TRT to Supraphysiological Levels for Body Building

[DS3]

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.

Despite the highly theoretical nature of your position, I would be inclined to agree that there would be a dosage of exogenous testosterone that, after long periods of exposure would bring about some toxic effects to the body; neural apoptosis is currently cited in the literature. However, the continuous circle we go around in this forum is what is that dosage?

There’s been a prevailing thought among a few influential members of this forum that posit the toxic number to be anything greater than the currently accepted statistical mean testosterone levels.

Though not explicitly stated, advice given to many new members on this forum is to lower exogenous testosterone dosage down to a level that produces TT near the statistical average, and all/most all side effects will resolve.

Tell me @readalot, what body of literature or strong anecdotal evidence are you referring to when you position your argument that a total testosterone of ~1200 ng/dL is reaching a toxic level?

 

[tareload]

I take it you don't want to read/review/analyze/pick apart/make your own conclusions on the sizeable amount of material I provided above on myself as well as data from the scientific literature?

Have you opened and read any of the links I shared above? My experience I detailed above is important for me but perhaps not applicable for the OP. Have you taken a gander at some of the rodent studies I shared, then calculated an HED, then estimated serum TT levels based on the PK model data in the literature? Is it perfect, no. Does it give one pause? I should hope so.

Am I going to share a detailed RCT study showing the effects of 1200 ng/dl TT for a representative sample of men over 1, 5 and 10 years? No, that study doesn't exist.

It's not just what dosage, it's what dosage for what individual. Given what we know about math and statistics, its easy to show that most dudes on here never touched 1200 ng/dl at 18 to 20 years old. Now in their 30s and 40s, they are given T regimens to put them at 1500 ng/dl peak and 800 or 900 ng/dl trough or higher. Regarding your point about advice given on here, I'll reiterate my comment about what's physiological for a given individual or even what was physiological for an individual at 20 years of age. Caution does seem to be in order.

Edit:
====
@Dicky sorry I didn't answer your question sooner. See below.
====
BTW, full disclosure I am currently at 60 mg/ week TC (about 800 ng/dl TT peak and 400 ng/dl trough) and my exercise capacity and arrythmia seems to have improved. I am interested in doing another echo in 6 months to see if there's any heart remodeling of the diastolic dysfunction that was picked up.

 

[DS3]

I take it you don't want to read/review/analyze/pick apart/make your own conclusions on the sizeable amount of material I provided above on myself as well as data from the scientific literature?

Have you opened and read any of the links I shared above? My experience I detailed above is important for me but perhaps not applicable for the OP. Have you taken a gander at some of the rodent studies I shared, then calculated an HED, then estimated serum TT levels based on the PK model data in the literature? Is it perfect, no. Does it give one pause? I should hope so.

Am I going to share a detailed RCT study showing the effects of 1200 ng/dl TT for a representative sample of men over 1, 5 and 10 years? No, that study doesn't exist.

It's not just what dosage, it's what dosage for what individual. Given what we know about math and statistics, its easy to show that most dudes on here never touched 1200 ng/dl at 18 to 20 years old. Now in their 30s and 40s, they are given T regimens to put them at 1500 ng/dl peak and 800 or 900 ng/dl trough or higher. Regarding your point about advice given on here, I'll reiterate my comment about what's physiological for a given individual or even what was physiological for an individual at 20 years of age. Caution does seem to be in order.

BTW, full disclosure I am currently at 60 mg/ week TC (about 800 ng/dl TT peak and 400 ng/dl trough) and my exercise capacity and arrythmia seems to have improved. I am interested in doing another echo in 6 months to see if there's any heart remodeling of the diastolic dysfunction that was picked up.

You’re life have been reshaped with the event that occurred. I understand that and I hope that you recover to full health (in all seriousness, I do).

