Is low dose nandrolone safe?

[Steve78]

Is low dose (roughly 100mg a week or so) safe for long term health and longevity?

I like it because I add lean gains and benefit from trt without the added androgens so less oily skin, less hair loss, prostate issues and of course the joint benefits, etc.

Only studies I find are how bad nandrolone is for neurotransmitters etc, and the infamous study in rats that showed it was 11x more toxic on vascular endothelial than testosterone. What do the experts say?

 

[tareload]

This should be good. Let me get my popcorn.

 

[Steve78]

This should be good. Let me get my popcorn.

Why’s that? Look up the studies. I’m hoping some experts say otherwise…

 

[DS3]

…because @readalot is of the position that any administration of testosterone above 3-10 mg per day leads to cardiovascular events. Adding a low dose anabolic like nandrolone to the mix puts a nail in the cardiovascular event coffin. (P.S. Cardiovascular events are unlikely to be a result of modest TRT, but he’s going to go on a harangue to prove to you otherwise).

@readalot I have it on my to-do list to read your literature review from another thread. My work has been insane lately, but I have not forgotten to give it due diligence.

 

[Steve78]

…because @readalot is of the position that any administration of testosterone above 3-10 mg per day leads to cardiovascular events. Adding a low dose anabolic like nandrolone to the mix puts a nail in the cardiovascular event coffin. (P.S. Cardiovascular events are unlikely to be a result of modest TRT, but he’s going to go on a harangue to prove to you otherwise).

@readalot I have it on my to-do list to read your literature review from another thread. My work has been insane lately, but I have not forgotten to give it due diligence.

Damn, that’s 21 mg to 70 mg a week of test! Rather be dead than live a life of a TT of 250-300…

 

[tareload]

safe for long term health and longevity?

because @readalot is of the position that any administration of testosterone above 3-10 mg per day leads to cardiovascular events

Debate with @DS3 ...





Hope you enjoy the articles in the other thread and work let's up for you a little bit.

 

[Steve78]

Debate with DS3


Hope you enjoy the articles in the other thread and work let's up for you a little bit.

Appreciate it. Seems like you are a bit contentious on the issue…

 

[tareload]

Seems like you are a bit contentious on the issue…

Good point, I do seem to get contentious with persons who operate in bad faith and repeatedly and intentional distort my position.

Nandrolone for Mood | Feeling much Better..

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...

www.excelmale.com

Perhaps this thread (related) may be of interest to you.

Good luck on the quest to answer your questions.

====

 

[tareload]

Damn, that’s 21 mg to 70 mg a week of test! Rather be dead than live a life of a TT of 250-300…

Also, fyi, the second sentence doesn't follow from the first sentence.

 

[Cataceous]

Damn, that’s 21 mg to 70 mg a week of test! Rather be dead than live a life of a TT of 250-300…

That was a mischaracterization of @readalot's statements. I don't mind arguing a stronger position: You're less likely to get into trouble if you stick to the physiological range of testosterone production, which is about 3-10 mg daily. Accounting for the ester, this is equivalent to using 30-100 mg per week of testosterone cypionate, which in reality is not very limiting. I've been using 4.4 mg of testosterone per day, equivalent to 44 mg T cypionate per week. I have normal SHBG and my daily peak serum testosterone is about 700 ng/L, a far cry from 250-300.

Regarding the original question, some effects of nandrolone are still going to be additive with testosterone, contributing to integrated exposure and increasing risk. While I wouldn't argue that the short term addition of 100 mg/week of nandrolone decanoate is dangerous, if the exposure increases to years then it is a gamble. You have to decide if the benefits are worth the possible risks.

 

[tareload]

You're less likely to get into trouble if you stick to the physiological range of testosterone production, which is about 3-10 mg daily.

While I wouldn't argue that the short term addition of 100 mg/week of nandrolone decanoate is dangerous, if the exposure increases to years then it is a gamble. You have to decide if the benefits are worth the possible risks.

I see by your eagerness and the wonder and hope which your eyes express, my friend, that you expect to be informed of the secret with which I am acquainted; that cannot be; listen patiently until the end of my story, and you will easily perceive why I am reserved upon that subject. I will not lead you on, unguarded and ardent as I then was, to your destruction and infallible misery. Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow.

