6-KP The Next Big Thing

2

210LBS

Well-known member
Awards
0
there are ABSOLUTELY health benefits to anabolics. Some moreso than others, but don't forget...anabolic steroids are prescription medications.
There are a lot of prescription medications out there... it doesn't mean they are good for the general public... which is why they are prescription.
 
Wildcat528

Wildcat528

Active member
Awards
0
you also wouldn't find a single endocrinologist out there saying people over 21 should be using anabolics either.
I would wager that they may have slightly different reasoning and concerns with a 16 year old versus a 50 year old. They would probably put the 50 year old on TRT if his levels deemed it reasonable to. Just based on the endocrinologists I know.
 
00A

00A

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Guys this is a forum and we are here to discuss and share ideas and challenge each other. Why is everyone so afraid to look at the conventional wisdom?

Black Tea lowers cortisol, I believe that I have a very high cortisol activity level do to many factors. It would make sense that tea could have this kind of an effect. Chronic water weight is weight.
Funny post of yours...Why u so afraid to answer when challenged.. your lucky your a sponsor so admin has your back..u like a yoyo sometimes. Sound intelligent guy then when people say health concerns or bring up other products u back off.. maybe u just good sales person..maybe a post on your actually fitness industry history would be good, so i get of your case

there few posts you ignored in other forums when you hijacked them.. so i dont hope for u answer me maybe im on your ignore list..
 
VaughnTrue

VaughnTrue

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Funny post of yours...Why u so afraid to answer when challenged.. your lucky your a sponsor so admin has your back..u like a yoyo sometimes. Sound intelligent guy then when people say health concerns or bring up other products u back off.. maybe u just good sales person..maybe a post on your actually fitness industry history would be good, so i get of your case

there few posts you ignored in other forums when you hijacked them.. so i dont hope for u answer me maybe im on your ignore list..
what questions in specific are you looking for answers on? I'll do my best to help out
 
00A

00A

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
what questions in specific are you looking for answers on? I'll do my best to help out
For one, when he first published his article, I read and found it very intresting, as I was taking Exubol 200 and Ecdynize..Ajuga Turk and Ecdysterone from Boldanic company, hence the guy on forums challenge him..


I asked where the products he refer to in article? So show me the 6KP products...Not one product was listed, now this thread pops up... so therefore lot of confusion ..comparing natural anabolics to prohormones..?
 
VaughnTrue

VaughnTrue

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
For one, when he first published his article, I read and found it very intresting, as I was taking Exubol 200 and Ecdynize..Ajuga Turk and Ecdysterone from Boldanic company, hence the guy on forums challenge him..


I asked where the products he refer to in article? So show me the 6KP products...Not one product was listed, now this thread pops up... so therefore lot of confusion ..comparing natural anabolics to prohormones..?
ah ok, yea I can't help there but it was worth a shot.

A lot of times when natural anabolics are compared to prohormones/steroids, its from their ability to increase the rate of protein synthesis which IS a great thing, but unfortunately doesn't always translate to real world gains. Curious to hear more info on them as well.
 
2

210LBS

Well-known member
Awards
0
I am not following what you are asking me. I think 6-KP is a great product and I hope it doesn't disappear.
It's pretty much gone man. Even to get those 6 bottles I had to shop around for it a bit. Obviously I'm not going to start stockpiling the stuff because I haven't tried it out yet, and by then it'll probably be too late.
 
D

De__eB

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • RockStar
I would wager that they may have slightly different reasoning and concerns with a 16 year old versus a 50 year old. They would probably put the 50 year old on TRT if his levels deemed it reasonable to. Just based on the endocrinologists I know.
A 16 yr old with clinically low T is going to get TRT just the same as the 50 year old.

Just like kids with clinically stunted growth can get GH/IGF

What data gives people the magic 21 year age?

I think there are very strong mental maturity and physical maturity reasons for the majority of people to wait before using steroids.

But I also don't really encourage steroid use in general.

There are absolutely college athletes using steroids successfully <21.
 
