1 Yr Update with 250mg/mL Lab results are in!!

[Starplex]

Had my lab work done last week during my trough, Wed morning. Had the Dr. visit today and reviewed the results. I am very pleased with these results and will continue my protocol.
Protocol:
Inject 0.5ml every 3.5 days for a total of 250mg/ml per week, Test Cyp. (Wed. night and Sun. morning)
Tadafil 5mg daily, DHEA-S 50mg daily, Vitamin D3 5000iu daily, Fish Oil and multi daily
Added in DIM about 2 months ago and I think this has lowered my E2 values based on labs and overall feeling. (I use to take Grapeseed Extract) No other inhibitor used. Overall I feel great.
BOD POD measurements:
4/2016 had me at 32.9% Fat, 67.1% Fat Free Mass, RMR 1710
5/2017 had me at 22.5% Fat, 77.5% Fat Free Mass, RMR 1841(resting metabolic rate)
Based on caliper measurements I would guess it would be around 15% BF.

My prior labs were on 9/2016, i have written those values in (blue) beside the new values.
My last blood donation was in Feb. 2017. (my Dr. isn't concerned w/ Hemocrit, very much like the Dr. Nichols discussion held previously regarding E2 & Hemocrit)

 

[madman]

Had my lab work done last week during my trough, Wed morning. Had the Dr. visit today and reviewed the results. I am very pleased with these results and will continue my protocol.
Protocol:
Inject 0.5ml every 3.5 days for a total of 250mg/ml per week, Test Cyp. (Wed. night and Sun. morning)
Tadafil 5mg daily, DHEA-S 50mg daily, Vitamin D3 5000iu daily, Fish Oil and multi daily
Added in DIM about 2 months ago and I think this has lowered my E2 values based on labs and overall feeling. (I use to take Grapeseed Extract) No other inhibitor used. Overall I feel great.
BOD POD measurements:
4/2016 had me at 32.9% Fat, 67.1% Fat Free Mass, RMR 1710
5/2017 had me at 22.5% Fat, 77.5% Fat Free Mass, RMR 1841(resting metabolic rate)
Based on caliper measurements I would guess it would be around 15% BF.

My prior labs were on 9/2016, i have written those values in (blue) beside the new values.
My last blood donation was in Feb. 2017. (my Dr. isn't concerned w/ Hemocrit, very much like the Dr. Knight discussion held previously regarding E2 & Hemocrit)

Your total t is way to high 1788 is ridiculous and 250mg/week is not a trt dose! Your basically what most would consider a starting low dose steroid cycle hence long term. Sure overall your labs look good except e2 but having your tt at 1788 is hard on the adrenals/thyroid let alone overall body chemistry as the body prefers homeostasis.

 

[user_joe]

Your total t is way to high 1788 is ridiculous and 250mg/week is not a trt dose! Your basically what most would consider a starting low dose steroid cycle hence long term. Sure overall your labs look good except e2 but having your tt at 1788 is hard on the adrenals/thyroid let alone overall body chemistry as the body prefers homeostasis.

i don't fully agree with this at all. I have some personal experience. Most guys doing cycles aren't bothering with 250/wk. those numbers are above natural levels though so it's semantics I suppose.

Im not sure where the adrenal/thyroid issues are being reported. I haven't even heard of people doing blast and cruise cycles reporting that. Nelson on here reported that he ran 200/200 test/nandrolone for 10 years. I don't believe he had those issues. My Dr will allow these higher numbers and also told me he had no concerns. Maybe you had a bad experience at higher levels? Homeostasis is kinda broken once you interrupt the HPTA imo. Gotta keep an eye on things.

anyway, to the OP, you should realize that you've got keep a really tight eye on your hematocrit, lipids, BP, etc running higher doses. It may or may not be sustainable forever. I agree with that.

 

[AbsoluteZ3R0]

i don't fully agree with this at all. I have some personal experience. Most guys doing cycles aren't bothering with 250/wk. those numbers are above natural levels though so it's semantics I suppose.