However, your event has biased your research. You are out to prove a causal relationship that may not even exist. You use confirmation bias from studies exploring polypharmacy among bodybuilders or highly theoretical rat studies to try and cast doubt on whether or not a causal relationship exists between higher end therapeutic dosages and negative health outcomes. Though, one thing remains: There is no evidence showing that a TT of ~1200 ng/dL, nor 1500 ng/dL for that matter are harmful long term. None. Zero. They aren’t out there.

Do you know what is out there? Several dozen studies from HIV patients using 200 mg nandrolone weekly, 100 mg testosterone and 100 mg nandrolone, or 200 mg testosterone weekly long term with no negative health outcomes.

 

[tareload]

Several dozen studies from HIV patients using 200 mg nandrolone weekly, 100 mg testosterone and 100 mg nandrolone, or 200 mg testosterone weekly long term with no negative health outcomes.

Long term?

Post em up. Thanks for the well wishes.

 

[tareload]

You’re life have been reshaped with the event that occurred. I understand that and I hope that you recover to full health (in all seriousness, I do).

However, your event has biased your research. You are out to prove a causal relationship that may not even exist. You use confirmation bias from studies exploring polypharmacy among bodybuilders or highly theoretical rat studies to try and cast doubt on whether or not a causal relationship exists between higher end therapeutic dosages and negative health outcomes. Though, one thing remains: There is no evidence showing that a TT of ~1200 ng/dL, nor 1500 ng/dL for that matter are harmful long term. None. Zero. They aren’t out there.

Do you know what is out there? Several dozen studies from HIV patients using 200 mg nandrolone weekly, 100 mg testosterone and 100 mg nandrolone, or 200 mg testosterone weekly long term with no negative health outcomes.

The Prevalence of Hypogonadism and the Effectiveness of Androgen Administration on Body Composition in HIV-Infected Men: A Meta-Analysis - PMC

Background: Hypogonadism is a common comorbidity in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected men, although the real prevalence is difficult to be estimated. Moreover, in HIV settings, the efficacy of exogenous testosterone (Te) administration at ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/10/8/2067/pdf

=====
Finally, all the results reported in the present meta-analysis should be cautiously evaluated, considering the high degree of heterogeneity among included studies. This variability is due to the absence of shared evidence-based parameters that are able to measure the lean body compartment, and to the high variability among studies in terms of the inclusion criteria, the mode of measurement of body composition, the androgenic compounds selected, dosages, and scheme and route of administration. In addition, while only a few trials were designed to assess the lean mass compartment change in HIV settings, thus limiting data availability, the androgen therapeutic schemes were offered for a maximum of six months, making long-term considerations impossible [EDIT my comment: most were 12 weeks]. All these parameters should be considered, together with the low quality of the included studies, as depicted in the risk of bias evaluation, suggesting the high levels of difficulty involved in designing a clinical trial in HIV-infected patients.


In conclusion, our systematic review highlights an increased prevalence of hypogonadism in the young to middle-aged HIV-population compared to uninfected men. However, this comorbidity could remain neglected when only TT serum levels are measured. Interestingly, reduced Te serum levels reflect poor disease control, which was related to CD4+ cell count. In HIV-infected men, chronic androgen supplementations seem to exert a significant impact on body composition, particularly affecting the lean mass compartment. Indeed, the androgenic treatment for anabolic purposes in HIV male patients leads to a mild improvement of some body composition parameters, although this is not predictable. Moreover, since the vast majority of trials set up short-term treatment schemes, no data are currently available regarding the long-term effects of androgen administration in a HIV setting. Considering the general frailty of HIV patients and the significant burden of adverse effects that characterizes anabolic androgenic therapy, a personalized and tailored therapeutic approach is mandatory in such patients.

​

=====
Wow, since you played the confirmation bias card, I'll make sure to go through each one of the studies in the supplementary material one by one.

