I submit my ignorance for your criticism
- 01-29-2013, 11:59 AM
I submit my ignorance for your criticism
First, I am not a medical professional.
Second, I am not a biochemist.
Third, although I feel I have done a ton of research, I feel as though there are another ten tons I would like to learn.
All that being said, here are my thoughts.
I see a lot of recommendations here for cycles. For instance; it seems as though [email protected] weekly is standard protocol. Here is my issue. If we view the human body as a sponge, it would seem that there should be no standard protocol, especially in a dosage that high, to start off with. The reasons I think this follow.
Not all sponges are created equal. Sponge A can hold one liter of water without spillage, whereas Sponge B can only hold .75L and that extra .25L spills out creating a mess. Lets say that water is test and the sponges are two males. Male A puts to better use the same dosage as Male B. That excess test in Male B then begins to aromatize, making a mess and requiring further self-medication (AIs, SERMs, bro science remedies). With this theory in mind, would it not be beneficial for one who chooses to advance to the dark side to start off on a lower dose and taper up, rather than be reactive and fend off sides while not considering lowering the dosage of the original, yet problematic compound?
I often read "take this at this dosage at this time of day to counter your sides", but I don't believe I've ever read "lower your test dosage to a more manageable one for your body".
Drugs are drugs, whether they be hormonal in nature, or not. Alcohol, for instance, is very progressive and easy to monitor. We have charts showing body weight and composition versus consumption rates and results that follow. I can have a drink, and then another and start to feel the effects. I know that at X amount of drinks, I'm drunk and then I stop. I've achieved my desired results at X. I did not know, in the beginning, what X was until I gradually "tapered up" to reach my limit. Would the use of AAS not be similar in nature?
In the case of TRT, I've heard of docs prescribing "low dosages" of test (much lower than 500mgs weekly. Are these really low, or is there a significant amount of benefits to be reaped from them?
I suppose my question is, would it not be more beneficial and possibly better on reducing sides, to start on a lower dose of test and taper up until you find X, and carry on at that dose until cycle complete?
Flame if you want, I'm trying to learn, and maybe even help the next guy. Otherwise, thank you for your anticipated input and knowledge.
- 01-29-2013, 12:12 PM
Good food for thought. But where do we draw that line of where to start when we taper up. Test isn't like a beer, it's not like there are hundreds of years of people using test. Hormone therapy is still in its infancy compared to drinking. There is still some trial and error involved, but I agree we shouldn't give one size fits all dosing advice.
01-29-2013, 12:17 PM
01-29-2013, 12:31 PM
http://roidcalc.com/ with doses, injections, etc to get an idea how levels build over time. But lets assume we go with your methodology. Start at 200mg a week, which is above natural replacement, but not by a lot (average replacement dose is in the 125mg range). So how often do you raise the dose? Since its somewhat additive (given halflife) lets assume you are going to bump it by 50mg a week. At that point, you aren't reaching the 500mg range till after the 6th week, at which point you only have half the cycle left. So you've gotten a full 12 weeks of suppression for a much lower amount of muscle gain. You aren't going on a testosterone cycle for health improvement, you are going on it for muscle gain.
01-29-2013, 01:03 PM
I know that the body isn't a sponge, literally, but it is figuratively in that it absorbs what is put in to it. And I know test isn't water, I was more using the analogy to demonstrate that some people react better to higher dosages. And that excess test seems to cause problems when there is a lot of it.
I hadn't really taken half-life into account. This presents a hole in my theory.
Considering suppression and time on with arguably less gains, all of what you said make sense. Thank you for your time.
01-29-2013, 01:12 PM
01-29-2013, 01:17 PM
01-29-2013, 01:49 PM
01-29-2013, 01:58 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Am.com
01-29-2013, 02:00 PM
01-29-2013, 02:23 PM
I know I'll be running test-e for 14 weeks. I'll probably run tren ace for alongside it for the first four weeks. I just want to approach it in the most common sense way I possibly can.
