TRT to Supraphysiological Levels for Body Building

[tareload]

So you want the easy way out by using steroids?

I would flip the logic a little and argue one should take the hard way out and exhaust all the other options (get those all "right"/"correct"/"95% of perfect") before you allow yourself to consider the AAS option.

(see 7:35 and 8:55 / 9:33 a little tongue and cheek)

Make sure your aware of the risk/reward and understand that the risks don't seem too bad until they happen to you.

Of course this requires years of training without PEDs to understand what your "natural" limit is or at least 95% of it.

 

[Kenny Croxdale]

Eating rice, broccoli, and chicken breast is no way to live, especially because I'm a huge foodie and amateur chef and enjoying unhealthy meals is a principal enjoyment of life for me.

Not Necessary

This typical Bodybuilding Diet is not necessarily the only method to increase muscle mass while gaining or maintaining muscle mass.

Secondly, this is NOT a diet that Bodybuilder's live on all year long.

It is their pre-competition diet.

1) Metabolic Flexibility

T Nation Content

Discover a more intelligent approach for getting bigger, stronger, and leaner.

www.t-nation.com

This is a good article by Dr. Mike T. Nelson (Intermittent Fasting Researcher) that touches on how one of his students lost body fat and increased muscle mass while consuming some junk food.

Intermittent Fasting amounts to being able to have you cake and eat it, too.

2) High Protein Diets

When it come to maintaining or gaining muscle mass, one of the keys is protein intake.

Research (Drs. Donald Layman, Layne Norton, et al.) determined that approximately 30 gram of quality protein (meats and dairy) trigger mTOR (the anabolic trigger).

However, around 40 gram of quality protein increased the anabolic, muscle building effect, up to 20%. Source: Perfecting Protein Intake in Athletes: How Much, What, and When?

MATADOR Diet Research

This research demonstrated that decreasing calorie intake from a maintenance diet (one that your weight remained the same) for two week, increased fat loss while maintaining muscle mass.

The decrease in calories is around 20% from your maintenance intake.

After the two week calorie deficit, calorie intake is slightly increased.

This had to do with...

The Law of Adaptation (The General Adaptation Syndrome)

This is a survival mechanism. When subjected to stress, disease, etc., one of two things happens; you adapt or die.

With dieting that means your Metabolic Rate will adjust to your new lower calorie intake after around two week. Thus, results slow down and then completely stop.

Increasing your calorie intake for two weeks, elevates your Metabolic Rate.

Thus, after two weeks of consuming an increase in calories, you Metabolic Rate increases.

You then start over with the two week calorie rotation; dropping you calorie intake starts your fat weight loss while preserving muscle mass.

Gaining Mass On The MATADOR Diet

This means that you increase you calorie above maintenance level for two weeks, approximately 20%.

After two week, then decrease calories for two weeks.

It amount to playing a game with your Metabolic Rate, which enable you to increase muscle mass while minimizing fat gain.

Bodybuilding Bulk and Cut

The MADADOR Diet essentially follows the Bodybuilding Bulk and Cut Method.

However, the issue with Bulking Method used by Bodybuilder jacks up calorie too high. In doing so, they added a lot more body fat.

I’m exploring TRT to increase my TT to the 1,100 range ng/dl as a means of giving me the ability to get a great body while maintaining a somewhat normal diet.

Dosage and Cycle Length

Thing to consider...

1) Starting off with Low Dosage or around 200 mg per week and seeing how it works.

2) Short Cycles

a) Steroids For Health

Steroids For Health

In a lot of ways, Nelson Montana is the prototypical Testosterone reader. He doesn't have any official training in biochemistry he's actually a musician and an actor but he's read everything he's been able to get his hands on, and he can hold his own with a lot of academically trained experts.

www.t-nation.com

This is Nelson Montana's (Bodybuilder) approach.

b) Bill Robert's Two On, Four Off

The 2-On, 4-Off Steroid Cycle: A Case Study

The previous report made of results seen from the 2-on, 4-off cycle did not include any blood work, nor were there any "before" photos taken, and thus

thinksteroids.com

Both Montana and Robert have found short cycles to be effective.

i) As with the MATADOR Diet, most gains will occur in around the first two or three weeks. Once adaptation occurs progress slow down then stops.

ii) Short Cycle mean faster recovery.