Im not sure where the adrenal/thyroid issues are being reported. I haven't even heard of people doing blast and cruise cycles reporting that. Nelson on here reported that he ran 200/200 test/nandrolone for 10 years. I don't believe he had those issues. My Dr will allow these higher numbers and also told me he had no concerns. Maybe you had a bad experience at higher levels? Homeostasis is kinda broken once you interrupt the HPTA imo. Gotta keep an eye on things.

anyway, to the OP, you should realize that you've got keep a really tight eye on your hematocrit, lipids, BP, etc running higher doses. It may or may not be sustainable forever. I agree with that.

I agree with just about everything you said. I can't stand generalized statements like "X is bad for you because the body prefers homeostasis," because they're rarely ever backed by mechanistic explanations. I do know that very high levels of testosterone can suppress cortisol, but it's not something that I've seen discussed clinically in regards to high doses. That said, 250mg is actually the lowest dose for a testosterone cycle. While it's true many guys start at 400/500/600, 250 is often recommended as the lowest effective dose for beginners. It will elicit significant ergogenic effects at that dose

 

[madman]

I agree with just about everything you said. I can't stand generalized statements like "X is bad for you because the body prefers homeostasis," because they're rarely ever backed by mechanistic explanations. I do know that very high levels of testosterone can suppress cortisol, but it's not something that I've seen discussed clinically in regards to high doses. That said, 250mg is actually the lowest dose for a testosterone cycle. While it's true many guys start at 400/500/600, 250 is often recommended as the lowest effective dose for beginners. It will elicit significant ergogenic effects at that dose

Majority of healthy males produce on average 600-800 tt levels endogenously and there is a natural circadian rhythm, maybe there are some around 1000 but it is not common. You are going to tell me walking around with a tt trough of 1788 is healthy for the human body let alone at a steady state. If you do not think high levels of testosterone effect other hormones in the body your kidding yourself sure as I said his labs look good overall but in the long run it is not healthy. E2 levels will be elevated and sure there are ways to deal with it and the hematocrit/hemoglobin will increase so one can give blood and lipid profile can worsen over time. If we are talking trt purposes than rarely does on need to be 1000+ to experience relief of low t symptoms...................the only benefit to running supra physiological levels are to increase muscle/strength beyond what one could naturally attain. You are misinformed if you think 250mg/week is the lowest starting dose for an aas cycle as most with good genetics that have there diet/training locked down can easily grow of 200mg/week of testosterone and I know many who have responded extremely well on such doses, bro science and all the sense less forums push running 500mg/week as a starting dose, what a joke! If you need 400-500mg/week of testosterone to grow you should give up weight training because you either have shit genetics or lack the discipline to train/eat properly. I say anything below 200mg is will not cause significant growth..............200mg/week will definitely make a huge difference compared to trt doses 100-150mg/week.

 

[madman]

i don't fully agree with this at all. I have some personal experience. Most guys doing cycles aren't bothering with 250/wk. those numbers are above natural levels though so it's semantics I suppose.

Im not sure where the adrenal/thyroid issues are being reported. I haven't even heard of people doing blast and cruise cycles reporting that. Nelson on here reported that he ran 200/200 test/nandrolone for 10 years. I don't believe he had those issues. My Dr will allow these higher numbers and also told me he had no concerns. Maybe you had a bad experience at higher levels? Homeostasis is kinda broken once you interrupt the HPTA imo. Gotta keep an eye on things.

anyway, to the OP, you should realize that you've got keep a really tight eye on your hematocrit, lipids, BP, etc running higher doses. It may or may not be sustainable forever. I agree with that.

You do understand even though Nelson was running 200mg test/200mg nandrolone per week that his total t was not 1778?