D

De__eB

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • RockStar
I'd be crucified for saying something similar to this on here lol
Yeah well, I don't sell any PH products or particularly recommend steroids to anyone.

But the chill on even talking about under 21 steroid use has probably hurt more kids than it has helped.
 
VaughnTrue

VaughnTrue

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Yeah well, I don't sell any PH products or particularly recommend steroids to anyone.

But the chill on even talking about under 21 steroid use has probably hurt more kids than it has helped.
when my son is 18, I'd far prefer someone teach him how to use them properly than just say "NOPE CANT TALK ABOUT THAT!" and leave him to his own devices.

The gang mentality on this forum regarding prohormones/steroids/pct is sickening tbh. it makes it painful to post about the subject at all.
 
Wildcat528

Wildcat528

Active member
Awards
0
A 16 yr old with clinically low T is going to get TRT just the same as the 50 year old.

Just like kids with clinically stunted growth can get GH/IGF

What data gives people the magic 21 year age?

I think there are very strong mental maturity and physical maturity reasons for the majority of people to wait before using steroids.

But I also don't really encourage steroid use in general.

There are absolutely college athletes using steroids successfully <21.
If you're saying they're identical you would be mistaken. It would be very rare for a 16 year old to have chronically low test naturally whereas common for the elderly. Their TRT regimines alone would be different as the teenager may actually want to be fertile to have kids one day whereas the endocrinologist likely wouldn't be concerned about that with a 50+ year old who is done trying to reproduce in most cases. There's a big difference between being on testosterone cypionate versus clomiphene citrate lol
 
2

210LBS

Well-known member
Awards
0
when my son is 18, I'd far prefer someone teach him how to use them properly than just say "NOPE CANT TALK ABOUT THAT!" and leave him to his own devices.

The gang mentality on this forum regarding prohormones/steroids/pct is sickening tbh. it makes it painful to post about the subject at all.
Educating is one thing, encouraging is another. I'm 29 and been lifting since I was 15 and I'm still scared of PHs. Trenavol will be my first.
 
The_Old_Guy

The_Old_Guy

Well-known member
Awards
0
This is a long copy/paste, sorry. It's from another forum so I don't think it can be linked. You can Google "At what age is the male endocrine system fully developed". I also have no opinion on this guys data - just the messenger - evaluate yourself. My *only* source of the "wait til you're 26" is from Dr. Rand McClean - and no one is infallible. Obviously if you have a skilled MD monitoring you constantly, that is best case. Most supp buyers that age won't have that.

This is going to be pretty detailed so for those who've seen my thread on the other board by all means skip this topic since the message is pretty much the same (albeit with more data).
For others who simply cant stand reading long essays of scientific mumbo jumbo - skip to the conclusion

There is no specific "age" with regards to steroid use but, IMO, there is an age range of around 23-25.
Since we don't know how mentally developed the newbies posting here are, it is always better to go with the safer option of 25.
Here's why....


- A group of guys were treated back in the 60s & 70s with Sustanon 250 for 1 1/2 years in order to stop them from getting too tall - this was seen as a social disadvantage back then.
They then did a follow up 21yrs later to see if there were any lasting side effects compared to base levels of untreated men:

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/jc.2010-0435

"High-dose sex steroid treatment of boys does not affect their fatherhood or semen quality, as assessed after a mean follow-up of 21 years; however, serum testosterone levels are significantly reduced in androgen-treated tall men...

The treatment of tall stature is based on the understanding that exposure to gonadal steroids leads to epiphyseal fusion of the long bones during pubertal development.

"Leydig cell function was significantly affected by androgen treatment. In treated men, both serum testosterone and non-SHBG-bound testosterone levels were significantly reduced compared with untreated men. We hypothesize that the decreased T levels may be caused by reduced Leydig cell growth during puberty and suboptimal functioning of the Leydig cells in later life."


What does all this mean?

