Nandrolone for Mood | Feeling much Better..

[bixt]

Today - simply adding another 50-100 mg of Nandrolone on top of TRT does not create this problem

I promise you, this is not true. Maybe for you, and maybe for some people, but certainly your blanket statement does not apply to everyone. Neither have you provided data (I accept tons of anecdotes as data for my purposes, not only studies). We have RECENT reports over at T-nation of exactly such small doses causing "numb dicks" on well respected and knowledgeable members. Are they all lying? That, and that alone has scared me away and stopped me from ever experimenting with nandrolone.

So bullshit that 50-100mg nandrolone doesn't cause dopamine (or dick) issues in EVERYONE. Don't peddle such info. It works for you, yes. If you are in such pain that you need nandrolone, certainly go for it. You are making a trade off - the pain reduction is of greater utility to you than the potential harms. For many, this will be a valuable trad off.

But is nandrolone a mood booster at small doses in addition to TRT? In the absence of severe pain or wasting should nandrolone be taken? I think not.

 

[DS3]

Just to be clear - in the 80s we didn’t run a a testosterone base or did, what they call today - a post cycle therapy (pct) which is taking Clomid and HCG to get your system back on line. This plus running higher doses (300 mg Nandrolone combined with something like 20 mg per day of Dbol) was a common cycle. Imagine the uptick on dopamine on that . Today - simply adding another 50-100 mg of Nandrolone on top of TRT does not create this problem

How did you feel mentally (if you remember) running cycles without a test base?

 

[JimGainz]

I remember very well. I felt fantastic. In fact probably never better. The problems came when I was coming off and then all of the normal withdrawal symptoms, erection problems etc. from being completely shut down emerged.

Back in 2016 I did a cycle of SARMs - Again not knowing what I was doing and falling into all of the hype, without a testosterone base. It was amazing – probably had some of the best gains ever on 5mg / day of a substance called Rad140. This was the first time I used any performance enhancement drug since the 80s. I had blood work done afterwards and my testosterone was 170 ng/dl (down from about 425 natty). I wouldn’t have noticed a difference while on it – but coming off I sure did. This was about when I went on TRT full time.

 

[Thunderitout]

I can totally see how you would notice changes quickly. As other commenters stated, it is a high starting dose so you need to watch estradiol and hematocrit carefully and get checked again (or lower the dose) in a month to make sure you are not headed for issues. Good luck,and I’m glad you are feeling better. The nandrolone/ testosterone combination has done wonders for me and sounds like you are off to a great start.

Thank you for your kind response. I really appreciate it. Yes sir, I'll definitely keep track of everything and closely monitor affects.

Take care

Jeff

 

[irongiant]

I don’t see why everyone is getting in such a tizzy over this. If OP feels good both mentally and physically. Plus he monitored his health markers periodically, what’s the issue exactly? Isn’t the whole point of HRT is to better ones quality life which is exactly what OP is doing?

Also the studies with nandrolone being toxic to the heart are dubious at best. Also none of the studies take into consideration stacking nandrolone with test. Nandrolone aromatizes at roughly 20% the amount that test does (a few studies don’t even see aromatization occur in some men). Estrogen is crucial for heart health, so nandrolone as a stand alone wouldn’t be optimal but pairing it with a healthy level of test alleviates that issue.

Anywhooo more power to you OP glad you’re currently feeling good.

 

[tareload]

I am no one to talk after being banned at T-Nation but I gotta say this thread is a great example of @RickB 's comments on the other thread. @madman and @bixt are both big boys and are still talking to each other. The mods on here are pretty incredible IMO and forum members get an infinite bang for their buck with madman, cataceous, Vince and Nelson. Readers are very fortunate to have a place to go get science based information and a great group of folks. Way to go ExcelMale!

Long may you reign.

 

[Guided_by_Voices]

I don’t see why everyone is getting in such a tizzy over this. If OP feels good both mentally and physically. Plus he monitored his health markers periodically, what’s the issue exactly? Isn’t the whole point of HRT is to better ones quality life which is exactly what OP is doing?

Also the studies with nandrolone being toxic to the heart are dubious at best. Also none of the studies take into consideration stacking nandrolone with test. Nandrolone aromatizes at roughly 20% the amount that test does (a few studies don’t even see aromatization occur in some men). Estrogen is crucial for heart health, so nandrolone as a stand alone wouldn’t be optimal but pairing it with a healthy level of test alleviates that issue.

Anywhooo more power to you OP glad you’re currently feeling good.

And while we're on the topic of N and Heart health, since when it T toxic to blood vessels? Everything is probably toxic at some level, but even at bodybuilder levels, test alone seems quite safe, so 11 times close to zero is still fairly close to zero.