Thus, in let's say a three week cycle, recovery occurs in approximately three week, as well.

Research with Testosterone Therapy for men with low Testosterone Levels demonstrated cycling on month and then off one month was effective.

It took a few cycles few months for it to work.

A Randomized Pilot Study of Monthly Cycled Testosterone Replacement or Continuous Testosterone Replacement Versus Placebo in Older Men

A randomized pilot study of monthly cycled testosterone replacement or continuous testosterone replacement versus placebo in older men - PubMed

Cycled testosterone improved body composition and increased muscle strength compared with placebo and increased FSR similarly to continuous testosterone.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Context: Cycling androgens has been reported by athletes to improve physical performance by enhancing muscle mass and strength, a paradigm that has not been studied, and may have clinical value in older men being treated with testosterone.

Results: Total lean body mass was increased and percent fat was reduced after 5 months in TE and MO (P 0.05).

Conclusions: Cycled testosterone improved body composition and increased muscle strength compared with placebo and increased FSR similarly to continuous testosterone. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 96: E1831–E1837, 2011)

Mixed Information

Ironically, many of the post provide some good information combined with misinformation.

Due to your lack of knowledge in this area, it is hard who to believe. However, Nelson definitely has a large knowledge base.

With that said, it you need to...

Do Your Own Home Work

That mean reading the research and gathering empirical data from individual with practical, real world experience.

 

[Gman86]

I’ve always appreciated your zeal for health. I really admire your dedication to diet and having fun. It seems like you have built a lot of good habits that continue to serve you well. I bet you are a really cool guy in person. Thanks for all you offer bro

Wow really appreciate the kinds words. And I agree, u seem like a very open minded, intelligent, progressive and reasonable person anytime I’ve seen u post on here. I think u’d also be a fun and interesting person to hangout with in person. It’s all about being happy in life and trying to help others be happy. I’ve found the happier people are around me, the happier I am. So I just want to always help and encourage everyone to be as happy as they can. On this forum or in real life. And we only get one body and most likely one life, so u got to take care of ur meat vehicle. If u don’t have ur health, u have nothing. I’ve been in the medical field for almost 20 years, and trust me, once ur body starts breaking down and malfunctioning, life stops being so happy and it starts being pretty miserable. So it’s all about the balance between doing what makes u happy, and taking care of ur body so u can enjoy life the way u want to, imo. That balance is gonna look different for everyone, and I’m just here to support whatever someone wants that balance to look like for themselves. Not here to judge anyone and their personal choices. Whatever makes them happy I support.

 

[Warrior]

Lots of great responses here, all true and informative. I am sure their are many on here who like me have experimented with AS in our younger days, which personally lead me to HRT in my late 40s.
Hypogonadism, is really what you have to look forward to when you do AS unsupervised. Genetics play a major role in gaining muscle mass and leanness.

 

[bixt]

This time was a lot easier coming off because of the shit protocol I was put on by dr saya.

Just out of curiosity, what was the shit protocol

 

[Dicky]

I understand your point and it's a good one. We aren't going to get any double blind studies (RCTs) to study AAS dose/cumulative dose vs outcome (insert measurement here). You can gain some insight into plausible (sometimes implausible) mechanisms from the animal/rodent literature (make sure you correct for HED) but even that is fraught with potential error.