- Steroids can stunt your growth; this is one of the ways they were used in a clinical setting decades ago.
Therefore it should be obvious that cycling before 18-21 is a bad idea (no, not everyone magically stops growing at 18) but this alone doesn't justify the generic "25" recommendation.

- Good news is that fertility doesn't seem to be affected in the long term BUT your HPTA clearly doesn't recover fully either judging by the lower test levels.
- The main theory at the moment explaining why people don't recover after cycling concerns Leydig cell dysfunction, a problem that has no solution to it outside of TRT.


Now some of you will say that the risk of not recovering has more to do with overall dosage & length of cycles rather than age right?

That would be wrong - its a combination of age, dosage and cycle length. The Leydig cell theory is key to understanding why people shouldn't cycle before their early-mid 20s...

http://www.springer.com/cda/content/...66-p173728262.

"The precursor cells for adult Leydig cells begin their transformation at approx 10 yr of age, and differentiation is complete by 13 yr of age....During puberty, the number of adult Leydig cells increases and reaches a maximum of 5x10^8 per testis in the early 20s..."

Considering your Leydig cells don't stop developing until your early 20s, and Leydig cell dysfunction appears to be the main reason for not recovering from AAS, I don't think its a stretch to say that starting AAS before your early 20s INCREASES the risk of AAS-induced hypogonadism.


And THEN you have the fact that steroids do impact brain development:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25986964

"This multimodal magnetic resonance imaging study of the brain compared 10 male weightlifters reporting long-term AAS use with 10 age-matched weightlifters reporting no AAS exposure...
AAS users had larger right amygdala volumes than nonusers (P=0.002) and reduced rsFC between right amygdala and frontal, striatal, limbic, hippocampal, and visual cortical areas."


And the brain, a pretty important part of the endocrine system, isn't done developing until your early-mid 20s anyway...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11698594

"In this study, we conducted detailed spatial and temporal analyses of growth and gray matter density at the cortical surface of the brain in a group of 35 normally developing children, adolescents, and young adults...
Fourteen children (7–11 years; mean age, 9.3 ± 1.3 years; 7 boys and 7 girls), 11 adolescents (12–16 years; mean age, 13.8 ± 1.6 years; 6 boys and 5 girls), and 10 young adults (23–30 years; mean age, 25.6 ± 2.0 years; 5 men and 5 women) were studied...
In this report...we have mapped the spatial distribution of late brain growth and demonstrate that it does indeed continue in the frontal and posterior temporal lobes during the postadolescent years regardless of whether individual differences in global brain size are controlled."

Interesting, but completely coincidental, that the postadolescent group had a mean age of 25...


AND the impact of brain development MAY be stronger when its not yet fully developed...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23274699

""Studies in both humans and animal models indicate that AAS exposure during adolescence alters normal brain remodeling, including structural changes and neurotransmitter function... The evidence suggests that the use of AAS during this critical period of development may increase the risk for maladaptive behaviors along with neurological disorders."

So considering the brain isn't fully developed, and steroids do have an impact on different aspects of your brain, and this impact may be stronger when the brain isn't fully developed...it seems like a good idea to NOT interfere with the process.


Conclusion

- Steroids can stunt your growth.
- Leydig cell dysfunction is the main theory explaining why some guys don't recover post AAS cycle.
- Leydig cells are not done developing until the early 20s.
- AAS does alter certain aspects of the brain, implications of this are uncertain.
- Brain development continues until the early-mid 20s.
- The impact of AAS on the brain MAY be stronger when the endocrine system isn't fully developed.

- Based on all this, it makes sense to err on the side of caution and recommend an AAS starting age of 25
Actual links if they don't work above:

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-lookup/doi/10.1210/jc.2010-0435

http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9781588291318-c2.pdf?SGW****0-0-45-396766-p173728262.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25986964

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11698594

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23274699
 
D

De__eB

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • RockStar
If you're saying they're identical you would be mistaken. It would be very rare for a 16 year old to have chronically low test naturally whereas common for the elderly. Their TRT regimines alone would be different as the teenager may actually want to be fertile to have kids one day whereas the endocrinologist likely wouldn't be concerned about that with a 50+ year old who is done trying to reproduce in most cases.
Where did I say they were identical?

