Slighty OT: Study on Testosterone

[Cape1]

This was a pretty interesting article that I saw posted up on a different board. I know at least one of you guys has already read it but I figured I would toss it in here for the other geeks like me who enjoy reading such things.

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/281/6/E1172

[aahepp]

Well looking at the chart...the minimum dose an individual should take is 125mg/wk, because anything below that dose your free and total was below your baseline numbers. So while you was shutting yourself down, you was not giving yourself enough to replace your natural production.

[Cape1]

Exactly.

The thing that I didn't grasp was why the GnRH agonist? Was this just to rapidly and uniformily supress endo-test? IT would make sense but they didn't come right out and explain that.

The other thing that I found of interest was the negative impact on lipids and body fat at higher doses. While the benefits are greater at higher doses, the negatives start to creep in (obvious enough I guess). I wish they tested someone at a gram per week to see if prostate hypertropy became an issue.

IT really dose suggest that you have to find that sweet spot even if cycling for performance enhancing reasons - at least if you plan to do so in a relatively healthy manner.

[need4weed]

Originally Posted by Cape1

Exactly.

The thing that I didn't grasp was why the GnRH agonist? Was this just to rapidly and uniformily supress endo-test? IT would make sense but they didn't come right out and explain that.

The other thing that I found of interest was the negative impact on lipids and body fat at higher doses. While the benefits are greater at higher doses, the negatives start to creep in (obvious enough I guess). I wish they tested someone at a gram per week to see if prostate hypertropy became an issue.

IT really dose suggest that you have to find that sweet spot even if cycling for performance enhancing reasons - at least if you plan to do so in a relatively healthy manner.

i expect the GnRH agonist is there so you dont have endogenous test contributing to the results.

also, im pretty sure at 1gr/week things would get pretty out of whack, but thats not the real issue. the real issue imo is, whether you get any permanent alterations/damage when cycling this way.

it would be really interesting to take a "regular" cycle of an intermediate AAS user, something close to the 1,5-2gr total mark, incorporating test, and oral, tren, and an anabolic like EQ, and just monitor its effects on health.

[Cape1]

Originally Posted by need4weed

i
it would be really interesting to take a "regular" cycle of an intermediate AAS user, something close to the 1,5-2gr total mark, incorporating test, and oral, tren, and an anabolic like EQ, and just monitor its effects on health.

It would be interesting. While I certainly understand (at least superficially) the potential issues with such a study, there are enough people doing it anyway that why not take a peak at it..

[need4weed]

Originally Posted by Cape1

It would be interesting. While I certainly understand (at least superficially) the potential issues with such a study, there are enough people doing it anyway that why not take a peak at it..

thing is, you cant really do this study with untrained people. it HAS to be done with bodybuilders, probably people that already use AAS.

if you put an untrained virgin body on 2grms of gear bad things will happen. especially if tren is involved.

[wasp9166]

thats interesting, im on androgel at 35mg a week.................soon ill be doing my own hrt at much more than that =)

[Thewhite9t]

I posted the charts from this study a while ago. Mainly for the SHBG numbers.

As for increases in fat mass at higher doses, that may not have been the case if an AI was administered.

Also, the dose-response curve seems to change with each steroid use. Most likely due to increase in the number of ARs. This makes the results a little less clear.

[WRX20PSI]

very interesting article, makes us wonder about the general consensus that 500mg/week of test is a minimum for starters.

[wasp9166]

Originally Posted by WRX20PSI

very interesting article, makes us wonder about the general consensus that 500mg/week of test is a minimum for starters.

i was just considering this myself.....................my first cycle was gonna be 200mg e, then i did some reading and moved it up to 400mg, now, after more reading im thinking

Week Testosterone (Enan or Cyp) Dianabol
1 500mgs 20mgs/day
2 500mgs 20mgs/day
3 500mgs 20mgs/day
4 500mgs 20mgs/day
5 500mgs
6 500mgs
7 500mgs
8 500mgs
9 500mgs
10 500mgs
11 500mgs
12 500mgs

[DieBig]

Thanks for posting this. Actually was looking for something like this!

[Cape1]

Originally Posted by WRX20PSI

very interesting article, makes us wonder about the general consensus that 500mg/week of test is a minimum for starters.

Good point. What I would love to see is a study comparing the results of a group at High Normal vs. 2x high normal. I would love to see what the real difference in fat free mass is over 12 weeks and compare that with the difference in HDL and some of the other draw backs. Have the people follow the same diet and training and obviously try to get people with a similar startging point. I'm speculating that that the increase in muscle wouldn't be that much better with the higher dose but the sides would start to come in.

[FlyingIllini]

Am I right in reading that the test subjects did not train during the study. They measured the delta in size and strength with various test dosages and no strength training.

[Cape1]

Originally Posted by FlyingIllini

Am I right in reading that the test subjects did not train during the study. They measured the delta in size and strength with various test dosages and no strength training.

Thats how I read it. Makes sense as training would create variables that are hard to account for.