I thought the HAARLEM study posted above was decent and gives some reasonable trends:

Frontiers | Anabolic Androgenic Steroids Induce Reversible Left Ventricular Hypertrophy and Cardiac Dysfunction. Echocardiography Results of the HAARLEM Study

Background: The use of anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) is not uncommon among strength athletes. Several cross-sectional studies have linked AAS use to hea...

www.frontiersin.org

For those that missed the above link there's some decent stuff in here:

Microdosing Enanthate

Slightly being defined as past the upper quartile but not double the norm. A TT of 1,200 ng/dL would be considered to be slightly supraphyiological. I will take myself as an example of why treating how a patient feels is as important if not more than maintaining physiological testosterone...

www.excelmale.com

Here's a good plot that gets into the challenge for this particular measurement:

Anavar Kicked In, Erection Checked Out

Table 3 has avg HDL at baseline designated at 1 mmol/l with a standard deviation of ± 0.4. Avg depression in HDL is 0.5 with a standard deviation of 0.4. One could extrapolate from this data that a certain subset of patients had abysmally low HDL (0.1-0.2) following treatment with oxandrolone...

forums.t-nation.com

Anavar Kicked In, Erection Checked Out

Thanks for taking the time to review this. Very nice points that heart disease is multi-faceted and you may or may not be able to track markers with comprehensive blood work. Most guys aren’t going to do this and getting a calcium score has its own cost. I know we have reviewed HL/RCT in my...

forums.t-nation.com

View attachment 19242

At the end of the day the only thing you control is the x-axis and you are somewhere there on the plot (only one data point). The trend by itself makes little difference to you.

Looks like I've got some reading to do tonight. Many thanks for spoon feeding me this research. I do appreciate you posting it.

 

[Dicky]

I would be using considerably more than 60 mg / week of TC currently if I hadn't run into a heart issue which gave me pause.

Forgive me if you have answered this question elsewhere. But what does your protocol look like now after learning of your echo results? If you ended up stopping TRT, are you thinking that you are off the sauce forever?

 

[Vtail]

Study involving dosing to supraphysiological levels.

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.1152/ajpendo.2001.281.6.E1172

 

[Nelson Vergel]

Study involving dosing to supraphysiological levels.

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.1152/ajpendo.2001.281.6.E1172

Yes, it is this one:

Responses of different doses of testosterone injections on body composition, strength, etc.

Comment: 125 mg per week was the lowest dose that provided statistically significant changes in lean body mass and fat mass. PAPER ATTACHED Testosterone dose-response relationships in healthy young men. Bhasin S, et al. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2001 Dec;281(6):E1172-81. Full paper...

www.excelmale.com

Bhasin did one using 600 mg/week for 10 weeks.

The Effects of Supraphysiologic Doses of Testosterone on Muscle Size and Strength in Normal Men | NEJM

Original Article from The New England Journal of Medicine — The Effects of Supraphysiologic Doses of Testosterone on Muscle Size and Strength in Normal Men

www.nejm.org

"We randomly assigned 43 normal men to one of four groups: placebo with no exercise, testosterone with no exercise, placebo plus exercise, and testosterone plus exercise. The men received injections of 600 mg of testosterone enanthate or placebo weekly for 10 weeks. The men in the exercise groups performed standardized weight-lifting exercises three times weekly. Before and after the treatment period, fat-free mass was determined by underwater weighing, muscle size was measured by magnetic resonance imaging, and the strength of the arms and legs was assessed by bench-press and squatting exercises, respectively."

The dose dependency of the action of testosterone on fat-free mass and protein synthesis has not been well studied. Forbes39 proposed a single dose–response curve extending from the hypogonadal to the supraphysiologic range. Others have suggested that there may be two dose–response curves: one in the hypogonadal range, with maximal responses corresponding to the serum testosterone concentrations at the lower end of the range in normal men, and the second in the supraphysiologic range, presumably representing a separate mechanism of action — that is, a pathway of independent androgen receptors.1,40

Supraphysiologic doses of testosterone, with or without exercise, did not increase the occurrence of angry behavior by these carefully selected men in the controlled setting of this experiment. Our results, however, do not preclude the possibility that still higher doses of multiple steroids may provoke angry behavior in men with preexisting psychiatric or behavioral problems.

Our results in no way justify the use of anabolic–androgenic steroids in sports, because, with extended use, such drugs have potentially serious adverse effects on the cardiovascular system, prostate, lipid metabolism, and insulin sensitivity. Moreover, the use of any performance-enhancing agent in sports raises serious ethical issues. Our findings do, however, raise the possibility that the short-term administration of androgens may have beneficial effects in immobilized patients, during space travel, and in patients with cancer-related cachexia, disease caused by the human immunodeficiency virus, or other chronic wasting disorders.

