Question about supraphysiological dosages of testosterone

[TDCNINJA]

In a January 2012 article, Dr. Mark Gordon discussed supraphysiological dosing: "Gordon explains that conventional medical dosage for testosterone is at 200-300 milligrams per week, which he has shown is far too high! "For example, a typical 25-35-year-old male naturally generates 4-10 milligrams per day or 60 milligrams per week. Using supraphysiological dosages of testosterone (as military doctors are doing) can have significant side-effects if not monitored closely. We can achieve similar benefits at one-quarter the dose without the risk factors." (Carrington, 2012)

My question is what would be the rationale for taking more testosterone than the body produces naturally? I am taking 10mg of T-Cyp every day. With 100 IU's daily of HCG added to that, I wonder if that is too much?

I'm a newbie, guys, so forgive me if this is a question that has been answered here, before.

Reference:

Carrington, J. (2012, January). Using Hormones to Heal Traumatic Brain Injuries. Life Extension, Life Extension Magazine. Retrieved March 22, 2019, from Hormones Heal Traumatic Brain Injuries - page 1 | Life Extension.

 

[tmaxey1]

Too many variables.
Some people have developed a testosterone resistance. Some people have high SHBG which snatches up most of the free T and renders it useless.

If a person is having blood work done regularly and everything is within healthy ranges then I don’t see what they are hurting have Super physiological levels of Test.

I think it’s about symptoms and how we individually respond to testosterone.

 

[Cataceous]

I think guys like the body-composition benefits of higher doses, and there's the usual more-must-be-better philosophy. I doubt there's physiological justification for most guys to be at such high levels. I didn't like the high levels I experienced with 28 mg T cypionate EOD when I first started, ~1,300 ng/dL. I've been taking 18 mg T enanthate EOD, but am now experimenting with only 6 mg T propionate ED, which subjectively is at least as good.

 

[tmaxey1]

I think guys like the body-composition benefits of higher doses, and there's the usual more-must-be-better philosophy. I doubt there's physiological justification for most guys to be at such high levels. I didn't like the high levels I experienced with 28 mg T cypionate EOD when I first started, ~1,300 ng/dL. I've been taking 18 mg T enanthate EOD, but am now experimenting with only 6 mg T propionate ED, which subjectively is at least as good.

I would agree with you. But is this a bad thing? If a guy is taking 300mg per week or 400mg and his T levels are 2000 yet all of his blood level are spot on is he hurting anything?
One could make the argument that a guy who works out regularly and eats very clean in order to obtain or maintain a certain body composition may actually be healthier than the guy who is only taking 100mg per week but eats like a dad and walks around with a dad bod.

Which guy is healthier?

I am on a low dose, no AI, and I eat very clean and work out extensively. I feel happy where I am especially coming from a guy that less than 2 months ago had a T level of 177 and E2 of 6.

 

[Cataceous]

I would agree with you. But is this a bad thing? If a guy is taking 300mg per week or 400mg and his T levels are 2000 yet all of his blood level are spot on is he hurting anything?
One could make the argument that a guy who works out regularly and eats very clean in order to obtain or maintain a certain body composition may actually be healthier than the guy who is only taking 100mg per week but eats like a dad and walks around with a dad bod.

Which guy is healthier?
...

Well it's kind of apples-to-oranges, isn't it? And you have to pass a lot of "ifs" to be the first guy: good hematocrit, no estradiol management issues, etc. Then you still need to ask the question: Are there unknown long-term risks in supraphysiological levels? Maybe by now there are getting to be enough guys doing this long-term to get some numbers. But are there any studies?

I'd say best to be the clean-living guy, but keep your levels physiological. And if you want to maximize longevity, that's a whole other can of worms. Maybe then you want lower levels for the effects on IGF-1, etc.

 

[Vince]

I inject 16 mg of testosterone cypionate daily, 500 iu of HCG twice a week, 25 mg of DHEA, 10mg of pregnenolone and no AI.

This isn't to high for me.

