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
TRT to Supraphysiological Levels for Body Building
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="tareload" data-source="post: 216557"><p>Updated table from the rodent studies (by no means exhaustive):</p><p></p><p>Each of these rows is a literature study showing various toxic effects (autonomic dysfunction, cardiac remodeling, etc). Perhaps I'll continue to add to the list. If you come across additional studies, please do share.</p><table class='post-table ' style='width: 100%'><tr><td ><p>Reference</p></td><td ><p>AAS type</p></td><td ><p>Rat / Mouse dosing (mg/kg/week)</p></td><td ><p>HED ratio</p></td><td ><p>HED (mg/kg/week)</p></td><td ><p>HED (mg/week for 90 kg human)</p></td><td ><p>study duration (weeks)</p></td><td ><p>animal days to human years ratio</p></td><td ><p>equivalent duration (approx. human years)</p></td></tr><tr><td ><p><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024320511004012" target="_blank">Tanno 2011</a></p></td><td ><p>nandrolone</p></td><td ><p>10</p></td><td ><p>6.2</p></td><td ><p>1.6</p></td><td ><p>145</p></td><td ><p>6</p></td><td ><p>16</p></td><td ><p>2.6</p></td></tr><tr><td ><p><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0024320513002178" target="_blank">Neves 2013</a></p></td><td ><p>nandrolone</p></td><td ><p>10</p></td><td ><p>6.2</p></td><td ><p>1.6</p></td><td ><p>145</p></td><td ><p>6</p></td><td ><p>16</p></td><td ><p>2.6</p></td></tr><tr><td ><p><a href="http://www.arquivosonline.com.br/english/2010/AOP/aop14010_ing.pdf" target="_blank">da Silva 2009</a></p></td><td ><p>nandrolone</p></td><td ><p>10</p></td><td ><p>6.2</p></td><td ><p>1.6</p></td><td ><p>145</p></td><td ><p>3</p></td><td ><p>16</p></td><td ><p>1.3</p></td></tr><tr><td ><p><a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26850730/" target="_blank">Pirompol 2016</a></p></td><td ><p>testosterone</p></td><td ><p>15</p></td><td ><p>6.2</p></td><td ><p>2.4</p></td><td ><p>218</p></td><td ><p>12.0</p></td><td ><p>16</p></td><td ><p>5.3</p></td></tr><tr><td ><p><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938413004289" target="_blank">Olivares 2014</a></p></td><td ><p>testosterone</p></td><td ><p>25</p></td><td ><p>6.2</p></td><td ><p>4.0</p></td><td ><p>363</p></td><td ><p>5</p></td><td ><p>16</p></td><td ><p>2.2</p></td></tr><tr><td ><p><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC6661270/" target="_blank">Wadthaisong 2019</a></p></td><td ><p>testosterone</p></td><td ><p>30</p></td><td ><p>6.2</p></td><td ><p>4.8</p></td><td ><p>435</p></td><td ><p>12</p></td><td ><p>16</p></td><td ><p>5.3</p></td></tr><tr><td ><p><a href="https://www.scielo.br/j/rbme/a/Bq75rvzHxXRsykhPDVqwJGK/?lang=en&format=pdf" target="_blank">Carmo 2011</a></p></td><td ><p>nandrolone</p></td><td ><p>70</p></td><td ><p>12.3</p></td><td ><p>5.7</p></td><td ><p>512</p></td><td ><p>10</p></td><td ><p>9</p></td><td ><p>7.8</p></td></tr><tr><td ><p><a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2020.01647/full" target="_blank">Alves 2020</a></p></td><td ><p>testosterone</p></td><td ><p>70</p></td><td ><p>12.3</p></td><td ><p>5.7</p></td><td ><p>512</p></td><td ><p>4.3</p></td><td ><p>9</p></td><td ><p>3.3</p></td></tr><tr><td ><p><a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/and.12908" target="_blank">Karbasi 2017</a></p></td><td ><p>testosterone</p></td><td ><p>40</p></td><td ><p>6.2</p></td><td ><p>6.5</p></td><td ><p>581</p></td><td ><p>8.7</p></td><td ><p>16</p></td><td ><p>3.8</p></td></tr><tr><td ><p><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0039128X21000738" target="_blank">Cartieri 2021</a></p></td><td ><p>nandrolone</p></td><td ><p>105</p></td><td ><p>12.3</p></td><td ><p>8.5</p></td><td ><p>768</p></td><td ><p>2.7</p></td><td ><p>9</p></td><td ><p>2.1</p></td></tr><tr><td ><p><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0039128X21000738" target="_blank">Cartieri 2021</a></p></td><td ><p>testosterone</p></td><td ><p>105</p></td><td ><p>12.3</p></td><td ><p>8.5</p></td><td ><p>768</p></td><td ><p>2.7</p></td><td ><p>9</p></td><td ><p>2.1</p></td></tr><tr><td ><p><a href="https://amj.journals.ekb.eg/article_158480_20573.html" target="_blank">El-Gendy 2021</a></p></td><td ><p>testosterone</p></td><td ><p>60</p></td><td ><p>6.2</p></td><td ><p>9.7</p></td><td ><p>871</p></td><td ><p>8</p></td><td ><p>16</p></td><td ><p>3.5</p></td></tr><tr><td ><p><a href="https://jps.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12576-016-0459-y" target="_blank">Argenziano 2016</a></p></td><td ><p>testosterone</p></td><td ><p>87.5</p></td><td ><p>6.2</p></td><td ><p>14.1</p></td><td ><p>1270</p></td><td ><p>1.0</p></td><td ><p>16</p></td><td ><p>0.4</p></td></tr><tr><td ><p><a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17611100/" target="_blank">Penna 2007</a></p></td><td ><p>nandrolone</p></td><td ><p>105</p></td><td ><p>6.2</p></td><td ><p>16.9</p></td><td ><p>1524</p></td><td ><p>2</p></td><td ><p>16</p></td><td ><p>0.9</p></td></tr><tr><td ><p><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC3560513/" target="_blank">Papmitsou 2011</a></p></td><td ><p>testosterone</p></td><td ><p>175</p></td><td ><p>6.2</p></td><td ><p>28.2</p></td><td ><p>2540</p></td><td ><p>2.9</p></td><td ><p>16</p></td><td ><p>1.3</p></td></tr></table>If you make a plot of duration in human years (y-axis) vs calculated HED for a 90 kg human (x-axis) with these data, you get the following:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]19473[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>Not a great coefficient of determination (R2) using both nandrolone and testosterone data with a logarithmic trendline.</p><p></p><p>If you just plot the testosterone data you get the following:</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]19474[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>I didn't curate the data so its interesting that the trendline actually fits as well as it does. Higher HED with less duration indicates toxicity just like lower HED at higher duration. As other studies have suggested its the product of dose and duration (cumulative dose) that may really be the important factor.</p><p></p><p>In an ideal world you could build an envelope curve showing that to the left of the curve you are ok and to the right of the curve you are in bad territory. The curve itself could represent the transition region. Now obviously not all these points represent the same clinical endpoints but at least the doses and durations seem within the realm of possibility. Given human variation it's probably not realistic for this kind of treatment to be predictive but it is fascinating (if not generally instructive).</p><p></p><p>EDIT: if you are curious what the regression line (above) predicts for various HEDs:</p><table class='post-table ' style='width: 100%'><tr><td ><p>HED (mg/week for 90 kg man)</p></td><td ><p>duration (human years)</p></td></tr><tr><td ><p>25</p></td><td ><p>8.6</p></td></tr><tr><td ><p>50</p></td><td ><p>7.4</p></td></tr><tr><td ><p>100</p></td><td ><p>6.2</p></td></tr><tr><td ><p>200</p></td><td ><p>5.0</p></td></tr><tr><td ><p>400</p></td><td ><p>3.9</p></td></tr><tr><td ><p>800</p></td><td ><p>2.7</p></td></tr><tr><td ><p>1600</p></td><td ><p>1.5</p></td></tr><tr><td ><p>3200</p></td><td ><p>0.3</p></td></tr></table>What sticks out to me are the HEDs under 100 mg/week. We have plenty of anecdotal data out there and patients on this board and others that have been on 100 mg/week of testosterone for over 10 years+. Hence the intercept of the regression line may indicate the dose response for rodents is much more sensitive than humans or the HED ratios used aren't really applicable. FYI.