 

[Nelson Vergel]

This is an old (1985) paper that most anabolic steroid research articles refer to. Forbes "predicted" response of anabolic doses versus lean body mass.
Diminishing returns at higher doses.

 

[Nelson Vergel]

I gave you quite a few pieces to read.

Let me know when you've had enough.

https://associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2005.04218.x

From the article:

Adverse effects of anabolic steroids​

The most common reported side-effects were increased libido (61%), changes in mood (48%), reduced testicular volume (46%), and acne (43%). Gynaecomastia and abnormal liver function tests was also a common finding. Despite these effects, only 19% reported that they would not use anabolic steroids in the future [23]. Women athletes tolerate the side-effects of anabolic steroids such as facial hair, aggressiveness, deepening of the voice, and clitoral enlargement [24].

Cardiovascular adverse effects​

Adverse cardiovascular effects induced by anabolic steroids include hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy, impaired diastolic filling, polycythaemia, and thrombosis. Although the incidence of anabolic steroid induced adverse cardiovascular effects is unknown, anaesthetists and surgeons should be aware of the increased peri-operative risks in anabolic steroid abusers who are undergoing elective surgery.


There are several case reports of sudden death associated with exercise among anabolic steroid abusers [25-30]. Weight training and exercise induce ventricular hypertrophy. Some studies suggested that myocardial hypertrophy was more extensive in athletes who used anabolic steroids in addition to exercise [31, 32]. However, a case series study reported that the echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in weight lifters who used anabolic steroids were not different from those did not use them [33]. Ventricular hypertrophy causes impaired isovolumetric relaxation, diastolic dysfunction and fractional shortening [30].


Focal areas of myocardial fibrosis are commonly found at autopsy among anabolic steroid users [26, 27, 30, 34]. It is suggested that focal myocardial fibrosis is caused by rapid myocardial fibre growth outstripping its blood supply, resulting in piecemeal necrosis and subsequent fibrosis [27]. A direct cellular toxic mechanism mediated by disturbances of ion fluxes, and loss of membrane integrity (leading to cell death and fibrosis) has been suggested [14, 35]. These changes are irreversible. The fibrotic areas can potentially act as a focus for a malignant arrhythmia, or if extensive, cause cardiomyopathy.


Animal studies have shown that anabolic agents enhance the pressor response to catecholamines, mediated by inhibition of extraneuronal uptake of neuroamines, and increased vascular response to norepinephrine [36]. These changes may contribute to malignant arrhythmias and cause sudden death during periods of exertion.


Excellent article. Note that blood work on its own may not give the full picture.

View attachment 19219

I made some changes to the table:

 

[tareload]

I made some changes to the table:

View attachment 19296

Thank you, great catch. The text of the article has it right but the table messed it up! Good eye.

 

[Nelson Vergel]

Thank you, great catch. The text of the article has it right but the table messed it up! Good eye.

By the way, I am really happy that you are a member here. I really enjoy your posts. They make me think !!!

 

[tareload]

By the way, I am really happy that you are a member here. I really enjoy your posts. They make me think !!!

I'm really happy I am a member here, and am grateful that you gave so much to create this site and keep it going. This site makes me think!!

 

[LionTamer]

Hi again everyone and thank you for the lively comments, both critical and supportive. I spent the better part of the last couple of week doing some further research as promised, and here are my responses. [Note that I bracketed all of my specific questions with three forward slashes "///" to make it easier on those who are interested in responding.]