Testosterone serum 880 ng/dL range 264 - 916
Free T 32.3 pg/mL range 6.6 - 18.1
DHEA - Sulfate 384.4 range 48.9 - 344.2
Estradiol, Sensitive 28.5 range 8.0 - 35.0
SHBG 39.7 range 19.3 - 76.4
HCT 48.0 range 37.5 - 51.0
DHT 54.0 range 30 - 85

 

[madman]

I would agree with you. But is this a bad thing? If a guy is taking 300mg per week or 400mg and his T levels are 2000 yet all of his blood level are spot on is he hurting anything?
One could make the argument that a guy who works out regularly and eats very clean in order to obtain or maintain a certain body composition may actually be healthier than the guy who is only taking 100mg per week but eats like a dad and walks around with a dad bod.

Which guy is healthier?

I am on a low dose, no AI, and I eat very clean and work out extensively. I feel happy where I am especially coming from a guy that less than 2 months ago had a T level of 177 and E2 of 6.

You are talking steroid doses now not trt.....most would be well over 2000 ng/dL injecting 300-400mg/week.

Even than from your previous posts you seem to be stuck on this TT/supra-physiological thing when in fact you should know that FT is what truly matters and regarding trt it comes down to what TT does one need in order to achieve a healthy FT level in order to experience relief/improvement of low T symptoms.

Most men do well having a FT 2-3% of TT.

As far as doses 100-150 mg/week would put most men's TT in the upper end of the physiological range or slightly above along with a healthy FT mind you of course there are some who may need 200 mg/week or slightly higher (high SHBG, possible AR resistance (older men or former steroid abusers) to achieve a healthy FT.....but on average many do just fine using 100-150 mg/week and some even less!

Steroid doses of 300-600 mg/week are in no way needed for trt let alone relief/improvements in low T symptoms and if anything the only main benefit to running such doses would be for muscle building as in those seeking increased muscle mass/strength.

If blood work is healthy doubtful it is harmful in the short- term and even than may not be detrimental long-term and many factors come into play lifestyle/genetics.

 

[Vince Carter]

Supra dosing is not the thing as I think it's been said here in the replies but the levels that a particular guy experiences. In this instance and I omitted his name because it's not him but an example of the levels, it's safe to say that if you want to have this Supra conversation that you're Supra on every other minute of your protocol given 880/916 is your lowest point.

Testosterone serum 880 ng/dL range 264 - 916

Guys always seem to leave this out in that regard, you're basically Supra levels except for a tiny part of your particular protocol. In most instances of common TRT that puts a trough at roughly 1000 TT.

 

[tmaxey1]

You are talking steroid doses now not trt.....most would be well over 2000 ng/dL injecting 300-400mg/week.

Even than from your previous posts you seem to be stuck on this TT/supra-physiological thing when in fact you should know that FT is what truly matters and regarding trt it comes down to what TT does one need in order to achieve a healthy FT level in order to experience relief/improvement of low T symptoms.

Most men do well having a FT 2-3% of TT.

As far as doses 100-150 mg/week would put most men's TT in the upper end of the physiological range or slightly above along with a healthy FT mind you of course there are some who may need 200 mg/week or slightly higher (high SHBG, possible AR resistance (older men or former steroid abusers) to achieve a healthy FT.....but on average many do just fine using 100-150 mg/week and some even less!

Steroid doses of 300-600 mg/week are in no way needed for trt let alone relief/improvements in low T symptoms and if anything the only main benefit to running such doses would be for muscle building as in those seeking increased muscle mass/strength.

If blood work is healthy doubtful it is harmful in the short- term and even than may not be detrimental long-term and many factors come into play lifestyle/genetics.

Of course testosterone dosages of 300-600 are not needed for T replacement. In fact I’ve cycled steroids in my early 20s and I gained 25 pounds and blew up with muscle and water from 12 weeks of Sus 250...that’s it. No dianabol, deca, winny V ect. So I get the doses needed.

The part of this conversation that is interesting is whether or not this is harmful if other blood levels are good...now at what doses does the chances of blood work being good and healthy go away...it will be different for each person.

Don’t get all weird and assume my questions interest has anything to do with me wanting this level. I’m too old to even want to look like a muscle freak. I’ve been there 20 years ago and meathead is not my thing. Not to mention the damage being that strong and lifting that heavy has on your joints and tendons. It’s just not a healthy long term goal.