I mean that the young person would get TRT as a treatment option, the exact prescription of that TRT would obviously be different.

They are obviously not identical cases, but when people refuse to talk about the use cases for younger people, while only providing information pertaining to the use cases of older people, you have a void of information among a population of young lifters some of whom are inevitably going to try steroids whether you tell them to or not.
 
Eric Mar

Eric Mar

Board Sponsor
Awards
0
Great information! Way to keep this discussion going! I think this is an individual choice and the more information for an informed decision the better!
 
Eric Mar

Eric Mar

Board Sponsor
Awards
0
Tamoxifen inhibits Leydig cell steroidogenesis: In vivo and in vitro studies☆
Author links open overlay panelT.LinabE.P.Muronoab
Show more
https://doi.org/10.1016/0026-0495(82)90092-0Get rights and content
Abstract
Using isolated interstitial cells from testes of Sprague-Dawley rats, we have shown previously that tamoxifen inhibits LH and 8-bromo-cyclic AMP stimulated testosterone synthesis in a dose-dependent manner. The inhibitory effect of tamoxifen could not be reversed with 17β-estradiol. The present studies indicate that tamoxifen directly inhibits testosterone response to gonadotropin stimulation both in immature and mature hypophysectomized rats. When interstitial cells were incubated with pregnenolone (5×10−7M), testosterone levels in the incubation medium were 27.0 ± 1.9 ng106cells. Tamoxifen (10−5M) significantly inhibited pregnenolone-induced testosterone formation. Tamoxifen also significantly diminished adenylate cyclase activity whereas the binding of hCG to receptor was not affected. These results indicate that several steps of steroidogenesis are inhibited by tamoxifen.
 
VaughnTrue

VaughnTrue

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Educating is one thing, encouraging is another. I'm 29 and been lifting since I was 15 and I'm still scared of PHs. Trenavol will be my first.
no one here is suggesting it.
 
Eric Mar

Eric Mar

Board Sponsor
Awards
0
Direct inhibition of rat leydig cell function by tamoxifen
Author links open overlay panelT.LinabE.P.MuronoabJ.OstermanabH.R.Nankinab
Show more
https://doi.org/10.1016/0026-0495(81)90165-7Get rights and content
Abstract
The effects of tamoxifen on rat testicular steroidogenesis were studied using dispersed interstitial cells. Tamoxifen significantly inhibited LH-, and 8-bromo-adenosine 3′,5′-monophosphate (8-bromo-cyclic AMP)-stimulated testosterone synthesis in a dose-dependent manner. Tamoxifen (10−5M) also reduced LH-stimulated cyclic AMP formation. The addition of equimolar concentrations of 17β-estradiol or tamoxifen separately to interstitial cells resulted in similar inhibition of LH-stimulated testosterone synthesis. When equimolar concentrations of 17β-estradiol and tamoxifen were added concomitantly to interstitial cells, the inhibition was additive. Present studies demonstrate that tamoxifen has direct inhibitory effects on testicular steroidogenesis: both at the plasma membrane resulting in decreased cyclic AMP formation and also at steps subsequent to cyclic AMP.
 
Wildcat528

Wildcat528

Active member
Awards
0
Where did I say they were identical?

I mean that the young person would get TRT as a treatment option, the exact prescription of that TRT would obviously be different.

They are obviously not identical cases, but when people refuse to talk about the use cases for younger people, while only providing information pertaining to the use cases of older people, you have a void of information among a population of young lifters some of whom are inevitably going to try steroids whether you tell them to or not.
I believe you said "a 16 year old with chronically low t would get TRT the same as a 50 year old" or along those lines. But it would not be the same. The child would be put on clomiphene citrate most likely which is not the same as exogenous test. One is an attempt to naturally restore your natural production whereas the other is not. Quite the contrary. However, if you're just saying that the endocrinologist would want to fix the problem that's obviously correct. But those TRT methods are not the same as I'm sure you're aware. We might be on the same page, just misinterpreting each other slightly. But in terms of the 16 year old I imagine the endocrinologist would have slightly different concerns about ramifications if the kid is injecting exogenous test weekly. Given that their system likely isn't fully developed and a whole host of other reasons.
 