@Steve78 Happy Experimenting and Best Wishes as you answer that question for yourself. The only answer that matters to you is the answer that pertains to your personal situation.

 

[tareload]

Is low dose nandrolone safe?​

Is 1200 ng/dl TT trough safe?
Is smoking safe?

Missing context...(1) for how long and (2) for who?

The Mystery of Why So Many Lifelong Smokers Never Get Lung Cancer May Be Solved

Smoking cigarettes is the number one risk factor for lung cancer, with tobacco products causing up to 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in the United States. Without a doubt, the safest way to protect yourself against lung cancer is to avoid smoking cigarettes, and yet, at the same time, it's...

www.sciencealert.com

Smoking cigarettes is the number one risk factor for lung cancer, with tobacco products causing up to 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in the United States.

Without a doubt, the safest way to protect yourself against lung cancer is to avoid smoking cigarettes, and yet, at the same time, it's also true that not all lifelong smokers are doomed to develop cancer.

In fact, the vast majority don't. Scientists have long wondered why, and a new study adds weight to the idea that genetics has a role to play.

Single-cell analysis of somatic mutations in human bronchial epithelial cells in relation to aging and smoking - Nature Genetics

Single-cell whole-genome sequencing of proximal bronchial basal cells shows that somatic mutations accumulate with age and at a higher level in smokers compared to never-smokers. Mutation frequencies increased with smoking dose but then plateaued, suggesting intrinsic mechanisms to limit...

www.nature.com

Abstract​

Although lung cancer risk among smokers is dependent on smoking dose, it remains unknown if this increased risk reflects an increased rate of somatic mutation accumulation in normal lung cells. Here, we applied single-cell whole-genome sequencing of proximal bronchial basal cells from 33 participants aged between 11 and 86 years with smoking histories varying from never-smoking to 116 pack-years. We found an increase in the frequency of single-nucleotide variants and small insertions and deletions with chronological age in never-smokers, with mutation frequencies significantly elevated among smokers. When plotted against smoking pack-years, mutations followed the linear increase in cancer risk until about 23 pack-years, after which no further increase in mutation frequency was observed, pointing toward individual selection for mutation avoidance. Known lung cancer-defined mutation signatures tracked with both age and smoking. No significant enrichment for somatic mutations in lung cancer driver genes was observed.

Extended Data Fig. 3: An a prori semi-parametric B-spline model to test the non-linearity between mutation frequency and smoking pack-years. | Nature Genetics

www.nature.com

Nice that the peer review trail is now open for everyone to view. Well done.

​

 

[Steve78]

Also, fyi, the second sentence doesn't follow from the first sentence.

Everyone is different but I was on 100 mg and my TT was 500, so yes 25-70 mg would put me around 250-300 TT

 

[Steve78]

Appreciate the input guys, I am here to learn not argue. My goal now that I’m almost 44 and have 6 kids now is longevity. So y’all answered my first question, zero nandrolone is safest.

I know keeping my TT is physiological range is also safer but does that mean 500 or be more like Nelson and keep it at 1100, looking for options for longevity but still feel good etc

 

[tareload]

Everyone is different but I was on 100 mg and my TT was 500, so yes 25-70 mg would put me around 250-300 TT

Careful to differentiate between trough, mean and peak. What does the graph tell you for mean TT level vs weekly dose for 95% of male population? How do your results compare?

To answer that you need your injection frequency and when your blood work was taken...trough?

 

[Steve78]

Careful to differentiate between trough, mean and peak. What does the graph tell you for mean TT level vs weekly dose for 95% of male population? How do your results compare?

To answer that you need your injection frequency and when your blood work was taken...trough?

We since I inject EOD my results is most likely the mean. Blood work taken on the off injection day

 

[Steve78]

Regarding ideal TT, I remember reading somewhere that optimal levels are around 500 for longevity, hard to find studies on that, but what say @readalot @Cataceous ?