TRT

First, I should state that I think my first post was mistaken (in more ways than one, but in one way in particular), in that I described bringing my TT levels to 1,100 ng/dl as “supraphysiological”. It would be more accurate to call those levels “the upper limit of natural”, as the normal range for healthy men (depending on whom you ask) is 200/300 to 1,100 ng/dl. I think the term supraphysiological should be reserved for those who push their levels to 1,500 ng/dl and beyond. With that in mind, I’m even more convinced now that using TRT to get up to 1,100 would be within the realm of safe. On that note, I think I should press those who criticized me for contemplating TRT citing reasons of health and safety to please be more specific. Forgive me if I missed it, but I wasn’t able to find in any of your responses a specific, significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable health risks, based on objective data, when:

• Using TRT to bring my levels to 1,100; while also
• Monitoring my bloodwork regularly and managing the side effects (donating blood, taking HCG, etc.) to ensure that my labs stay within the normal range; and
• Doing so indefinitely, so that there’s no worrying about my natural levels of production getting shut down (I won’t need endogenous production if I’m committed to TRT for life).

All critical responses were flawed in that they were vague, e.g. @readalot's comment,

“the risks that come with HPTA shutdown and high TT levels”.

Please be specific: ///what is bad about HPTA shut down (assuming you stay on TRT forever) and high TT levels (assuming your bloodwork is fine and your dosing is managed to ensure that it remains so)?///

Or the responses were flawed, describing not the risks of increasing testosterone to upper natural limits but rather of extremely high, exogenous testosterone injections (i.e. bringing my TT to 1,500 or above using synthetic testosterone derivatives or other anabolic steroids). It is quite obvious that testosterone levels that high will put tremendous and unavoidable pressure on your cardiovascular system, liver, etc., but I wasn’t asking about that.

For example, @readalot: your comment,

“Yes, testosterone is an anabolic steroid and don't fall for the BS that testosterone is bioidentical and the other synthetic AAS are the only culprits when it comes to cardiovascular harm.”

was a very good point and elucidated a lot that I don’t know about anabolics. I looked into the studies you referenced, however, and most of them are those that analyzed the effects of extremely high doses of anabolics, not the “upper limits of natural” that I’m talking about.

I can’t emphasize enough the importance of factoring into your response the understanding that I’d be monitoring my bloodwork, keeping my TT under 1,100, and following Nelson’s protocols, a fact which seemed to go ignored in previous responses. This is not the same as carelessly injecting, consequences be damned. I am not asking what the risks of supraphysiological testosterone are: that answer is quite clear. ///I am asking what the risks of increasing testosterone to upper limits of natural, while maintaining good labs, are.///

Supraphysiological Levels & Steroid Cycling

Moving on, I’d now like to discuss supraphysiological testosterone.

“It is OK to do a higher dose testosterone cycle for muscle gain and fat loss. If I was you, the only concern would be how long it would take for me to reach my baseline T level after stopping the cycle. Some guys never go back to that baseline but most do within 6-12 months. Some may try a PCT with hCG and Clomid to accelerate that recovery. But we have very limited data on PCT-assisted HPTA recovery.”

@Nelson Vergel, with your above comment, you got me doing some more research. I looked into steroid cycling and read through your e-book as well as William Llewyn’s “Anabolics” albeit cursorily. As mentioned above, it’s quite clear that using anabolic steroids to bring your testosterone to significantly higher levels is harmful to your health. It’s more difficult, however, to quantify the harm with relation to dosage and length of use.

@Dicky, you made a great point:

“These studies are interesting and can def serve as a warning to potential users. What I dislike about these types of studies is that they usually say something like "AAS use/abuse is associated with (some adverse impact here)". To me it is super annoying that scientific articles are written about this subject, with no quantification of dosages involved.”

Llewyn’s book cites a few studies and concludes:

• “The long-term use of steroids for nonmedical reasons can be a significantly unhealthy practice.” No surprise here, but he also writes:
• “Anabolic/androgenic steroids are among the safest drugs available, at least in a short-term sense. Fatal overdose is not reasonably possible, and the negative health changes such as alterations in cholesterol, blood pressure, hematocrit, and blood clotting (among other things) are very unlikely to manifest in serious bodily harm or death after an isolated cycle. There are rare deaths from such things as stroke and liver cancer in short-term abusers, but such occurrences are statistically extremely rare in light of the millions of people that use these drugs. If you had to comparatively rate the acute risks of AAS abuse, they would be slightly higher than marijuana, but far less than virtually all other illicit narcotics.”