 

[AbsoluteZ3R0]

Majority of healthy males produce on average 600-800 tt levels endogenously and there is a natural circadian rhythm, maybe there are some around 1000 but it is not common. You are going to tell me walking around with a tt trough of 1788 is healthy for the human body let alone at a steady state. If you do not think high levels of testosterone effect other hormones in the body your kidding yourself sure as I said his labs look good overall but in the long run it is not healthy. E2 levels will be elevated and sure there are ways to deal with it and the hematocrit/hemoglobin will increase so one can give blood and lipid profile can worsen over time. If we are talking trt purposes than rarely does on need to be 1000+ to experience relief of low t symptoms...................the only benefit to running supra physiological levels are to increase muscle/strength beyond what one could naturally attain. You are misinformed if you think 250mg/week is the lowest starting dose for an aas cycle as most with good genetics that have there diet/training locked down can easily grow of 200mg/week of testosterone and I know many who have responded extremely well on such doses, bro science and all the sense less forums push running 500mg/week as a starting dose, what a joke! If you need 400-500mg/week of testosterone to grow you should give up weight training because you either have shit genetics or lack the discipline to train/eat properly. I say anything below 200mg is will not cause significant growth..............200mg/week will definitely make a huge difference compared to trt doses 100-150mg/week.

I'm sure most with good genetics and diet/training could easily grow on 100mg/week, but that doesn't mean that they're on a cycle. As for running 200mg a week, are you talking about a testosterone-only cycle? If so, I've never seen such a low dose except for when stacked with other compounds. I believe you that there are probably some guys who only run 200mg test a week by itself, but like I said, I've never seen it. In any case, I agree with you that sitting around with nearly 1800tt year-round is probably not as healthy as sitting around with 900, but assuming all health markers are in check over long periods of time (besides estradiol, which can be controlled), it's nothing more than a hunch. Saying that it "affects other hormones" is probably true, but is such a generalized statement that it doesn't really mean anything. I don't find such warnings to be helpful or useful unless they come with a valid explanation.

 

[Starplex]

Thanks for the comments guys. I kind of figured there would be a lot of debate on this when I posted. When my insurance flex plan ran out of $$ 4thqtr of last year I dropped my dose to 200mg for about 3 months. During that time I think my T/E ratio was bad because I didn't feel good at all. When I went back to my full script level in January things improved and then they even got better when I added DIM. I think there are still many things to learn on TRT as all the discussions between doctors going on now, such as Hemocrit, E2 and maximum levels. Hence, I will continue to monitor my levels through my Dr. and make adjustments a necessary if things appear to turn south. Until then, I'm glad that I feel like I'm 18 again.

 

[user_joe]

You do understand even though Nelson was running 200mg test/200mg nandrolone per week that his total t was not 1778?

Sure I do. The total amount of androgens is what will effect the lipids, hematocrit, etc. 200/wk split into 2 doses may give you about 1778 peak. What about that day? What about the guy injecting 160/wk reading 700 tt at trough? He was over your numbers most of the week. Every study I've seen posted here shows it to be beneficial to health.

everything you said makes sense in theory to me. I've run between 180-280/wk the past year. Hematocrit has not raised. It did it moreso on 150/wk when I started. BP is excellent. Lipids excellent. I have however decided to stay on 200/wk as I do agree there is no benefit past a certain point other than lifting. Previously I simply felt better after each increased dose.

There are a lot more people out there with 1000 TT than you think. Teenagers for example. I don't think MOST people are going to run into any of the negative side effects of testosterone until they get up into cycle levels. That's assuming estrogen is controlled.

 

[madman]

I'm sure most with good genetics and diet/training could easily grow on 100mg/week, but that doesn't mean that they're on a cycle. As for running 200mg a week, are you talking about a testosterone-only cycle? If so, I've never seen such a low dose except for when stacked with other compounds. I believe you that there are probably some guys who only run 200mg test a week by itself, but like I said, I've never seen it. In any case, I agree with you that sitting around with nearly 1800tt year-round is probably not as healthy as sitting around with 900, but assuming all health markers are in check over long periods of time (besides estradiol, which can be controlled), it's nothing more than a hunch. Saying that it "affects other hormones" is probably true, but is such a generalized statement that it doesn't really mean anything. I don't find such warnings to be helpful or useful unless they come with a valid explanation.