2

210LBS

Well-known member
Awards
0
I think one of the BEST natural supplements for PCT is Longjack (Eurycoma longiforia).
If I run an rx pct after the Trenavol it will probably be clomid and not nolva. If I stick to otc then I'd have to do more research. I was looking at the new Novedex XT but haven't seen much reviews yet.
 
W

Whisky

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
when my son is 18, I'd far prefer someone teach him how to use them properly than just say "NOPE CANT TALK ABOUT THAT!" and leave him to his own devices.

The gang mentality on this forum regarding prohormones/steroids/pct is sickening tbh. it makes it painful to post about the subject at all.
IMO there is a big difference between encouraging anyone under 21 (my personal view is why bother before 25 or even 30) to use anabolics and letting them reach tbat decision of their own accord.

Theres plenty of threads ive seen where, following an 18/19/20/21 year old stating they've made the decision to go down the route, the AM community offer advice on how to run a cycle safely and correctly......

To me surely its simply a sensible approach to question why someone at that age wants to go down that road - if they've plateau'd then its probably down to training and nutrition which they should address first. I agree that in some cases it'll be legit and support should be available but in many others the outcomes they are after could be achieved without anabolics.

Just my view from what ive seen on here....
 
VaughnTrue

VaughnTrue

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
no one here is suggesting it.
IMO there is a big difference between encouraging anyone under 21 (my personal view is why bother before 25 or even 30) to use anabolics and letting them reach tbat decision of their own accord.

Theres plenty of threads ive seen where, following an 18/19/20/21 year old stating they've made the decision to go down the route, the AM community offer advice on how to run a cycle safely and correctly......

To me surely its simply a sensible approach to question why someone at that age wants to go down that road - if they've plateau'd then its probably down to training and nutrition which they should address first. I agree that in some cases it'll be legit and support should be available but in many others the outcomes they are after could be achieved without anabolics.

Just my view from what ive seen on here....
please see my response above.
 
D

De__eB

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • RockStar
To be clear my argument is not in favor of young people using steroids, there is extremely few use cases where they have a need to.

But if they elect to, then they need to be able to do so as safely as possible, just like anyone else.

It is a sticky situation of course when most of the knowledgeable people on the matter are company affiliated and have to be careful to tread water with what can be interpreted as a recommendation and what can be interpreted as just making information available.
 
D

De__eB

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • RockStar
IMO there is a big difference between encouraging anyone under 21 (my personal view is why bother before 25 or even 30) to use anabolics and letting them reach tbat decision of their own accord.

Theres plenty of threads ive seen where, following an 18/19/20/21 year old stating they've made the decision to go down the route, the AM community offer advice on how to run a cycle safely and correctly......

To me surely its simply a sensible approach to question why someone at that age wants to go down that road - if they've plateau'd then its probably down to training and nutrition which they should address first. I agree that in some cases it'll be legit and support should be available but in many others the outcomes they are after could be achieved without anabolics.

Just my view from what ive seen on here....
I think the best practices and compounds hypothetically used by a young person would differ significantly from the advice I'd give for older people, but for legal reasons you can't just say 'oh yeah you should use <this steroid>' because that is you recommending yourself into potential legal liability
 
W

Whisky

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I think the best practices and compounds hypothetically used by a young person would differ significantly from the advice I'd give for older people, but for legal reasons you can't just say 'oh yeah you should use <this steroid>' because that is you recommending yourself into potential legal liability
Yeah thats a good point, I think where places like this can assist though is in high lighting the areas someone may need to consider (i.e suggesting they research serms and pct or research potential conflicts of using certain compounds to outcomes desired etc)
 