Llewyn’s main point is that many anabolic steroid users abuse steroids, following the “blast and cruise” protocol of getting on a cycle and staying on it indefinitely. These users obfuscate the risks of mild and moderate use. During your cycle, your blood pressure will rise, your heart’s left ventricle will grow, etc. ///But what if this harm is limited to only a 10–12-week period?/// A weekend of heavy drinking is different from lifetime of alcoholism. It’s careless to throw all steroid use into the same bucket and call it all bad.

I know many of you are going to say that, if you only do one cycle, you’ll lose all the gains you made once you stop. However, this doesn’t seem to be what the data says. One cycle whose benefits you maximize through intense exercise in the gym will gain you substantial muscle. Some of it will go away once off, but not all of it. Plus, you’ve pushed your genetic limit and your muscles have memory. The gains you made have lasting benefits. In response to the “one cycle plan” being a fantasy due to the addictive nature of steroids, I think this depends on the individual and their goals. I carry no dreams of having a bodybuilder’s body; just a better one with a more relaxed diet. 10 lbs of additional muscle, accompanied by a moderate degree of fat loss, would be more than enough for me. It also comes down to the individual knowing themselves and knowing whether they can tell themselves to stop.

However, as @Nelson Vergel said, what’s scary about even one cycle is the risk that your natural production will cease permanently. This appears to be the real risk of one steroid cycle, not permanent damage to your cardiovascular system. ///Is this the case even if you follow a solid PCT protocol, though? Is there no way to rule out this risk altogether?/// The thought is to do one cycle and stop (forever).

@DS3, you said you had one cycle with no recovery. ///Did you have a proper PCT protocol? /// You mentioned that there’s no scientific consensus on the effectiveness of any PCT protocol. ///What do others think about his comment? Do they agree?///

Here’s a thought experiment: what if you were to do one steroid cycle (just one, forever), followed by a PCT protocol and, if unsuccessful, go on TRT thereafter. ///Will you do permanent, lasting, material damage to your health from that one cycle?/// ///And if not, can TRT solve the problem of endogenous production shutdown?///

@bixt, you commented,

“Clomid 12.5mg to 25mg ED will probably get you to 1200-1500ng/dl easily and no harm to your HPTA. Thats the safest way to test those levels without harm.”

///Can you go into this in more detail? I read that clomid is a supplementary drug for those who are on steroids and who want to mitigate the feminizing side effects.///

Some Non-Testosterone Ideas

One other PED that I’m considering is ipamorelin combined with CJC-1295, which is a combination of two peptides that synergistically work to stimulate the body’s own release of human growth hormone. It seems like the jury is still out on what the long-term health effects are for this, but ///curious if anyone has any thoughts on this///. My understanding is that the benefit of this over exogenous testosterone is that it doesn’t shut down the body’s own production, so, unlike TRT, it can be tested.

Also, @Kenny Croxdale, great post about the different key elements of building muscle. Your article on metabolic flexibility got me curious, but I was having trouble understanding it. ///Are there any other resources to which you can refer me to learn more about metabolic flexibility and its role in improving body composition?///

Some Philosophy

I’d also like to take a minute to respond to some of the comments that criticize those seeking to learn more about PEDs or supplementation as “lazy” or unwilling to put in the work, glorifying hard work and slow progress. I’m going to have to say, I respectfully disagree. There is no inherent glory in hard work over smart work, and these comments remind me of famous economist, Milton Friedman’s, story:

While traveling by car during one of his many overseas travels, Professor Milton Friedman spotted scores of road builders moving earth with shovels instead of modern machinery. When he asked why powerful equipment wasn’t used instead of so many laborers, his host told him it was to keep employment high in the construction industry. If they used tractors or modern road building equipment, fewer people would have jobs was his host’s logic.

“Then instead of shovels, why don’t you give them spoons and create even more jobs?” Friedman inquired.