 

[tareload]

The Prevalence of Hypogonadism and the Effectiveness of Androgen Administration on Body Composition in HIV-Infected Men: A Meta-Analysis - PMC

Background: Hypogonadism is a common comorbidity in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected men, although the real prevalence is difficult to be estimated. Moreover, in HIV settings, the efficacy of exogenous testosterone (Te) administration at ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Prevalence of Hypogonadism and the Effectiveness of Androgen Administration on Body Composition in HIV-Infected Men: A Meta-Analysis

Background: Hypogonadism is a common comorbidity in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected men, although the real prevalence is difficult to be estimated. Moreover, in HIV settings, the efficacy of exogenous testosterone (Te) administration at improving body composition remains unclear. Aim...

www.mdpi.com

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/10/8/2067/s1

From the list, here's the study with highest change in TT upon treatment (Knapp 2008):

Effects of a supraphysiological dose of testosterone on physical function, muscle performance, mood, and fatigue in men with HIV-associated weight loss - PubMed

Testosterone increases fat-free mass (FFM) in men infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), but its effects on muscle performance, physical function, mood, and quality of life are poorly understood. Sixty-one HIV-infected men with weight loss were randomized to receive weekly...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.1152/ajpendo.90213.2008

Interesting...these folks were hitting ~1000 ng/dl at trough with weekly injections of 300 mg (16 weeks):

Comments on safety:

Study power:

In summary, I haven't yet found the long term studies you mention. I do see one study which most likely pushed serum peak TT levels to up to ~2000 ng/dl as the trough measured up to 1000 ng/dl (weekly injections of 300 mg/week Test ester). Almost all of these studies simulate something much less than a single Test cycle or blast once you trace back what the weekly dosing did to the serum TT level (see Supplementary Fig S3 Panel A). All of the studies summarized above are short.

Obviously, these are potentially life-saving interventions for people with wasting disease. However, I'll await your claimed data for long-term studies. Maybe we are operating under different definitions of long term.

See for example:

Effects of short-term and long-term danazol treatment on lipoproteins, coagulation, and progression of atherosclerosis: two clinical trials in healthy volunteers and patients with hereditary angioedema - PubMed

Short-term danazol treatment in healthy volunteers was associated with a reduction in HDL-C levels without a significant effect on endothelial function or coagulation parameters. In contrast, patients with HAE treated for >2 years with danazol had increased activation of coagulation, but there we …

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Hey, even one year would be nice.

 

[tareload]

Grinspoon 2000:

Effects of testosterone and progressive resistance training in eugonadal men with AIDS wasting. A randomized, controlled trial - PubMed

In contrast to anabolic therapies that may have adverse effects on metabolic variables, supervised exercise effectively increases muscle mass and is associated with significant positive health benefits in eugonadal men with AIDS wasting.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.7326/0003-4819-133-5-200009050-00010

 

[DS3]

Grinspoon 2000:

Effects of testosterone and progressive resistance training in eugonadal men with AIDS wasting. A randomized, controlled trial - PubMed

In contrast to anabolic therapies that may have adverse effects on metabolic variables, supervised exercise effectively increases muscle mass and is associated with significant positive health benefits in eugonadal men with AIDS wasting.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.7326/0003-4819-133-5-200009050-00010

View attachment 19401

View attachment 19402

Dang. Someone spent all night ruminating.

I went back and reviewed the studies I was referring to as long term and you are correct. The majority of interventions were 16 weeks or less. One would surmise the reason for these trials was to prove clinical effectiveness of the anabolics as opposed to potential long-term consequences.

In the spirit of non-biased (as much as one can be) research, I did in fact find a retrospective correlations study on HIV+ men showing a higher rate of CVE following long-term TRT.

Long-Term Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT) Use in HIV Patients and New Cardiovascular Events (CVE)

Background. Testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) is used in HIV positive males for hypogonadism. Recent reports suggest that TRT may result in increased

academic.oup.com

Now, looking at your position, this study gives you a modicum of fodder. However, despite the HIV studies being shorter term trials than I had remembered, that little red herring we just followed doesn’t detract from the lack of evidence you can produce regarding the causal relationship between higher end therapeutic TRT and toxicity.