Yes that is 200mg/week test only cycles and easily grow on 100mg/week -body composition changes yes but you are not packing on mass/strength at that dosage. I am taking about a 1778 TROUGH so one is easily peaking over 2000 ng/dl double of the normal physiological range. If one does not feel relief of low t symptoms from a trough of 600-800 than more than likely testosterone is not their main issue it is another underlying condition. Sure there are some who need to hit a trough slightly higher to feel well but to have a trough over the top end of the physiological range which is roughly 1200 to experience benefits from trt that is just ridiculous. Labcorp just lowered top end range to 900. All labs in Canada do not even go past 900 for top end. So if you are going to try and tell me that it is not going to effect the human body in a negative way running at tt trough of 1778 long term I disagree.

 

[madman]

Sure I do. The total amount of androgens is what will effect the lipids, hematocrit, etc. 200/wk split into 2 doses may give you about 1778 peak. What about that day? What about the guy injecting 160/wk reading 700 tt at trough? He was over your numbers most of the week. Every study I've seen posted here shows it to be beneficial to health.

everything you said makes sense in theory to me. I've run between 180-280/wk the past year. Hematocrit has not raised. It did it moreso on 150/wk when I started. BP is excellent. Lipids excellent. I have however decided to stay on 200/wk as I do agree there is no benefit past a certain point other than lifting. Previously I simply felt better after each increased dose.

There are a lot more people out there with 1000 TT than you think. Teenagers for example. I don't think MOST people are going to run into any of the negative side effects of testosterone until they get up into cycle levels. That's assuming estrogen is controlled.

Im talking 1778 trough regarding Nelson. I am also not saying it is unhealthy for one to peak slightly over 1000 on trt but rarely do most need to have a trough higher than 600-800 otherwise testosterone is not their main issue it is other underlying issues whether thyroid/adrenals/pancreas. Regarding teenagers maybe slightly above 1000 peak, definitely not trough let alone their levels fluctuate from high/low throughout the natural 24h circadian rhythm which like you stated is thrown out the window once on trt as you reach a steady state unless using the testosterone patch which most closely mimics the natural circadian rhythm out of all the forms used for trt. 1778 TROUGH is just ridiculous let alone any doctor allowing one to achieve those levels does a huge disservice to trt because now we are talking supra-physiological levels which are ABSOLUTELY not needed to relieve/treat symptoms of low t. It is unethical. Running supra-physiological levels long term is not healthy.

 

[Starplex]

Not that it is much different, but you keep referencing my 2016 labs at 1778, which actually wasn't during the trough. 1632 is the current value.

 

[madman]

What gets me going is when people come here on this forum a claim to be on trt running supra-physiological levels when the true purpose of trt is to relieve ones symptoms from low t/improve overall well being and health which requires increasing a persons testosterone levels into the physiological range whether it be mid/normal for some or high/normal for others not supra-physiological which is definitely not needed at all to treat low t. Any one running troughs over the top end of the range is just taking advantage of the use of testosterone and if they feel they need to have their levels that high to experience relief from low t symptoms than they have other underlying issues whether thyroid/adrenal/pancreas that are the contributing to not feeling relief of low t symptoms. I have no issue if one wants to blast/cruise or cycle testosterone, to each his own but running a trough of 1778 has absolutely nothing to do with the treatment of low t let alone healthy on the human body long term.

I read the previous 3rd edition and I highly suggest you read it or the 4th edition so you have a better understanding of how low testosterone/high testosterone effect human physiology/pathology. It was written by two reputable professors from Germany. Very in depth and informative.

 

[user_joe]

I'm not sure how I got you going then. I don't disagree that one should see relief from symptoms at a level that's still within range. Of course that could be 800-1200, but whatever.

These numbers are semantics in a lot of ways. I used to inject every 3.5 days. Had a trough of 8xx at at least one point. Switched to daily injections. Now it's 1300 any given time. Same amount of T, and if you averaged the volume of T my body sees it's the same.

Call it TRT or whatever you want. I'd argue ever exceeding levels in range excludes being replacement, but if it makes you healthier and feel better so what?

Take that hat a step further. You already NEED this hormone. If you see better benefits than just reliving negative symptoms at 1500 TT, and your health markers are in check, good for you. Your body and your choice. Call me a libertarian I guess. I have no problems with this.