 

[Fortunate]

Can I chime in here? @readalot had a life altering discovery about his cardiac health. He is confident that TRT contributed to it. Does that bias his opinions? Maybe, but data is data. So, my advice is to simply look at the data he presents. He and @Cataceous are both pretty content with their current status, yet they still offer their treasure trove of insight, perspective, experience and analysis.

You will find a crap ton of stuff on nandrolone here and at the other big site (you probably know which I am referring to). When reviewing all the information out there, try to categorize in your brain what is objective scientific fact and what is anecdotal subjective experience. If you talk to a scientist, he'll tell you anecdotal information is not very useful. But, when it comes to TRT, I think it's critically important.

A lot of people quote the rat study and dismiss the findings because the amount of drug used was extremely high. That said, I believe there are some commonly accepted conversion ratios when looking at animal models vs. humans. In other words, the dose may not be as high as it seems when considering that you have to take into account the model and conversion. I do NOT speak with authority on this, and I think it's a really good homework assignment for @readalot or our pal @madman (animal model dosing in relation to human dosing), as I am confident one of them will dig something good up!

All the science aside, I tried nandrolone on a few occasions, I am pretty confident in saying that I hated it. I trialed low dose, daily subQ injections a few different times. Oddly, I absolutely noted significantly increased acne flairs on nandrolone (I was under the impression that less DHT meant less acne). Even one dose would make existing acne angry, red and painful and promote new acne formation.

I also noticed what I would describe as a dull or blunted feeling - both physically in my head as well as emotionally. It's hard to describe. It's almost as though the psychological feeling of dullness/flatness was present, but also manifested itself physically in my left forehead. It wasn't dramatic, but I hated the way it felt. I imagine that some guys may take nandrolone, may experience what I am describing on a low level, and over time, it becomes a pervasive, overwhelming feeling that can best be described as depression. Like everyone else, I like to hear anecdotes, and I have heard others describe a dull/anhedonic emotional state while on nandrolone. And, I think it's an insidious process that slowly sneaks up on you like poison.

I was really hoping it was going to be a good option for me. I hoped it would allow me to use less testosterone, therefore getting less metabolite related side effects, and still be able to enjoy the androgenic benefits. Others have described feeling even better on it than on testosterone alone. No such luck, cause I hated it. It wasn't until the last time I tried it that I discovered how much I disliked the feeling while on it.

For reference, I tried nandrolone alone a few times; 1:1 test:nandrolone ratio with 10mg/day (5 test and 5 nan); 1:1 at 15mg/day (7.5 +7.5); and, 2:1 test:nandrolone.

In fairness, maybe a higher ratio of test to nandrolone would have worked better for me, but I have already had enough, and at this point I don't have any interest in trying it again.

Take home points: learn the science as best you can; you won't know if nandrolone is good, bad or neutral for you until you try it; but, keep others' experience in mind if you give it a try.

 

[Fortunate]

If anyone wants to volunteer looking into animal vs. human models as it relates to drug testing, raise your hand. I can give it a try when I get some time. You can start here.

 

[Guided_by_Voices]

Several things..I don't agree at all that "zero nandrolone is safest" . If the direct benefits (e.g. reduced joint pain and hence, increased activity) and/or indirect benefits (motivation to get to the gym and do quality workouts) outweigh any (likely low/unknown) risks, then zero is not necessarily anywhere close to lowest risk. I would titrate down to lowest effective dose and then monitor health markers from there. And there is almost certainly no "ideal" level of Testosterone that can be applied to an individual. Also, most people, in their search for health-span, wildly over-focus on a few things rather than looking at a broader spectrum. For example, everything in the list in the following link is likely more important than Nandrolone, since everything in the list is a very strong factor in multiple aspects of health, especially Cardiovascular health. Everyone would be far better off focusing on gum health (to pick just one) rather than stressing over T or N, especially when T and N have profound benefits in many people.

20 Heart-Healthy Actions With Better Risk/Reward Than Statins

Here at Excelmale there are frequent posts discussing the pros and cons of statins, and one in particular several weeks ago where a position paper was cited where the assumption was that statins are not only a viable option but should be the first line of defense against heart disease. As I have...

www.excelmale.com