Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 48 of 48
  1. #41
    Elite Send0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Posts
    343
    Thanks
    182
    Thanked 236 Times in 154 Posts
    Originally Posted by Crom View Post
    Just checked the print out. Says 10mg. But they gave it to me in an insulin syringe 1/2 inch. So prolly a typo on their part. I never heard of this stuff before. My trt doc seems real into it.
    Trust me, you want to confirm what the dosage actually is. Unless you enjoy vomiting, non stop nausea, while feeling lethargic, with the most intense painful erection you ever had... possibly risking priapism.

    The only use pt-141 has is as a sexual aid. Its dopaminergic... so in addition to the bad time I described above, you will also feel like total shit mentally the next day... assuming that he gave you 10mg that is.

    A 1mg - 1.5mg dose is much more common. Confirm with his office that this is what he gave you. Just trying to look out for you brother.

  2. #42
    Senior Member lfod14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    396
    Thanks
    119
    Thanked 206 Times in 153 Posts
    Originally Posted by Send0 View Post
    I wouldn't trust a doctor who told me I had nothing to worry about with total cholesterol over 240.
    That's because you're clearly still subscribing to the disproven nonsense of the 90's that cholesterol = bad. Aside from cholesterol being cardio protective (and noticeablely helping strength) , it's also been long busted that LDL=Bad. A standard lipid panel doesn't tell you anything as far as cardiovascular threat, only an NMR LipoProfile does. There's a reason the USDA dietary guidelines removed cholesterol as a "nutrient of concern" back in 2015.



    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19751443/
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24406106/

  3. #43
    Moderator-San Jin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Far East
    Posts
    13,069
    Thanks
    17,615
    Thanked 20,508 Times in 8,240 Posts
    Originally Posted by lfod14 View Post
    That's because you're clearly still subscribing to the disproven nonsense of the 90's that cholesterol = bad. Aside from cholesterol being cardio protective (and noticeablely helping strength) , it's also been long busted that LDL=Bad. A standard lipid panel doesn't tell you anything as far as cardiovascular threat, only an NMR LipoProfile does. There's a reason the USDA dietary guidelines removed cholesterol as a "nutrient of concern" back in 2015.



    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19751443/
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24406106/
    <gets popcorn. Realizes he cutting>

    this ought to be good. Let’s keep it scientific men!


    You are not entitled to your opinion.
    You are entitled to your informed opinion.
    No one is entitled to be ignorant.

    He must be very ignorant for he answers every question he is asked.Ē Ė Voltaire



  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Jin For This Useful Post:

    CJ275 (05-08-2021)

  5. #44
    Elite Send0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Posts
    343
    Thanks
    182
    Thanked 236 Times in 154 Posts
    Originally Posted by Jin View Post
    <gets popcorn. Realizes he cutting>

    this ought to be good. Letís keep it scientific men!
    Honestly, I'm tired of this conversation. And I'm not going to bother reading the links because they are just abstracts, and don't give insight into the groups, methods, etc used... Besides it's pointless anyway because we can keep finding studies to support either side. Instead I'll tell you where I'm at on this topic, plain and simple.

    I simply don't believe anyone should promote an action that may lead to ignoring a health problem. The risk of not trying may be an early death... and the risk of trying and it turning out not to be relevant is just some time a person lost to efforts they put forth to be healthier... not necessarily an awful thing.

    When a study is released, that has been repeated with the same results, that announces high LDL and low HDL is a good thing for our health, that's when my perspective on this topic will change. Until then, I will always ye people that they need to try to improve their numbers.