 

[tareload]

but even at bodybuilder levels, test alone seems quite safe,

Anecdotal or can you point me to reading material ??

 

[Guided_by_Voices]

Anecdotal or can you point me to reading material ??

It's based on many years of following strength sports. Heart disease takes a long time to appear, however if T alone were an issue, it would be reasonable to expect to see extensive evidence of damage, however in general the strength sport old-timers seem to be more healthy than the general population, albeit with many other factors involved such as a generally healthy lifestyle, extensive monitoring of blood-pressure. etc. The basic point is that implying that T alone is damaging, without much more precise context and evidence, and then extending that to N seems totally invalid. There are obviously outliers but insulin use, as one example, is likely a far bigger issue.

 

[tareload]

It's based on many years of following strength sports. Heart disease takes a long time to appear, however if T alone were an issue, it would be reasonable to expect to see extensive evidence of damage, however in general the strength sport old-timers seem to be more healthy than the general population, albeit with many other factors involved such as a generally healthy lifestyle, extensive monitoring of blood-pressure. etc. The basic point is that implying that T alone is damaging, without much more precise context and evidence, and then extending that to N seems totally invalid. There are obviously outliers but insulin use, as one example, is likely a far bigger issue.

Frontiers | Supraphysiological Levels of Testosterone Induce Vascular Dysfunction via Activation of the NLRP3 Inflammasome

<p><bold>Background:</bold> Both supraphysiological and subphysiological testosterone levels are associated with increased cardiovascular risk. Testosterone ...

www.frontiersin.org

Chronic high‐dose testosterone treatment: impact on rat cardiac contractile biology

Androgen therapy provides cardiovascular benefits for hypogonadism. However, myocardial hypertrophy, fibrosis, and infarction have been reported in testosterone or androgenic anabolic steroid abuse. Therefore, better understanding of the factors leading ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

How the love of muscle can break a heart: Impact of anabolic androgenic steroids on skeletal muscle hypertrophy, metabolic and cardiovascular health - Reviews in Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders

It is estimated 6.4% of males and 1.6% of females globally use anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS), mostly for appearance and performance enhancing reasons. In combination with resistance exercise, AAS use increases muscle protein synthesis resulting in skeletal muscle hypertrophy and increased...

link.springer.com

You are right, there is so much we don't know along with individual response.




Just my personal experience, this type of regimen didn't/won't work so well for me:

#SymptomRelief?..1200 ng/dl trough w/ E7D or E3.5D dosing
What’s your problem Bro? I’m only “hitting” 1200 ng/dl.

YMMV.

 

[DS3]

@readalot Is the implication of your data intended to be extrapolated to all TRT users, suggesting that because you had a cardiovascular event, others will indeed face the same outcome with elevated testosterone levels? What role does your genetics play? Are your genetics generalizable to other TRT users?

At what point can we generalize the statement that elevated testosterone levels carry significant cardiovascular risk? Where is the threshold that puts one at risk?

The rhetoric used from many forum users, yourself included, suggest that scientific findings indicate a strong relationship between cardiovascular risk and testosterone levels. Yet, when scientific evidence is provided, it’s merely esoteric rodent studies with extrapolated findings.

Let’s cut the shit with acting like we know when we enter the ‘danger zone’ in TRT. We don’t know; you don’t know; @Cataceous does not know. We don’t know.

 

[tareload]

Let’s cut the shit with acting like we know when we enter the ‘danger zone’ in TRT. We don’t know; you don’t know; @Cataceous does not know. We don’t know.

You are right, there is so much we don't know along with individual response.

YMMV

Maybe you missed it. Hope my graphs are not so enthralling that that the words that go with them are inaccessible to the reader.

Shit had been cut. Yes Sir, no more shit Sir.

 

[Cataceous]

...
The rhetoric used from many forum users, yourself included, suggest that scientific findings indicate a strong relationship between cardiovascular risk and testosterone levels. ...

Aside from being an overstatement, this is simply a deflection. The burden of proof is clearly on anyone who says it's safe to run with non-physiological levels of testosterone or any other hormone.

 

[tareload]

YMMV

Aside from being an overstatement, this is simply a deflection. The burden of proof is clearly on anyone who says it's safe to run with non-physiological levels of testosterone or any other hormone.

Uh oh, there is that safe word again.

No, not in @DS3 world. We already saw that in the other thread.

Post in thread 'TRT to Supraphysiological Levels for Body Building' TRT to Supraphysiological Levels for Body Building

No worries I got you covered and hope you do what you like. We got plenty of options here in the Ole USA.

I hope you all sleep well (and that all the T doesn't mess with your REM cycle). Good night.