Assuming the risks can be managed, I’d prefer not to wait 5 years, kill myself in the gym, and eat like an ascetic to reach my genetic potential. If there is something that will get me there faster, while allowing me to enjoy good food and spend less time in the gym, I’m all for it.

There’s also nothing interesting to me in being “all natural”. Everyone reading this post is on this forum because they have a belief in science. Are protein powders and creatine natural? They’ll certainly get you better results without additional “work”. Or what about perfecting your weightlifting form? You can gain more muscle doing less reps if your form is better, which means you’re working less hard and getting better results. Is that lazy? Seems a bit hypocritical, kind of like all the girls I know who eat only organic, vegan food but snort coke on the weekends.

Similarly, citing PEDs as “cheating” seems a bit naïve. What about all those with amazing genetics who have to work a fraction as hard and with even less dietary discipline but who have bodies of Greek gods? Are they cheating? The cards were rigged at birth.

In reference to the risks inherent in this approach, I encourage us all not to view them so categorically or binarily. We should try and quantify them. We take risks every day, by driving a car, which is much more likely to kill you than TRT, or by having a beer, for which there is much more data on the adverse effects to your health. It’s just up to the individual to weigh the risks and benefits according to his priorities.

Lastly, I want to say that I appreciate all of your comments and responses, even the critical ones. We’re all on here to share advice and help each other, and I know I have a lot more listening than speaking to do, so be sure to speak up if you have something to say. I welcome the feedback, and I thank you for it.

 

[bixt]

I read that clomid is a supplementary drug for those who are on steroids and who want to mitigate the feminizing side effects

I am going to be blunt. Go back do more research. You said you have done research, but this is a prime example of something you have 100% wrong (your claims could be attributed to Nolvadex, not clomid. Clomid, while also a SERM doesnt anecdotally prevent feminising, as does Nolva to some extent). This is worrying, the source of your research.


Also, you did not take my suggestion to go onto bodybuilding boards and state your point their. Go to T nation. Go to professional muscle. Ask bodybuilders bodybuilding related questions, not armchair experts. You will find more appropriate answers. Why ask plumbers electrical related questions? Sure, you will get a technical answer that makes sense to a layman, but its probably wrong. Im a member of multiple BB related forums. I know whats been tried and tested to work and what has failed.

You are wasting your time. If you want to take steroids, take steroids (500mg test/10 weeks).
If you want to take something like 100mg-150mg thinking thats going to get you your stated goals in your stated timeframe, you are sadly mistaken. Its like changing tires that are 6 months old /driven 500 miles. Futile and pointless. And thats assuming your recover your HPTA 100%, which theres no guarantee of. Also assuming your dick and libido still works 100%.

More detail on clomid since you asked: Take 1/4 tablet (12.5mg) everyday, test your testosterone after 5 weeks. It should be around the 1000-1500ng/dl number your are so fixated on. This is the only safe riskless fool proof thing I would do if I were you.

 

[Gladiator]

I would flip the logic a little and argue one should take the hard way out and exhaust all the other options (get those all "right"/"correct"/"95% of perfect") before you allow yourself to consider the AAS option.

(see 7:35 and 8:55 / 9:33 a little tongue and cheek)

Make sure your aware of the risk/reward and understand that the risks don't seem too bad until they happen to you.

Of course this requires years training without PEDs to understand what your "natural" limit is or at least 95% of it.

What

 

[tareload]

First, I should state that I think my first post was mistaken (in more ways than one, but in one way in particular), in that I described bringing my TT levels to 1,100 ng/dl as “supraphysiological”. It would be more accurate to call those levels “the upper limit of natural”, as the normal range for healthy men (depending on whom you ask) is 200/300 to 1,100 ng/dl. I think the term supraphysiological should be reserved for those who push their levels to 1,500 ng/dl and beyond. With that in mind, I’m even more convinced now that using TRT to get up to 1,100 would be within the realm of safe. On that note, I think I should press those who criticized me for contemplating TRT citing reasons of health and safety to please be more specific. Forgive me if I missed it, but I wasn’t able to find in any of your responses a specific, significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable health risks, based on objective data, when:

• Using TRT to bring my levels to 1,100; while also
• Monitoring my bloodwork regularly and managing the side effects (donating blood, taking HCG, etc.) to ensure that my labs stay within the normal range; and
• Doing so indefinitely, so that there’s no worrying about my natural levels of production getting shut down (I won’t need endogenous production if I’m committed to TRT for life).

