still, scientific studies must be viewed in light of other factor--as in who funded it etc and abstracts are not studies---what are the qualifcations, limitations, adverse events etc......sorry, no access to pub med--nor would i understand it anyway.
 
start wearing compression shorts bro. they wont hang to your knees then :)

eddymerckx said:
yea, but this gravity thing is just a fad...








oh, wait, i just looked at myself in the mirror...maybe not a fad

still, scientific studies must be viewed in light of other factor--as in who funded it etc
 
Top Bottom