JohnnieFreeze

JohnnieFreeze

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
lets think worst case scenario here. Even IF someone were to suggest a prohormone to someone who is new to lifting...is there any more danger for that person? no. The only "downside" is they'd miss out on their natural gains, and instead get some ridiculous beginner prohormone gains. They'd be "wasting" some of their natural gains without a doubt here, but it's no more dangerous than anyone else using a product which is what I'm pretty sure Eric was hinting at
Then there is also the fact that not everyone has high levels of Testosterone even in their late teens and early 20s. Thats just a blanket general assumption that some people make that everyone has souring test levels as young men. There are plenty of younger people with low normal test levels who are otherwise quite normal and healthy but just dont have the genetics to put on much lean mass. I wont go as far saying that kids should use anabolics, but there are plenty of average young adults who wont make impressive natural gains without taking something.
 
The_Old_Guy

The_Old_Guy

Well-known member
Awards
0
Then there is also the fact that not everyone has high levels of Testosterone even in their late teens and early 20s. Thats just a blanket general assumption that some people make that everyone has souring test levels as young men. There are plenty of younger people with low normal test levels who are otherwise quite normal and healthy but just dont have the genetics to put on much lean mass. I wont go as far saying that kids should use anabolics, but there are plenty of average young adults who wont make impressive natural gains without taking something.
Odds are that most "normal" teens *do* have high levels though. And physiological range Test (at least according to a lot of the research) isn't *all* that important for muscle gains any way. The Dr's Nadulsky were both in the 400's IIRC, Bhasin's studies didn't show all that much improvement, etc... I'm not saying 280 = 1200 in every way, but... I'm Libertarian, so hey, I get it - you're an adult (18+), do what you want. But really, 99% of males don't need to get as big as possible before 25 unless trying to win a Gold Medal, sign with Major League Sports, or pay bills to live - given the possible risks later on. IMO anyway.
 
Eric Mar

Eric Mar

Board Sponsor
Awards
0
Odds are that most "normal" teens *do* have high levels though. And physiological range Test (at least according to a lot of the research) isn't *all* that important for muscle gains any way. The Dr's Nadulsky were both in the 400's IIRC, Bhasin's studies didn't show all that much improvement, etc... I'm not saying 280 = 1200 in every way, but... I'm Libertarian, so hey, I get it - you're an adult (18+), do what you want. But really, 99% of males don't need to get as big as possible before 25 unless trying to win a Gold Medal, sign with Major League Sports, or pay bills to live - given the possible risks later on. IMO anyway.
Absolutely right! I think the AR is capable of upregulating and down-regulating in response to varied levels of testosterone in skeletal muscle. Makes total sense... In the brain however it may be a totally different story with androgens!
 
JohnnieFreeze

JohnnieFreeze

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Odds are that most "normal" teens *do* have high levels though. And physiological range Test (at least according to a lot of the research) isn't *all* that important for muscle gains any way. The Dr's Nadulsky were both in the 400's IIRC, Bhasin's studies didn't show all that much improvement, etc... I'm not saying 280 = 1200 in every way, but... I'm Libertarian, so hey, I get it - you're an adult (18+), do what you want. But really, 99% of males don't need to get as big as possible before 25 unless trying to win a Gold Medal, sign with Major League Sports, or pay bills to live - given the possible risks later on. IMO anyway.
Since the genetically average is about 90% of the population with only about 10% of people who ever lift a weight will achieve athleticism or excel in any sport then there must be other factors involved (if high test doesnt necessarily mean much)... low myo, good test to cortisol ratios, high hgh/IGF levels, or some other yet undiscovered lean mass builder in ones genetic makeup that scientist dont yet know about.
 
T

Toff

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Hi

Can we summarise this 6 page post?


6-keto-pregna-4-ene-3,20-dione is

a)suppressive? yes/no
b) PCT yes /no
c) useful yes/no
 
D

Danksta710

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
Has anyone run this supplement? Can't find much information on it.
 

Similar threads


Top