 

[Cataceous]

...
There’s been a prevailing thought among a few influential members of this forum that posit the toxic number to be anything greater than the currently accepted statistical mean testosterone levels.
...

I don't recall seeing this particular hypothesis. It seems like a stretch. However, I have speculated that the best testosterone level for a particular individual has as good of a chance of being below the mean as above it. "Best" level in this case encompasses the compromises that lead to balanced hormones and good subjective results.

...
Though not explicitly stated, advice given to many new members on this forum is to lower exogenous testosterone dosage down to a level that produces TT near the statistical average, and all/most all side effects will resolve.
...

The typical scenario is that a new guy comes here having been prescribed 100-200 mg T cypionate per week. He has trough testosterone that is well above the mean for healthy young men, and he has one or more symptoms of high testosterone, such as elevated hematocrit, poor lipids, or high estradiol. His subjective results are typically poor as well. So yes, the advice in these cases is to try lowering the dose—and in the absence of better information, to target average levels for healthy young men. And no, it's not explicitly stated that "all/most all" side effects will resolve. But there's a good chance the side effects linked to excessive testosterone will improve. Are you saying this is questionable advice?

The main problem with the advice is the limit on what can be achieved by adjusting one variable. If HPTA shutdown causes symptoms then they are not going to be resolved by taking modestly less testosterone. There's also the hypothetical scenario in which high-T symptoms don't resolve with lower dosing before low-T symptoms recur. I don't know if this has occurred in practice, but if so it also points to the limits of conventional TRT.

 

[tareload]

However, your event has biased your research. You are out to prove a causal relationship that may not even exist. You use confirmation bias from studies exploring polypharmacy among bodybuilders or highly theoretical rat studies to try and cast doubt on whether or not a causal relationship exists between higher end therapeutic dosages and negative health outcomes. Though, one thing remains: There is no evidence showing that a TT of ~1200 ng/dL, nor 1500 ng/dL for that matter are harmful long term. None. Zero. They aren’t out there.

Addressing this comment. Based on the sum total of your comments thus far and your apparent concern for my mental health, I'm not sure you are entirely operating on good faith. Nevertheless, I'll continue on since it may help someone and there's been interest and questions.


Some background reading on Wistar rats:

The Laboratory Rat: Relating Its Age With Human's - PMC

By late 18th or early 19th century, albino rats became the most commonly used experimental animals in numerous biomedical researches, as they have been recognized as the preeminent model mammalian system. But, the precise correlation between age of ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Mice vs humans:

Men and mice: Relating their ages

Since the late 18th century, the murine model has been widely used in biomedical research (about 59% of total animals used) as it is compact, cost-eff…

www.sciencedirect.com

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0024320515300527-fx1_lrg.jpg

HED conversions for translating animal studies:

https://www.fda.gov/media/72309/download

To be continued...

 

[tareload]

Continued...

Reference	AAS type	Rat / mouse dosing (mg/kg/week)	HED ratio	HED (mg/kg/week)	HED (mg/week for 90 kg human)	study duration (weeks)	animal days to human years ratio	equivalent duration (approx. human years)
Tanno 2011	nandrolone	10	6.2	1.6	145	6	16	2.6
Penna 2007	nandrolone	105	6.2	16.9	1524	2	16	0.9
Neves 2013	nandrolone	10	6.2	1.6	145	6	16	2.6
da Silva 2009	nandrolone	10	6.2	1.6	145	3	16	1.3
Carmo 2011	nandrolone	70	12.3	5.7	512	10	9	7.8
Alves 2020	testosterone	70	12.3	5.7	512	4.3	9	3.3
Wadthaisong 2019	testosterone	30	6.2	4.8	435	12	16	5.3

Not exhaustive and as @DS3 states, I have no definitive long term data in humans showing a clear causal relationship between solely high testosterone levels from exogenous abuse and harm. However, the data above are useful and should give one pause, especially given the uncertainty involved in the transfer function.