Significant results for me would be maximum gains and minimal sides/reactive self-medicating.
Again, thank you for bestowing your knowledge. It's greatly appreciated.
01-29-2013, 02:28 PM
I'd suggest not running the tren alongside first time. it definitely skews the side effects, and if it is your first testosterone cycle and you are concerned about estrogen, better to not complicate matters
01-29-2013, 02:49 PM
I'm not really worried about estro. I'll have everything on hand that I need to combat anything I may come across, as I don't like half-stepping.
01-29-2013, 03:19 PM
01-29-2013, 03:21 PM
01-29-2013, 03:27 PM
I probably should have typed "I'm not too scared of the common sides" rather than what I did.
Sorry about your unfortunate incident. Hopefully you're doing better now.
And of course, I don't want to go into cardiac arrest as the result of cycling.
01-29-2013, 03:42 PM
01-29-2013, 03:44 PM
01-29-2013, 03:52 PM
its pretty rare on a single cycle, but if you were near the top of the scale naturally, just bumping you up 15-20% would put you at heart attack risk. Its far worse for people who are on longer cycles, or on year round.
01-29-2013, 04:02 PM
01-29-2013, 04:14 PM
01-29-2013, 04:18 PM
01-29-2013, 04:21 PM
our bodies are very much like sponges, but there are some key differences that you need to remember,
our bodies have a closed circulatory system. what goes in stays in till its used or broken down elsewhere, or the said compounds chemically degrade (spare me the flaming, i know this isnt entirely accurate but for many physiological process in the body this is the case) in turn this results in no spillage.
Our bodies also have an active endocrine system. This means that alot of our bodies hormones (again please spare me the insults, I know that there is always exceptions) are self regulating by a system of check points and feedback. Good examples of this are your thyroid with t3, t4, and to an extent t2 levels. This is also true with our HPTA and sex hormones.
The problem that body builders and performance athletes run into are our bodies only produce a small amount of what its capable of handling and utulizing to its fullness. when exogenous hormones are introduced, our body will actually create more ways for it to use these hormones, or basically give them a place to go and a role to fill.
our bodies are very complex and very smart. Its increadable! I love studying it and its capabilities.
you couldnt be more right though that we need to pay attention to our bodies and be careful with what we put into it. We should always be aware of the law of diminishing returns and make sure that the strain and work is worth the results and return.
if a person is making increadable gains on 250mgs/ test alone and they are happy with it, why keep pushing that envelope? (i say that as im currently on 3 anabolics at reletively high doses)
The bottom line is, people are obsessed with perfection, no matter how impossible it is to reach. We will always be in pursuit at what we consider to be perfect. Unfortunately some will stop at nothing to reach this goal, even if it requires them to stress their bodies beyond its physical means.
we can only be here to support and guide those with propper that wish to accomplish their goals, its up to them to act upon it and do as their mind, bodies and goals deem fit.
01-29-2013, 04:21 PM
01-29-2013, 04:25 PM
I would highly reccomend going to your local college campus or library and picking up any cell biology, physiology, anatomy and bichemistry books that you can. you can find old ones for very cheap online and 98% of the information is correct if its been within 2 to 3 editions of the current volume. Mine from my undergrad are still just as accurate as the ones im using for my doctorate minus a few details that come to light as technology becomes better. most of the new discoveries as it applies to BB wont affect your understanding biologic and biochemical fucntions as they pertain to humans.
hope this helps trooper as this is the best advice i have for you!
Similar Forum Threads
- By mark118 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 6Last Post: 12-13-2009, 09:14 AM
- By borninsin in forum AnabolicsReplies: 0Last Post: 08-26-2007, 05:40 AM
- By fbxdan in forum General ChatReplies: 18Last Post: 06-21-2006, 06:04 AM
- By dez/null in forum General ChatReplies: 15Last Post: 03-20-2003, 10:03 AM
- By elijah_123 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 0Last Post: 03-16-2003, 09:40 AM