FinMasters - Master Your Finances and Reach Your Goals

Master your finances and reach your goals. We offer expert-driven advice and resources to help you earn, save and grow your money.

fallacyinlogic.com

Burden of Proof

BURDEN OF PROOF Of all the concepts that frame academic argument, the notion of burden of proof is both among the most familiar to student writers and among the most difficult to grasp. For the most...

www.writingarguments.com

Falsifiability - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

BURDEN OF PROOF

Of all the concepts that frame academic argument, the notion of burden of proof is both among the most familiar to student writers and among the most difficult to grasp. For the most part, student writers will find that the burden of proof is on them, meaning that if they want someone to believe a claim, they must provide evidence to support that claim. The burden of proof, or the requirement to provide evidence, is always on the person seeking to prove a claim or change the status quo.

Burden Of Proof Fallacy​

The fallacy of shifting the burden of proof occurs when someone making a claim does not respect their obligation to provide the needed evidence for it, but instead attempts to shift the burden to their opponent.

For example, when someone makes a claim that God is real, instead of showing why they believe they are correct, they shift their burden of proof to their opponent by asserting that it’s their responsibility to disprove it.

As such, this fallacious line of reasoning is commonly involved with claims that are unfalsifiable, that is, claims that are not possible to disprove. Many religious and supernatural claims that cannot be scientifically proven are examples of unfalsifiable propositions.

 

[DS3]

Burden Of Proof Fallacy

The fallacy of shifting the burden of proof occurs when someone making a claim does not respect their obligation to provide the needed evidence for it, but instead attempts to shift the burden to their opponent.

Fortunately, I neither stated a claim nor falsely represented scientific information. In fact, the opposite has occurred. My position has remained that we do not know when we cross into the threshold of ‘danger’ on TRT. The scientific evidence provided from the burdened party (you) has always been arcane rodent studies with extrapolated findings.

As I’ve said before, the cardiovascular event has left a less than objective mark, resulting in a heavily biased research methodology.

There is no question that a threshold that represents entry into a danger zone on TRT exists. However, scientific evidence to-date does not elucidate its location.

This parties position: We don’t know when we enter into a danger zone. There aren’t enough human studies to determine this.

Your Position: Anything above reference range (physiological) is putting one at risk. PROVE IT with applicable data.

#cuttheshit

 

[Gman86]

It's based on many years of following strength sports. Heart disease takes a long time to appear, however if T alone were an issue, it would be reasonable to expect to see extensive evidence of damage, however in general the strength sport old-timers seem to be more healthy than the general population, albeit with many other factors involved such as a generally healthy lifestyle, extensive monitoring of blood-pressure. etc. The basic point is that implying that T alone is damaging, without much more precise context and evidence, and then extending that to N seems totally invalid. There are obviously outliers but insulin use, as one example, is likely a far bigger issue.

Insulin for sure, as well as diuretic use, ai’s, much higher dosages of compounds, and fat burners like clenbuterol, if we’re referring to why bodybuilders nowadays are kicking the bucket at early ages, while u still have Arnold going strong, as well as Robby Robinson who is 75 years old and still going, and not to mention currently has a better body than 99% of every guy that’s ever lived, even in their prime, and he’s been on record saying he did deca only cycles for most, if not all of his bodybuilding career. And heart disease is more prevelant in the African American community. So if Robby robinson blasted deca for say 20 years, and is still going strong at 75, I don’t think guys need to worry too much about using 100mg of nandrolone alongside their test dosage. The anecdotal evidence is basically showing that nandrolone is no more toxic to the heart than test is, especially when used in conjunction with a heavily aromatizing compound like test.

 

[Cataceous]

...
This parties position: We don’t know when we enter into a danger zone. ...

Your Position: Anything above reference range (physiological) is putting one at risk. PROVE IT with applicable data.
...

Your position matches the position you ascribe to @readalot. When you acknowledge there's a danger zone above the physiological range—for integrated exposure—and it's unknown where it begins, then it directly follows that going above the range is a risk.

If I hand you a revolver with one live round in it, randomly placed, would you consider it a risk to point it at your head and pull the trigger? If you knew the live round wasn't the next to be fired then there would be no risk. Otherwise it's the lack of knowledge itself that makes the risk.

What this really boils down to is the risk/reward tradeoff. In the Russian roulette analogy, if the cylinder could hold a million rounds, and if the reward for surviving were a million dollars, then I'd probably pull the trigger. It might be tough psychologically, but you have to put it in the context of risks we take every day. Just going out for a drive is riskier than pulling the trigger in this situation.

Rather than condemning, you should be applauding @readalot for trying to quantify the risks to help guys decide if the perceived benefits are worth it.

 

[tareload]

The scientific evidence provided from the burdened party (you) has always been arcane rodent studies with extrapolated findings.