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Note, if you make 50 mg/week and 100 mg/week essentially non-toxic, you can fit all the data with an exponential 3P or biexponential 4P equation pretty well:</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]19475[/ATTACH]</p><p>Of course that's taking some liberties (cherry picking the blue and red data points but FWIW.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tareload, post: 216557"] Updated table from the rodent studies (by no means exhaustive): Each of these rows is a literature study showing various toxic effects (autonomic dysfunction, cardiac remodeling, etc). Perhaps I'll continue to add to the list. If you come across additional studies, please do share. [TABLE][TR][TD] Reference [/TD] [TD] AAS type [/TD] [TD] Rat / Mouse dosing (mg/kg/week) [/TD] [TD] HED ratio [/TD] [TD] HED (mg/kg/week) [/TD] [TD] HED (mg/week for 90 kg human) [/TD] [TD] study duration (weeks) [/TD] [TD] animal days to human years ratio [/TD] [TD] equivalent duration (approx. human years) [/TD][/TR] [TR][TD] [URL='https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024320511004012']Tanno 2011[/URL] [/TD] [TD] nandrolone [/TD] [TD] 10 [/TD] [TD] 6.2 [/TD] [TD] 1.6 [/TD] [TD] 145 [/TD] [TD] 6 [/TD] [TD] 16 [/TD] [TD] 2.6 [/TD][/TR] [TR][TD] [URL='https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0024320513002178']Neves 2013[/URL] [/TD] [TD] nandrolone [/TD] [TD] 10 [/TD] [TD] 6.2 [/TD] [TD] 1.6 [/TD] [TD] 145 [/TD] [TD] 6 [/TD] [TD] 16 [/TD] [TD] 2.6 [/TD][/TR] [TR][TD] [URL='http://www.arquivosonline.com.br/english/2010/AOP/aop14010_ing.pdf']da Silva 2009[/URL] [/TD] [TD] nandrolone [/TD] [TD] 10 [/TD] [TD] 6.2 [/TD] [TD] 1.6 [/TD] [TD] 145 [/TD] [TD] 3 [/TD] [TD] 16 [/TD] [TD] 1.3 [/TD][/TR] [TR][TD] [URL='https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26850730/']Pirompol 2016[/URL] [/TD] [TD] testosterone [/TD] [TD] 15 [/TD] [TD] 6.2 [/TD] [TD] 2.4 [/TD] [TD] 218 [/TD] [TD] 12.0 [/TD] [TD] 16 [/TD] [TD] 5.3 [/TD][/TR] [TR][TD] [URL='https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938413004289']Olivares 2014[/URL] [/TD] [TD] testosterone [/TD] [TD] 25 [/TD] [TD] 6.2 [/TD] [TD] 4.0 [/TD] [TD] 363 [/TD] [TD] 5 [/TD] [TD] 16 [/TD] [TD] 2.2 [/TD][/TR] [TR][TD] [URL='https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC6661270/']Wadthaisong 2019[/URL] [/TD] [TD] testosterone [/TD] [TD] 30 [/TD] [TD] 6.2 [/TD] [TD] 4.8 [/TD] [TD] 435 [/TD] [TD] 12 [/TD] [TD] 16 [/TD] [TD] 5.3 [/TD][/TR] [TR][TD] [URL='https://www.scielo.br/j/rbme/a/Bq75rvzHxXRsykhPDVqwJGK/?lang=en&format=pdf']Carmo 2011[/URL] [/TD] [TD] nandrolone [/TD] [TD] 70 [/TD] [TD] 12.3 [/TD] [TD] 5.7 [/TD] [TD] 512 [/TD] [TD] 10 [/TD] [TD] 9 [/TD] [TD] 7.8 [/TD][/TR] [TR][TD] [URL='https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2020.01647/full']Alves 2020[/URL] [/TD] [TD] testosterone [/TD] [TD] 70 [/TD] [TD] 12.3 [/TD] [TD] 5.7 [/TD] [TD] 512 [/TD] [TD] 4.3 [/TD] [TD] 9 [/TD] [TD] 3.3 [/TD][/TR] [TR][TD] [URL='https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/and.12908']Karbasi 2017[/URL] [/TD] [TD] testosterone [/TD] [TD] 40 [/TD] [TD] 6.2 [/TD] [TD] 6.5 [/TD] [TD] 581 [/TD] [TD] 8.7 [/TD] [TD] 16 [/TD] [TD] 3.8 [/TD][/TR] [TR][TD] [URL='https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0039128X21000738']Cartieri 2021[/URL] [/TD] [TD] nandrolone [/TD] [TD] 105 [/TD] [TD] 12.3 [/TD] [TD] 8.5 [/TD] [TD] 768 [/TD] [TD] 2.7 [/TD] [TD] 9 [/TD] [TD] 2.1 [/TD][/TR] [TR][TD] [URL='https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0039128X21000738']Cartieri 2021[/URL] [/TD] [TD] testosterone [/TD] [TD] 105 [/TD] [TD] 12.3 [/TD] [TD] 8.5 [/TD] [TD] 768 [/TD] [TD] 2.7 [/TD] [TD] 9 [/TD] [TD] 2.1 [/TD][/TR] [TR][TD] [URL='https://amj.journals.ekb.eg/article_158480_20573.html']El-Gendy 2021[/URL] [/TD] [TD] testosterone [/TD] [TD] 60 [/TD] [TD] 6.2 [/TD] [TD] 9.7 [/TD] [TD] 871 [/TD] [TD] 8 [/TD] [TD] 16 [/TD] [TD] 3.5 [/TD][/TR] [TR][TD] [URL='https://jps.