 

[Vince]

Supra dosing is not the thing as I think it's been said here in the replies but the levels that a particular guy experiences. In this instance and I omitted his name because it's not him but an example of the levels, it's safe to say that if you want to have this Supra conversation that you're Supra on every other minute of your protocol given 880/916 is your lowest point.



Guys always seem to leave this out in that regard, you're basically Supra levels except for a tiny part of your particular protocol. In most instances of common TRT that puts a trough at roughly 1000 TT.

My question is what would be the rationale for taking more testosterone than the body produces naturally? I am taking 10mg of T-Cyp every day. With 100 IU's daily of HCG added to that, I wonder if that is too much?

 

[madman]

Of course testosterone dosages of 300-600 are not needed for T replacement. In fact I’ve cycled steroids in my early 20s and I gained 25 pounds and blew up with muscle and water from 12 weeks of Sus 250...that’s it. No dianabol, deca, winny V ect. So I get the doses needed.

The part of this conversation that is interesting is whether or not this is harmful if other blood levels are good...now at what doses does the chances of blood work being good and healthy go away...it will be different for each person.

Don’t get all weird and assume my questions interest has anything to do with me wanting this level. I’m too old to even want to look like a muscle freak. I’ve been there 20 years ago and meathead is not my thing. Not to mention the damage being that strong and lifting that heavy has on your joints and tendons. It’s just not a healthy long term goal.

Again if blood health markers are good than it is highly unlikely running such doses in the short-term would be harmful and as far as long-term no one can say for sure.

Most of the minor cosmetic side-effects (oily skin/acne, MPH (genetically prone), water retention, gyno (genetically prone), testicular atrophy are usually temporary and can be controlled/managed to a certain degree through the use of ancillaries.

If anything long-term would be possible cardiovascular damage, liver damage (only with use of c-17 alpha alkylated orals) and permanent dysfunction of the hpta.

That said ones genetics/lifestyle would also play a big role.

Regardless of running higher doses even if blood health markers are good.....no healthy young male naturally produces T levels (TT/FT) that high 2000+

 

[tmaxey1]

Again if blood health markers are good than it is highly unlikely running such doses in the short-term would be harmful and as far as long-term no one can say for sure.

Most of the minor cosmetic side-effects (oily skin/acne, MPH (genetically prone), water retention, gyno (genetically prone), testicular atrophy are usually temporary and can be controlled/managed to a certain degree through the use of ancillaries.

If anything long-term would be possible cardiovascular damage ,liver damage (only with use of c-17 alpha alkylated orals) and permanent dysfunction of the hpta.

That said ones genetics/lifestyle would also play a big role.

Regardless of running higher doses even if blood health markers are good.....no healthy young male naturally produces T levels (TT/FT) that high 2000+

This is where it gets interesting. So no man produces that much test naturally. I think we all agree with that. But does that or should that mean we just accept what’s natural or do we try to push beyond. For me any more than 150-200mgs week ends with water retention and gyno so im out. Many things happen naturally that lead to death or disease. But should we accept the flaws or do we use our natural intellect to reach higher? Organ transplant isn’t natural but that doesn’t mean we stop it.

I get what you are saying and it’s all very well thought out and well said. I’m just intrigued by the possibly of optimizing hormones ect that push us beyond. Of course in the US we have the for profit pharmaceutical industry trying to take down anything that hurts their treatment for profit business model so I won’t be surprised if we are all locked out of even getting testosterone legally in a couple of years. You can’t patent testosterone so they can’t charge 15k per month to insurance companies so they will come after this once it gets big enough to eat into their profits. They don’t make money off of us being healthier longer..

Anyway. Good conversation. Thanks for the dialogue.

 

[Cataceous]

This is where it gets interesting. So no man produces that much test naturally. I think we all agree with that. But does that or should that mean we just accept what’s natural or do we try to push beyond. For me any more than 150-200mgs week ends with water retention and gyno so im out. Many things happen naturally that lead to death or disease. But should we accept the flaws or do we use our natural intellect to reach higher? Organ transplant isn’t natural but that doesn’t mean we stop it.

