What's up guys?

Derek Morplace smart aids.com.

Today we're going to be talking about genetic response.

Again, kind of revisiting the performance enhancing protocol model, you know, designing something

that is tailored for an individual, like what are the optimal choices for performance

vectors in fill in the blank sport versus in bodybuilding versus in powerlifting

versus in strongman versus in arm wrestling versus in fucking playing chess whatever it is that you would

be using a performance enhancing compound for how do you know what you should be doing well i have

outlined a general framework for understanding which compounds, you know, really have the best safety profile relative to their efficacy, have, you know, human data to reinforce all of that, are tried and true, have, you know, are more well tolerated than another compound that may yield the exact same amount of muscle accrual, at least on paper.

The thing is, though, is when it comes to practical application of these compounds,

it doesn't always play out where one equals the best for this person, despite it on paper.

You know, anecdotally, years and years of bodybuilders using

it, you know, whatever athlete using it, reinforcing that it is a pretty tried and true compound.

It does not mean that that is going to be a tried and true compound for you.

And what do I mean by that?

So like in general, a framework that a lot of people will follow is you know like a testosterone base and

then you stack anabolic agents on top of that and then you know when you're trying to decide

what those anabolic agents will be you know it kind of depends how prone you are to

estrogenic side effects from your base how higher androgen load has been pushed from the

testosterone base itself.

Do you need any antagonism of estrogen-induced RNA transcription with a compound that is

more inhibitory of that kind of, you know, or has a higher affinity for binding to aromatase

...