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12576-016-0459-y']Argenziano 2016[/URL] [/TD] [TD] testosterone [/TD] [TD] 87.5 [/TD] [TD] 6.2 [/TD] [TD] 14.1 [/TD] [TD] 1270 [/TD] [TD] 1.0 [/TD] [TD] 16 [/TD] [TD] 0.4 [/TD][/TR] [TR][TD] [URL='https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17611100/']Penna 2007[/URL] [/TD] [TD] nandrolone [/TD] [TD] 105 [/TD] [TD] 6.2 [/TD] [TD] 16.9 [/TD] [TD] 1524 [/TD] [TD] 2 [/TD] [TD] 16 [/TD] [TD] 0.9 [/TD][/TR] [TR][TD] [URL='https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC3560513/']Papmitsou 2011[/URL] [/TD] [TD] testosterone [/TD] [TD] 175 [/TD] [TD] 6.2 [/TD] [TD] 28.2 [/TD] [TD] 2540 [/TD] [TD] 2.9 [/TD] [TD] 16 [/TD] [TD] 1.3 [/TD][/TR][/TABLE] If you make a plot of duration in human years (y-axis) vs calculated HED for a 90 kg human (x-axis) with these data, you get the following: [ATTACH type="full" alt="1643665392678.png"]19473[/ATTACH] Not a great coefficient of determination (R2) using both nandrolone and testosterone data with a logarithmic trendline. If you just plot the testosterone data you get the following: [ATTACH type="full" alt="1643665456866.png"]19474[/ATTACH] I didn't curate the data so its interesting that the trendline actually fits as well as it does. Higher HED with less duration indicates toxicity just like lower HED at higher duration. As other studies have suggested its the product of dose and duration (cumulative dose) that may really be the important factor. In an ideal world you could build an envelope curve showing that to the left of the curve you are ok and to the right of the curve you are in bad territory. The curve itself could represent the transition region. Now obviously not all these points represent the same clinical endpoints but at least the doses and durations seem within the realm of possibility. Given human variation it's probably not realistic for this kind of treatment to be predictive but it is fascinating (if not generally instructive). EDIT: if you are curious what the regression line (above) predicts for various HEDs: [TABLE][TR][TD] HED (mg/week for 90 kg man) [/TD] [TD] duration (human years) [/TD][/TR] [TR][TD] 25 [/TD] [TD] 8.6 [/TD][/TR] [TR][TD] 50 [/TD] [TD] 7.4 [/TD][/TR] [TR][TD] 100 [/TD] [TD] 6.2 [/TD][/TR] [TR][TD] 200 [/TD] [TD] 5.0 [/TD][/TR] [TR][TD] 400 [/TD] [TD] 3.9 [/TD][/TR] [TR][TD] 800 [/TD] [TD] 2.7 [/TD][/TR] [TR][TD] 1600 [/TD] [TD] 1.5 [/TD][/TR] [TR][TD] 3200 [/TD] [TD] 0.3 [/TD][/TR][/TABLE] What sticks out to me are the HEDs under 100 mg/week. We have plenty of anecdotal data out there and patients on this board and others that have been on 100 mg/week of testosterone for over 10 years+. Hence the intercept of the regression line may indicate the dose response for rodents is much more sensitive than humans or the HED ratios used aren't really applicable. FYI. Note, if you make 50 mg/week and 100 mg/week essentially non-toxic, you can fit all the data with an exponential 3P or biexponential 4P equation pretty well: [ATTACH type="full" alt="1643669411059.png"]19475[/ATTACH] Of course that's taking some liberties (cherry picking the blue and red data points but FWIW. [/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
TRT to Supraphysiological Levels for Body Building
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