As I’ve said before, the cardiovascular event has left a less than objective mark, resulting in a heavily biased research methodology.

Just a quick observation, that's a pretty f'ed up claim to make given the time, effort, and objectivity I tried to use to throw all available (I could find) human and rodent data all into a master plot. Then in excruciating detail I went through what I knew and what I didn't know.

The bullshit asymmetry principle is working overtime as usual on the internet. Point 2b is why we can't have nice things on Internet forums.

The bullshit asymmetry principle | Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science

Two questions then arise:

1. Is this principle true? Or, more specifically, when is it true and when is it not?

2. To the extent that the principle is true, where is it coming from? I can think of a couple theories:

a. Asymmetry in standards of evidence: it’s much easier to suggest that something might be true than to demonstrate conclusively that it’s not the case. For example, consider “cold fusion”: A single experiment with anomalous results got lots of attention, but it took a lot of effort to figure out what went wrong.

b. Ethical asymmetry: The kinds of people who bullshit are more likely to be the kinds of people who misrepresent evidence, avoid correcting their errors, and intimidate dissenters, so at some point the people who could shoot down the bullshit might decide it’s not worth the trouble: Why bother fight bullshit if the bullshitters are going to turn around and personally attack you? From this standpoint, once bullshit becomes “too big to fail,” it can stay around forever.

There is no question that a threshold that represents entry into a danger zone on TRT exists. However, scientific evidence to-date does not elucidate its location.

I am glad you were able to get to this point in the other thread.

Cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable, I get it.

This parties position: We don’t know when we enter into a danger zone. There aren’t enough human studies to determine this.

Your Position: Anything above reference range (physiological) is putting one at risk. PROVE IT with applicable data.

#cuttheshit

Given what I shared with you here and here, if you understood those concepts then you would understand the absurdity of your request. You'd like me to quantify the integrated exposure risk for every individual by stratified TT/fT level.

Oh and what I mentioned before was I hypothesized there is risk with an individual going above their reference range and physiologic SP which may less than the top of the physiologic reference range.

BTW, in case this is helpful to anyone in setting their TT level vs TRT/TOT protocol by understanding how a group of individuals respond to injectable testosterone ester:

What is TRT and What is NOT TRT

Note: I originally posted this over at T-Nation so hope it's ok if I share it here @Nelson Vergel. Had an interesting and lively exchange over there with one of the proponents of the "TOT" protocol (Testosterone Optimization Therapy as it is called). This short summary gives guys a look of...

www.excelmale.com

What is TRT and What is NOT TRT

Note: I originally posted this over at T-Nation so hope it's ok if I share it here @Nelson Vergel. Had an interesting and lively exchange over there with one of the proponents of the "TOT" protocol (Testosterone Optimization Therapy as it is called). This short summary gives guys a look of...

www.excelmale.com

What is TRT and What is NOT TRT

Note: I originally posted this over at T-Nation so hope it's ok if I share it here @Nelson Vergel. Had an interesting and lively exchange over there with one of the proponents of the "TOT" protocol (Testosterone Optimization Therapy as it is called). This short summary gives guys a look of...

www.excelmale.com

#cuttheshit

 

[tareload]

To @Cataceous 's point...fun (or not so fun) data:

Odds of Dying - Injury Facts

Knowing the odds of dying is the first step in beating them. New 2021 data shows the risks from plane crashes, guns, falls and more.

injuryfacts.nsc.org

Examples using the Risk Perspective Scale

Note #1 in the list for lifetime odds of death. Gives food for thought on little steps you can do every day in spite of the hand you've been dealt with your genetics.

Also, to be fair for balance...lifetime odds of death are 1 in 1.

Lots of options to consider and a vast menu available.

 

[Guided_by_Voices]

Back on the Nandrolone topic, my original point was clearly not saying that blasting Bodybuilder levels of T is a good idea, but rather to say that it is disingenuous to say that N is 11 times more toxic to the blood vessels that T since T is clearly not a known risk to the blood vessels is reasonable doses, and maybe not even in somewhat higher doses. A few of the things which are clearly toxic to the blood vessels in achievable levels include insulin, blood sugar, lead, cigarette smoke, and spike proteins. Even these are not necessarily a risk in low amounts and in the case of sugar and insulin are necessary in moderate amounts. As Dr. Kendrick says, there are always processes ongoing in the body (e.g. inflammation) which can be damaging in high amounts, but the body also has very well-developed repair mechanisms. If damage is greater that repair: problem. If repair is greater than damage by a decent margin of safety: proceed. @readalot , if you haven't read Dr. Kendrick's long blog series "What Causes Heart Disease" , I highly recommend it.