Test Gives Dose-dependent Results

[hulksmash]

DAMNIT! I FORGOT TO LINK THE STUDY!

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-11/aps-tdr113001.php

 

[Seeker]

For sure, thats why I repeatedly advise not to use higher doses. You'd remember I was hanged and gutted for speaking on big doses with AAS.

well I think you were given a hard time for a number of reasons. Not just the amount of AAS you were running.

 

[hulksmash]

well I think you were given a hard time for a number of reasons. Not just the amount of AAS you were running.

I knew that; I'm crazy as hell and have life experiences that people believe is lies, and I was a bigger asshole then LOL

 

[snake]

I've never agreed with lower test with multiple compound but I also don't get sides; makes me feel like my opinion on that doesn't really count lol

I have to ask this; are you doing everything with regards to testing for that statement to be factual? Blood testing, checking your BP....etc? Side effect are real and just not those that you get 4 weeks into a cycle, there can be consequences down the road.

I always said AAS use is personal and you have to deal with your own level of comfort. For me, and just speaking for myself, those doses and over such a long period of time exceeds my comfort level.

 

[hulksmash]

I have to ask this; are you doing everything with regards to testing for that statement to be factual? Blood testing, checking your BP....etc? Side effect are real and just not those that you get 4 weeks into a cycle, there can be consequences down the road.

I always said AAS use is personal and you have to deal with your own level of comfort. For me, and just speaking for myself, those doses and over such a long period of time exceeds my comfort level.

Do you mean taking the science and applying it to my anecdotal experience? If yes;

• I own an Omron BP monitor. I check my BP regularly.
• I get blood work done, 2x a year minimum.
• My wife will divorce me if I negate health.
• During blasts, I do blood work every 6-8 weeks.

My wife uses divorce because I will not listen otherwise. All of you know how stubborn I am and at times want to beat the hell out of me LOL

She loves me 100% and refuses to lose me. I am beyond blessed to have her. Thank her; she gets all the credit for why I don't risk my health like I did.

 

[snake]

Do you mean taking the science and applying it to my anecdotal experience? If yes;

• I own an Omron BP monitor. I check my BP regularly.
• I get blood work done, 2x a year minimum.
• My wife will divorce me if I negate health.
• During blasts, I do blood work every 6-8 weeks.

My wife uses divorce because I will not listen otherwise. All of you know how stubborn I am and at times want to beat the hell out of me LOL

She loves me 100% and refuses to lose me. I am beyond blessed to have her. Thank her; she gets all the credit for why I don't risk my health like I did.

Okay, you do about the same as I do but does all or most of this checking come back in range?

 

[hulksmash]

Okay, you do about the same as I do but does all or most of this checking come back in range?

Yes. However:

• My calcium typically stays on "high-normal"/high end of the range
• TSH mostly stays around 0.7; near the limit for having hyperthyroidism
• RBC/Hematocrit stays at the high end, but never out of range
• Cholesterol typically stays on the high limit in the range

That all makes sense with higher doses, and with using tren due to its effects on your thyroid. AAS greatly affects calcium due to Ca's role in skeletal tissue; cholesterol is the foundation of hormones; RBC/hematocrit, T-cells, and the rest of your immune system is greatly impacted/changed/controlled via hormones, and so is insulin/glucose.

I am 100% grateful for genes that allows a great response to AAS like the freedom from negative side effects.

I will admit that AAS does speed up the risk of heart issies due to the cascade of arterial effects given by increased cholesterol, blood changes, and glucose changes.

 

[transcend2007]

I was also wondering if 300mg - 600mg could be extrapolated out to 1 gram or more also ... to support your hypothesis ... that with my earlier point of 4 weeks makes (far too short for this ester) this particular study seemed narrowly focused.

 

[Hurt]

Where is this published? Please provide the actual source. It’s a bit surprising that they were allowed to conduct a study on healthy humans with 600mg of testosterone/wk.

 

[hulksmash]

I was also wondering if 300mg - 600mg could be extrapolated out to 1 gram or more also ... to support your hypothesis ... that with my earlier point of 4 weeks makes (far too short for this ester) this particular study seemed narrowly focused.