My observation is that we've got the burden of proof on all of this backwards as usual. That's fine, I've done some heavy lifting for you (haha).

It's not up to me to prove running supra/TOT/TRT+ TT levels over x many years is harmful. Quite the opposite when considering any novel/unproven medical intervention. As much as @DS3 may try to twist my position, it's a very simple one. When considering going down this route, go in with your eyes open and realize the potential risks.

 

[bixt]

@readalot is not wrong to infer long term high levels may cause harm

@DS3 is technically not wrong either, by saying there is a lack of evidence to prove this. But this is a bullshit approach. For example, there is zero evidence showing 500mg a Trenbolone a week for 10 years causes harm. Really, not ONE study exists. So would you still take it? Is this lack of evidence "proof" that this stuff not harmful?

 

[tareload]

Updated table from the rodent studies (by no means exhaustive):

Each of these rows is a literature study showing various toxic effects (autonomic dysfunction, cardiac remodeling, etc). Perhaps I'll continue to add to the list. If you come across additional studies, please do share.

Reference	AAS type	Rat / Mouse dosing (mg/kg/week)	HED ratio	HED (mg/kg/week)	HED (mg/week for 90 kg human)	study duration (weeks)	animal days to human years ratio	equivalent duration (approx. human years)
Tanno 2011	nandrolone	10	6.2	1.6	145	6	16	2.6
Neves 2013	nandrolone	10	6.2	1.6	145	6	16	2.6
da Silva 2009	nandrolone	10	6.2	1.6	145	3	16	1.3
Pirompol 2016	testosterone	15	6.2	2.4	218	12.0	16	5.3
Olivares 2014	testosterone	25	6.2	4.0	363	5	16	2.2
Wadthaisong 2019	testosterone	30	6.2	4.8	435	12	16	5.3
Carmo 2011	nandrolone	70	12.3	5.7	512	10	9	7.8
Alves 2020	testosterone	70	12.3	5.7	512	4.3	9	3.3
Karbasi 2017	testosterone	40	6.2	6.5	581	8.7	16	3.8
Cartieri 2021	nandrolone	105	12.3	8.5	768	2.7	9	2.1
Cartieri 2021	testosterone	105	12.3	8.5	768	2.7	9	2.1
El-Gendy 2021	testosterone	60	6.2	9.7	871	8	16	3.5
Argenziano 2016	testosterone	87.5	6.2	14.1	1270	1.0	16	0.4
Penna 2007	nandrolone	105	6.2	16.9	1524	2	16	0.9
Papmitsou 2011	testosterone	175	6.2	28.2	2540	2.9	16	1.3

If you make a plot of duration in human years (y-axis) vs calculated HED for a 90 kg human (x-axis) with these data, you get the following:

Not a great coefficient of determination (R2) using both nandrolone and testosterone data with a logarithmic trendline.

If you just plot the testosterone data you get the following:

I didn't curate the data so its interesting that the trendline actually fits as well as it does. Higher HED with less duration indicates toxicity just like lower HED at higher duration. As other studies have suggested its the product of dose and duration (cumulative dose) that may really be the important factor.

In an ideal world you could build an envelope curve showing that to the left of the curve you are ok and to the right of the curve you are in bad territory. The curve itself could represent the transition region. Now obviously not all these points represent the same clinical endpoints but at least the doses and durations seem within the realm of possibility. Given human variation it's probably not realistic for this kind of treatment to be predictive but it is fascinating (if not generally instructive).

EDIT: if you are curious what the regression line (above) predicts for various HEDs:

HED (mg/week for 90 kg man)	duration (human years)
25	8.6
50	7.4
100	6.2
200	5.0
400	3.9
800	2.7
1600	1.5
3200	0.3

What sticks out to me are the HEDs under 100 mg/week. We have plenty of anecdotal data out there and patients on this board and others that have been on 100 mg/week of testosterone for over 10 years+. Hence the intercept of the regression line may indicate the dose response for rodents is much more sensitive than humans or the HED ratios used aren't really applicable. FYI.