I get what you are saying and it’s all very well thought out and well said. I’m just intrigued by the possibly of optimizing hormones ect that push us beyond. ...

I think this is pushing in the wrong direction. Which biological parameters do we know of that don't have U-shaped or J-shaped mortality associations? Obviously none in the extreme, but even at the less extreme there can be problems with throwing everything else out of balance. Paraphrasing another poster: I'm all for doing whatever it takes to overcome nature and improve health and longevity. But I'm doubtful that radically increasing certain hormones is the answer.

 

[Bulldog]

My question is what would be the rationale for taking more testosterone than the body produces naturally? I am taking 10mg of T-Cyp every day. With 100 IU's daily of HCG added to that, I wonder if that is too much?

Looking at the Free T number you posted above I would say you could probably reduce your dose a bit...since it is almost double the lab range. Unless that is an age adjusted range...then you would need to know the range they have for a 25 year old and work from that. Just my opinion.

 

[Vince]

Looking at the Free T number you posted above I would say you could probably reduce your dose a bit...since it is almost double the lab range. Unless that is an age adjusted range...then you would need to know the range they have for a 25 year old and work from that. Just my opinion.

That wasn't a question I was asking. That was a reason I posted my numbers.

I enjoy having high levels of free testosterone.

 

[Vince Carter]

Vince is kind of our TRT unicorn, he does so well with those numbers so there's no reason to make changes and he does so well with his stability.

 

[Blackmar401]

The reason to take doses higher than what men see naturally is the therapeutic effects of testosterone. Why did you get on TRT to begin with? Well, if more dose indeed make you feel better then you’ve got a reason to do it. That’s been the case with me.

There’s no solid proof of a dose of 100, 200, or 300 a month being healthier long term. There are so many variables. I’m currently on 300/month, and it has nothing to do with gym performance. Honestly it’s no different than 200/month. I just feel better, and my dr is good with it. I’ll lower it if I ever have a reason to. I haven’t yet.

You mean a week and not month right?

 

[antelopers]

Supra dosing is not the thing as I think it's been said here in the replies but the levels that a particular guy experiences. In this instance and I omitted his name because it's not him but an example of the levels, it's safe to say that if you want to have this Supra conversation that you're Supra on every other minute of your protocol given 880/916 is your lowest point.



Guys always seem to leave this out in that regard, you're basically Supra levels except for a tiny part of your particular protocol. In most instances of common TRT that puts a trough at roughly 1000 TT.

Wouldn't this depend on shbg and individual metabolism of T though? I asked a doctor from defy about this and he said on my twice per week protocol, with an shbg of 39, I likely wasn't much more than a hundred points higher at my peak vs trough levels.

 

[Cataceous]

Wouldn't this depend on shbg and individual metabolism of T though? I asked a doctor from defy about this and he said on my twice per week protocol, with an shbg of 39, I likely wasn't much more than a hundred points higher at my peak vs trough levels.

If the implication is supposed to be that guys with higher SHBG have testosterone falling more slowly than if they had lower SHBG then I'd really like to see someone defend this line of thought. To me it seems as though SHBG influences the clearance rate of testosterone, which in turn controls the observed serum levels: higher with high SHBG, lower with low. But the rate of decline of serum levels is mainly controlled by the ester release rate, which is pretty independent of SHBG.

 

[antelopers]

If the implication is supposed to be that guys with higher SHBG have testosterone falling more slowly than if they had lower SHBG then I'd really like to see someone defend this line of thought. To me it seems as though SHBG influences the clearance rate of testosterone, which in turn controls the observed serum levels: higher with high SHBG, lower with low. But the rate of decline of serum levels is mainly controlled by the ester release rate, which is pretty independent of SHBG.

https://anabolic.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/testcyp.jpg

I'm trying to figure this out myself, after reading your comment.

So, if this graph is to be believed, it seems that the first 3 days of injection, the serum level only deviates from about 47.5 to 45 ng/mL. These are supraphysiological levels, so I tried to scale it down to a percentage that would make sense for TRT. For discussion's sake, if 47.5 gave you a test level of 700, 45 would give you a level of 660. Unless you had low shbg I would think this means the levels would hold very steady?