ExcelMale
Menu
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Videos
Lab Tests
Doctor Finder
Buy Books
About Us
Men’s Health Coaching
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Clinical Use of Anabolics and Hormones
Clinical Use of Anabolics and Hormones
Nandrolone Dosage - How much T?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="S1W" data-source="post: 171891" data-attributes="member: 16947"><p>Well I wouldn't say that I understand this well enough to really have any strong opinions/theories that I would call my own. Just brainstorming really.</p><p></p><p>Again this is likely oversimplified and may reflect my lack of understanding - I'm just trying to learn here. But I the way I see it is this: </p><p></p><p>If ND has a greater binding affinity to androgen receptors than T, and therefore a lot of the exogenous T ends up essentially "locked out", and therefore far more of it converts to E2 than it would in the absence of ND...why inject more proportionately more T when using ND? Wouldn't we want to use "just enough" T to keep our FT values wherever we like them to be (upper 20s to mid 30s for me, for example)?</p><p></p><p>I recall another forum member noting that when he introduced ND his E2 shot up to 90. And I recall another knowledgeable forum member saying something to the effect of when ND is added to a T protocol, it may not have a large effect on TT but that one should expect FT numbers to increase. </p><p></p><p>So I guess my thoughts are: if using ND, wouldn't a more sensible approach be to adjust the T dose so that FT is in the patients desired range, rather than relying on ratios like 1.5:1 T to ND which may result in higher FT levels than desired and more conversion to E2?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="S1W, post: 171891, member: 16947"] Well I wouldn't say that I understand this well enough to really have any strong opinions/theories that I would call my own. Just brainstorming really. Again this is likely oversimplified and may reflect my lack of understanding - I'm just trying to learn here. But I the way I see it is this: If ND has a greater binding affinity to androgen receptors than T, and therefore a lot of the exogenous T ends up essentially "locked out", and therefore far more of it converts to E2 than it would in the absence of ND...why inject more proportionately more T when using ND? Wouldn't we want to use "just enough" T to keep our FT values wherever we like them to be (upper 20s to mid 30s for me, for example)? I recall another forum member noting that when he introduced ND his E2 shot up to 90. And I recall another knowledgeable forum member saying something to the effect of when ND is added to a T protocol, it may not have a large effect on TT but that one should expect FT numbers to increase. So I guess my thoughts are: if using ND, wouldn't a more sensible approach be to adjust the T dose so that FT is in the patients desired range, rather than relying on ratios like 1.5:1 T to ND which may result in higher FT levels than desired and more conversion to E2? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Share this page
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Sponsors
Forums
Clinical Use of Anabolics and Hormones
Clinical Use of Anabolics and Hormones
Nandrolone Dosage - How much T?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top