Note, if you make 50 mg/week and 100 mg/week essentially non-toxic, you can fit all the data with an exponential 3P or biexponential 4P equation pretty well:

Of course that's taking some liberties (cherry picking the blue and red data points but FWIW.

 

[LionTamer]

@readalot @bixt @DS3

In the data you cite and the debate you're having, are you taking into consideration the key factor that I've stressed, which is that bloodwork will be monitored per Nelson's protocols to ensure all health markers are solid? This is an extremely important caveat that seems to continue to go ignored in all responses, or am I missing something? Taking exogenous testosterone is not the same as taking exogenous testosterone while monitoring your bloodwork, supplementing to counteract the negative effects, adjusting dosage, etc. etc. Please please please address this specific point in your reply, I beg you.

Regarding clomid, can you please provide some further reading material? I'm curious to understand why you think it's the magic PED with the least risks, but all I could find was that it's more used for PCT and that there are risks of vision loss.

Do any of you have any opinions on peptides? (ipamorelin and CJC-1295)

@Nelson Vergel , anything to add?

 

[bixt]

I'm curious to understand why you think it's the magic PED with the least risks

Im curious at your level of intellectual understanding when reading my posts. I certainly said no such thing. I said it will get you the (small for bodybuilding) numbers YOU asked for without damaging the HPTA. So you take that, twist it and now label clomid the "magic PED".....

 

[LionTamer]

Thats the safest way to test those levels without harm.

This is the only safe riskless fool proof thing I would do if I were you.

@bixt, I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but that's how I interpreted your comments. When I said "magic", I meant in terms of lowest risk profile, not in terms of best anabolic outcome. But I really am asking for help. It's quite clear that I'm a novice when it comes to all of this. If you could point me towards more research, I really really would appreciate it. Thank you.

 

[bixt]

One source of info would be these very forums, theres a long thread in which Dr Saya himself has commented.

Use the search function, I remember "clomid" and "unicorns" in the title. Lots of info in there, regarding clomid long term for TRT. There may be other threads too on this forum.

There was another long and even more usefull thread on a site called "Roosh V forums" where guys who were not low were using clomid to raise levels to 1500ng/dl. They did this for gains and sex drive. That site doesnt exist anymore, it was wiped off the net.

Still, Im only mentioning all this as I feel its a safer option for your goal (1100ng/dl). Your HPTA will be intact on stopping clomid, even enhanced for a while. You will see minimal gains with those levels and either ditch your plan or do a real steroid cycle.

I wouldn't actually promote this to others or recommend someone else do this in the name of gains.

 

[tareload]

But I really am asking for help. It's quite clear that I'm a novice when it comes to all of this. If you could point me towards more research, I really really would appreciate it. Thank you.

Alternatives to T therapy: Lessons from male infertility

Whatever the exact mechanism of the increase in desire for testosterone replacement therapy in men, knowing the risks and benefits of testosterone and its alternatives are vital skills for today’s practicing urologist. This article will focus on alternatives to testosterone therapy.

www.urologytimes.com

I'd start with a primer on the HPT(thyroid)G(gonadal)A. As @bixt describes, there a few ways to raise your endogenous TT levels first without messing with exogenous Testosterone and the shutdown that comes with it. Are you looking to preserve fertility? [NOTE: I am not recommending these approaches for you and I still zero probability that these methods will get you what you seek, see @bixt 's responses. For your educational purposes only].

If you want to know more read this thread that has a lot of information linked therein:

Help/Advice Interpreting My Labs? Fertility After Blast/Cruise

Hi everyone, thanks for reading my post. I think I am in a bit of trouble here. I was blasting and cruising for almost 2 1/2 years without ever coming off of test base. I wanted to come off and try and have a kid with my wife and stopped. I tapered down a bit on test and took a final shot...

forums.t-nation.com

 

[tareload]

@readalot @bixt @DS3

In the data you cite and the debate you're having, are you taking into consideration the key factor that I've stressed, which is that bloodwork will be monitored per Nelson's protocols to ensure all health markers are solid? This is an extremely important caveat that seems to continue to go ignored in all responses, or am I missing something? Taking exogenous testosterone is not the same as taking exogenous testosterone while monitoring your bloodwork, supplementing to counteract the negative effects, adjusting dosage, etc. etc. Please please please address this specific point in your reply, I beg you.