All critical responses were flawed in that they were vague, e.g. @readalot's comment,

Actually, I think you may have gotten it correct the first time around.

While 1100 ng/dl was historically (and probably still is) in the TT physiologic reference range for adult males (you can look up the work I did enumerating these on T-Nation), what gives you the impression that 1100 ng/dl TT would be physiologic for YOU?

It may be an important distinction for your long term health when considering TRT+/TOT...

What are the side effects of high testosterone?

What are the side effects of high testosterone? If a person has a TT higher than the normal range but has no side effects is that a bad thing? If so, why?

www.excelmale.com

What's physiologic for an individual vs a population of individuals?

What are the side effects of high testosterone?

What are the side effects of high testosterone? If a person has a TT higher than the normal range but has no side effects is that a bad thing? If so, why?

www.excelmale.com

i hope you know where you are on Therapeutic Effect and Toxic Effect dose response curves. I didn't appreciate fully how any uncertainty can get one in trouble before starting down a similar path to what you are proposing.

 

[DS3]

Actually, I think you may have gotten it correct the first time around.

While 1100 ng/dl was historically (and probably still is) in the TT physiologic reference range for adult males (you can look up the work I did enumerating these on T-Nation), what gives you the impression that 1100 ng/dl TT would be physiologic for YOU?

It may be an important distinction for your long term health when considering TRT+/TOT...

What are the side effects of high testosterone?

What are the side effects of high testosterone? If a person has a TT higher than the normal range but has no side effects is that a bad thing? If so, why?

www.excelmale.com

What's physiologic for an individual vs a population of individuals?

What are the side effects of high testosterone?

What are the side effects of high testosterone? If a person has a TT higher than the normal range but has no side effects is that a bad thing? If so, why?

www.excelmale.com

i hope you know where you are on Therapeutic Effect and Toxic Effect dose response curves. I didn't appreciate fully how any uncertainty can get one in trouble before starting down a similar path to what you are proposing.

View attachment 19374

Are you suggesting that there is a dosage in which exogenous testosterone displays toxic effects?

 

[tareload]

Are you suggesting that there is a dosage in which exogenous testosterone displays toxic effects?

A key degree of freedom (that makes your question difficult to answer with a reasonable degree of confidence) is time.

Chronic toxicity or acute toxicity? The figure above, while simplified, is instructive as an introduction. Add time above to make a 3d plot which would consider chronic toxicity.

Most studies I've reviewed and anecdotal / empirical data suggests little to minor acute toxicity with injectable non-17aa AAS (studies exploring injectable AAS - including T - for 4 to 10 weeks).

Regarding chronic toxicity, which is the integral of acute toxicity over time, I'd propose the following;

CT = Integral [f(d, g, Ho, A) dt] | limits of integration from time zero (start use) to endpoint

where
CT is chronic toxicity
d is instantaneous dose
g is genome of an individual
Ho is health markers or "health" at time zero
A is age at time zero

A reasonable mechanistic picture of chronic toxicity (e.g., heart) from supraphysiologic testosterone use can be deduced from the current body of scientific literature as well as anecdotal data points. The old rule of thumb of time on = time off applies to Test cycles just like other AAS cycles. If it didn't we would all be running 1 g of test per week continuously with no consequences (wouldn't that be nice?).

Or if it is simpler, a decent analogy can be made between recreational AAS abuse and cigarettes. Long term the story for a significant fraction of abusers does not end well. At the individual level, what's the outcome of running 1100 or 1500 ng/dl TT for 1 year, 5 years, 10 years continuously? I have no idea. One way to find out.

Report back after a few years. I shared my experience; I sincerely hope you have a better experience. Make sure you make the decision with informed consent.