Don't let me fool ya, I agree with you on the red flags with the study.

All i have is anecdotal evidence for doses above 600mg, and as you know, anecdotes=not proof

 

[hulksmash]

Where is this published? Please provide the actual source. It’s a bit surprising that they were allowed to conduct a study on healthy humans with 600mg of testosterone/wk.

My bad, I noticed and linked it later:

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-11/aps-tdr113001.php

 

[Hurt]

Don't let me fool ya, I agree with you on the red flags with the study.

All i have is anecdotal evidence for doses above 600mg, and as you know, anecdotes=not proof

It’s also annoying that they don’t present any of the data (unless they do and I missed the graphs somehow).

In the papers I’ve published I was always required by the journal to present graphical data representation if I was concluding a dose-dependent relationship - for example I did a study examining the effects dietary intake on serum IGF-1 levels and I was required to show the data graphically correlating intake with serum IGF-1 (there was a statistically significant positive relationship).

 

[hulksmash]

It’s also annoying that they don’t present any of the data (unless they do and I missed the graphs somehow).

In the papers I’ve published I was always required by the journal to present graphical data representation if I was concluding a dose-dependent relationship - for example I did a study examining the effects dietary intake on serum IGF-1 levels and I was required to show the data graphically correlating intake with serum IGF-1 (there was a statistically significant positive relationship).

You've got a point there; now that you mention it, studies do seem to always contain a graph presenting data for in-vivo models and medical compounda. Weird.

Maybe its behind a paywall and I didn't notice?

I also searched for related studies, but most dealt with hypogonadal men.

 

[Hurt]

You've got a point there; now that you mention it, studies do seem to always contain a graph presenting data for in-vivo models and medical compounda. Weird.

Maybe its behind a paywall and I didn't notice?

I also searched for related studies, but most dealt with hypogonadal men.

in vivo models has nothing to do with it. Studies should display the relationship between any data points if they conclude a statistically significant positive correlation between factors.

 

[Viduus]

I don’t think 300mg should be the magical number. The difference between 125mg and 300mg is one is below replacement test levels for a normal individual and one is above.

If a non-trt individual used 125mg or lower, it would shut down natural production thereby lowering total test in most users which leads to all the observed effects.

300mg would raise total test in most normal individuals.

I think the key take away is the obvious statement that the minimum test amount should be at least your replacement value.

Spongey raises a good point about diminishing returns above 600mg. That would have been interesting to see.

 

[hulksmash]

I don’t think 30mg should be the magical number. The difference between 125mg and 300mg is one is below replacement test levels for a normal individual and one is above.

If a non-trt individual used 125mg or lower, it would shut down natural production thereby lowering total test in most users which leads to all the observed effects.

300mg would raise total test in most normal individuals.

I think the key take away is the obvious statement that the minimum test amount should be at least your replacement value.

Spongey raises a good point about diminishing returns above 600mg. That would have been interesting to see.

The diminishing returns claim is one reason why I made the thread (I never saw Spongy make the claim, so not directed at him).

1.5g was a sweet spot where the magic happens, and many agree with that. At least for me it is and I've read others opinions and been told that since 2012.

 

[Gadawg]

I saw Dan Crossland say 3.5 grams is where the magic happens. Dont plan to try it though

 

[hulksmash]

I saw Dan Crossland say 3.5 grams is where the magic happens. Dont plan to try it though

Years in the past, if I heard that clqim, I wouldve tested it LOL

Definitely not now

 

[Mythos]

So just to make this clear to me, you're basically just saying don't bother with less than 300... Right?
I don't know why but this thread is confusing af to me.

 

[automatondan]

I have to ask this; are you doing everything with regards to testing for that statement to be factual? Blood testing, checking your BP....etc? Side effect are real and just not those that you get 4 weeks into a cycle, there can be consequences down the road.

I always said AAS use is personal and you have to deal with your own level of comfort. For me, and just speaking for myself, those doses and over such a long period of time exceeds my comfort level.

May I point out, that Snake looks better than 90% of the guys on this board and is older than most (sorry Snake) as well. All that from moderate cycles/blasts, but hard HARD fukking work.

All I'm saying is I want to be like Snake when I grow up...