I never took a moment to recognize your well-written posts and good grammar. It's clear you are really put in the effort here. I appreciate that.

Inherent in your paragraph above is a few assumptions, assumptions that may get you in trouble when you start considering the path of using (some might call it abuse, but hey let's just leave that alone here) exogenous testosterone for years. No judgment from me here.

Here's some that come to mind:

1. Bloodwork will pick up all the adverse effects that may be in play
2. You are getting bloodwork on such a regular basis that If you do pick something up on the bloodwork, there will be minimal damage.
3. If you do see something on the bloodwork you won't rationalize and will take immediate corrective action.

There's probably some more but let's start with those.

Regarding #1, bloodwork on its own isn't going to pick up morphological changes to your heart, fibrosis of the heart muscle, changes in the hemodynamics of your heart chambers. You'll need regular EKG/echocardiograms to monitor this (you keep omitting these in your responses). I guess you'd also be taking your blood pressure regularly. You don't know from the get go how sensitive your critical muscle is to exogenous androgen use.

How about potential autonomic dysfunction? Will you be tracking HRV (heart rate variability) from baseline accurately to see if there's an issue? HRR (heart rate recovery)? Using a fitbit or some other tracker? There are subtle changes that may happen over time.

Regarding #3, mental effects, neuronal damage, addiction (we touched on this)? If you see negative impacts do you have the mental ability to change course? Do you have body dysmorphia?

I'm skipping over all the standard cosmetic stuff and other organs (big assumptions here).

Will use of exogenous testosterone open up the potential gateway to using other AAS (nandrolone, oxandrolone, stanozolol, HGH) that are legally available by Rx in the US (assuming US location)? Remember, you are after the gainz. So what's the harm in throwing in a little extra boost?

Alot to consider before flipping the switch and going down the (in this case) voluntary TRT/TOT/TRT+, etc, etc. path. Of course I should omit TRT from the last sentence. There is nothing for you to replace in a strictly clinical context so make sure you really know what you are doing before you do it (which is impossible since you don't know how you will respond a priori).

I pretty meticulously tracked bloodwork, echos, etc and still ran into trouble. But that's me. Maybe you would be different. Anyway food for thought.

 

[tareload]

A few more threads for you to read that may offer some perspective.

Edit the Description for the Pharma Forum

I’d propose changing the last sentence under the Pharma section description to: This forum is intended for the discussion of effective and least harm methods of using anabolics and managing post-cycle therapy (PCT). There are no safe methods for AAS abuse and the current phrasing above gives...

forums.t-nation.com

There Are No Safe Methods For Recreational AAS Use

EDIT: Moderator edited my thread title but here’s what it was designed to read… Pharma Forum Description is Incorrect: There Are No Safe Methods For Recreational AAS Use Here you go. Just in case you are new here, read the Pharma forum description (copied above), and think you are going to...

forums.t-nation.com

Lost All My Gains During PCT

Ran test e at 500mg/ wk for 14 weeks with 40mg anavar for the final 6 weeks. Made great gains, felt amazing and decided it was time to come off. I’d originally bought enough Test to run a cruise, but decided against it and decided to do PCT. I stopped and ran HCG for 2 weeks while I waited for...

forums.t-nation.com

And BTW, thanks @LionTamer for starting this thread. It motivated me to put whatever little knowledge/links/information I have into one thread. You've gotten alot of great information from folks and I never tire of thanking @Nelson Vergel for his tireless efforts to create a venue for this free exhange of information. I wish you health @LionTamer. Without that, we don't have much.