You say my health is going to suffer at these levels. My blood tests say otherwise. My doctor with hundreds if not thousands of men on TRT disagrees. He writes peer reviewed papers on trt. I'm gonna listen to him. You are theorizing anyway. It's logical. There is just nothing to back it up.

What gets me going is when people come here on this forum a claim to be on trt running supra-physiological levels when the true purpose of trt is to relieve ones symptoms from low t/improve overall well being and health which requires increasing a persons testosterone levels into the physiological range whether it be mid/normal for some or high/normal for others not supra-physiological which is definitely not needed at all to treat low t. Any one running troughs over the top end of the range is just taking advantage of the use of testosterone and if they feel they need to have their levels that high to experience relief from low t symptoms than they have other underlying issues whether thyroid/adrenal/pancreas that are the contributing to not feeling relief of low t symptoms. I have no issue if one wants to blast/cruise or cycle testosterone, to each his own but running a trough of 1778 has absolutely nothing to do with the treatment of low t.

 

[Starplex]

Well said user_joe. I got on trt based on my my t levels and doctors recommendation. My dr runs higher doses than most and I didn't argue with him. And I'm still not arguing based on my current lab results after a year. If labs say otherwise then adjustments will need to be made. I do view myself as healthy and do work out but I don't plan on competing in bodybuilding and have no need for a so called cycle or other anabolics. I joined this forum as many others for educational purposes and have learned so much. I simply wanted to share with others that one can have a higher dose and still manage E2 and keep labs in check, which has been discussed many times on here. Hoping to add value to others in drawing their own opinion based on information shared.

 

[AbsoluteZ3R0]

Starplex, any idea what your SHBG levels are?

 

[Starplex]

I do not, the doc hasn't tested for SHBG as in his opinion there isn't a lot of value in that number anyway. (Not much you can do to control it I guess). I suspect it must be fairly low though for me to generate the lab values that I have.

 

[AbsoluteZ3R0]

I do not, the doc hasn't tested for SHBG as in his opinion there isn't a lot of value in that number anyway. (Not much you can do to control it I guess). I suspect it must be fairly low though for me to generate the lab values that I have.

Yeah, I was curious because the Quest reference ranges for free testosterone are totally different than Lab Corp's. It's hard to make a direct comparison between the two. When I was on clomid my total testosterone came in at 1012 using Quest, but my free was 298.6 (the reference range was 46-224 though). Assuming the results are directly comparable, I'd say your SHBG is actually relatively normal, or lowish normal, but now low. Mine was 14 (RR 10-50) then, which is quite low.

 

[JT]

What gets me going is when people come here on this forum a claim to be on trt running supra-physiological levels when the true purpose of trt is to relieve ones symptoms from low t/improve overall well being and health which requires increasing a persons testosterone levels into the physiological range whether it be mid/normal for some or high/normal for others not supra-physiological which is definitely not needed at all to treat low t. Any one running troughs over the top end of the range is just taking advantage of the use of testosterone and if they feel they need to have their levels that high to experience relief from low t symptoms than they have other underlying issues whether thyroid/adrenal/pancreas that are the contributing to not feeling relief of low t symptoms. I have no issue if one wants to blast/cruise or cycle testosterone, to each his own but running a trough of 1778 has absolutely nothing to do with the treatment of low t let alone healthy on the human body long term.

View attachment 3902 I read the previous 3rd edition and I highly suggest you read it or the 4th edition so you have a better understanding of how low testosterone/high testosterone effect human physiology/pathology. It was written by two reputable professors from Germany. Very in depth and informative.

Madman, thanks for another good book recommendation, I will have to get this one as well! I picked up Williams endo text recently and have been enjoying some of the more pertinent sections, but would like to read this one in addition as it is obviously more centered on testosterone specifically. Just curious, any other books you recommend?

 

[franksepe]

I was just reading this post and the op is comparing himself to Nelson. Nelson is HIV positive and they get prescribed deca-durabolin sometimes. And for low testosterone he was given testosterone injections.