    Edit: just realized I replied to the wrong post... Ignore this Jin, not directed at you

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Send0 For This Useful Post:

    Jin (05-08-2021)

  7. #45
    Senior Member notsoswoleCPA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    782
    Thanks
    331
    Thanked 479 Times in 313 Posts
    Cholesterol before TRT in 2015:
    CHOLESTEROL: 201
    TRIGLYCERIDES: 244
    HDL CHOLESTEROL: 28
    CALCULATED LDL CHOL: 125
    RISK RATION LDL/HDL: 4.47


    Cholesterol before Anavar last year:
    CHOLESTEROL: 179
    TRIGLYCERIDES: 158
    HDL CHOLESTEROL: 30
    CALCULATED LDL CHOL: 117
    RISK RATION LDL/HDL: 3.9

  8. #46
    Senior Member lfod14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    396
    Thanks
    119
    Thanked 206 Times in 153 Posts
    Originally Posted by Send0 View Post
    I simply don't believe anyone should promote an action that may lead to ignoring a health problem.
    Neither do I, but there's zero evidence that having it over an arbitrary lab range is a health risk at all. No shortage of people have very high cholesterol and never suffer and CAD event, no shortage have high cholesterol and CAC scores come back at 0. Most people that have a CAD event have cholesterol in the "normal" range.



    When a study is released, that has been repeated with the same results, that announces high LDL and low HDL is a good thing for our health, that's when my perspective on this topic will change.
    When did anybody ever advocate for that? Nobody has ever claimed that low HDL is a good thing, what's proven at this point is that LDL by itself isn't a threat marker. sdLDL (can) be. Given that a standard panel can't give you sdLDL there's zero purpose to using an outdated standard panel to judge your cardiovascular health.

  9. #47
    Elite Send0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Posts
    343
    Thanks
    182
    Thanked 236 Times in 154 Posts
    Originally Posted by lfod14 View Post
    When did anybody ever advocate for that? Nobody has ever claimed that low HDL is a good thing, what's proven at this point is that LDL by itself isn't a threat marker. sdLDL (can) be. Given that a standard panel can't give you sdLDL there's zero purpose to using an outdated standard panel to judge your cardiovascular health.
    You are arguing your point so hard, that it comes across as if your are saying "it doesn't actually matter... so just ignore it". Maybe that's not your intention, but it's how it reads from someone looking at this from the perspective of caution.

    I can't tell Crom to go back in time and get an NMR... all I have is the information provided. Therefore I can only comment that his generalized LDL numbers is less than desirable. I will never tell him to ignore this, as it would be very unlikely to have elevated LDL and not also have elevated sdLDL or VLDL... I understand this is not always the case, but I am only going off the data he provided... In which case my feedback will be a cautious one due to the gap in data.

  10. #48
    Senior Member lfod14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    396
    Thanks
    119
    Thanked 206 Times in 153 Posts
    Originally Posted by Send0 View Post
    You are arguing your point so hard, that it comes across as if your are saying "it doesn't actually matter... so just ignore it". Maybe that's not your intention, but it's how it reads from someone looking at this from the perspective of caution
    Definitely not saying it doesn't matter so ignore it, but many aren't aware that standard lipid panels aren't really the standard any more, and haven't been in some time. Yet many outdated doc's still order them and make health decisions based on info that doesn't give you a real direction to go on. I find that's very common in the AAS world where many are self testing. Whether it's being afraid of the completely made up 200 line being good/bad, or thinking there low cholesterol is a good thing, when the studies show the countries with higher cholesterol having better heart health and less instances of CAD.

    Just don't like seeing people making possible bad health decisions based on literally nothing. Gotta admit the irony of this world that knows our hormones and how to manipulate them probably better than many practising doc's out there, understand why lab ranges are near meaningless in many cases, can take things that would scare others in context and know exactly how to put things where you want them..... yet then take outdated cholesterol dogma as gospel. Especially cholesterol! The old school bro's may have not understood the mechanism of action, but they knew when they stuck a dozen egg yolks into shit all day long it made them stronger and recover better!

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to lfod14 For This Useful Post:

    Send0 (05-09-2021)

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. A little advice please
    By Keenbean in forum Testosterone and Hormone Replacement Therapy
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-05-2017, 02:45 PM
  2. A little help please... thanks
    By mar1n93 in forum Anabolic Steroid Cycle Discussion
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 07-07-2017, 06:10 PM
  3. a little help with PCT please
    By scoob197 in forum Prohormone - Natural Steroids and Steroid Alternatives
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-28-2015, 03:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •