MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Anyone add Masteron to their TRT?
- Thread starter jswole
- Start date
johntt44
New Member
Been taking 100mg a day for months. No haiross.. If susceptible to it then yes.
What's the maximum dose of proviron you'd use on trt?
master.on
New Member
Not Proviron
Sorry for the confusion, I meant HIGH DOSE Mast is.
Typical results
I'm not a big fan of TRT unless you're really old (60+)
As much as I'm a huge fan of Proviron and Masteron (hence my handle), Proviron can be A BIT suppressive, so I advice only using it along either
HCG
low dose AI (to bring Estradiol to low-normal and boost Testosterone slightly)
Point is Proviron is best for long term use IMO
start with 25mg a day, try for a month, increase some other 25 mg, wait another month and so on.
You don't need and don't want to start Proviron at high doses.
If you blast and cruise (or blast and TRT)
use Masteron during blasts, and leave Proviron for cruise/TRT
tenpoundsleft
Member
Well, crap natural test levels can hit at various ages, I was diagnosed at 190 at the age of 50 - on TRT since. I was probably really low in my early 40s. I've heard of guys in their 60s with nearly 1,000 natty so up to the person.
So, whether or not to go TRT is up to the bloodwork, not the calendar date.
This I learn right after putting in an order for Masteron? Oh well, I guess it's time to study up on Proviron. Meanwhile, I'll blast a few cycles of Mast.
Don't listen to ANYTHING that guy says. He's the resident troll/moron/dumbass.
He doesn't agree with trt until old age? Dude, get the fuck out of here with your total mumbo jumbo billshit. There's plenty of legit trt patients in their 30s. I'm 45 with a natty test level of 340ish, coupled with all the symptoms of low t, a actual legit doctor has me balanced and feeling great, along with many just like me. Take your cereal box advice and go away.
I'm in total agreement with you on his TRT advice, but admit that I'm out of my element on proviron and need further study there.
There are far better sources for info on here. I'm not at all an expert and really a newb, but that guy gives dangerous advice. Hell in a thread last week he said that all serious BB and AAS users should just go ahead and have gyno surgery. WTF?
I seriously doubt I'd he's run the compounds he says and I've yet to see a pic from him. He strikes me as a know-it-all that gets a little info from the internet and now he's an expert. The real experts on here don't have to tell anyone how smart they are...You can tell
master.on
New Member
That's why I like Proviron/Mast so much:
Even with MIDRANGE natural Testosterone levels, Proviron makes you feel the King of the World, THE alpha-male
So you can delay TRT for decades:
just a little HCG/AI here and there if needed to bring natural Test to midrange, then add Proviron to feel great.
Even if Proviron is slightly suppressive, HCG/AI will compensate for it.
Not for nothing scientific studies proved Proviron to be an effective antidepressant:
The effects of mesterolone, a male sex hormone in depressed patients (a double blind controlled study). - PubMed - NCBI
(although they used huge dosages, 300-450 mg ED)
'The degree of improvement weakly correlated to the decrease of testosterone levels during mesterolone treatment.'
So, for best results, you should make sure you don't get suppressed from Proviron (adding HCG/AI or even short SERM cycles may help).
You are a fucking moron. Seriously. So add something so you don't have to add something? Remember you also posted that hcg causes cancer. You've got so many fucked up hypothesis that you can't keep it straight.
You're one of the flat Earthers aren't ya.
You're one of the flat Earthers aren't ya.
master.on
New Member
Who are you talking to?
Hint: Next time use the quote function
or just quote Quoting for dummies
Well since you replied... I was speaking to you . Clearly it worked... You chime in on threads and give advice to morons that don't even need to be using gear. Your advice, use more!! Your and your co-handle ecpert are the village idiots. Ever ponder why EVERYONE busts your ass? No...no you don't .Because you live in your own weirdo triggered world . Fucking moron .
master.on
New Member
I never said HCG causes cancer, because it doesn't.
Go ahead, read my posts and post a single link to any post where I stated that "hcg causes cancer" and I'll stop posting for a whole month.
Deal?
legendary
Member
Yes I had amazing results. But I was informed by @ChestRockwell it can have bad effects on prostate. So maybe he can chine in if he's around. I also ran low dose of Cialas with it.
I'm not making deals with you, you freaking nit wit . I never said anything about HCG .See, here's the problem, you make shit up and then post it . Again, village idiot . No one listens to you, and everyone mocks you. Wonder why
ChestRockwell
Member
By most accounts, prostate cancer risk is reliant upon the combination of sustained elevations in DHT alongside estradiol, derived via testosterone aromatization. If one is going to use the combination for long periods of time, please stay on top of prostate-related check-ups and bloodwork.
tenpoundsleft
Member
No offense, but that's a myth you're perpetuating.
Here's a piece from Harvard's medical school, by a urologist. He dismisses, in about a strongly worded terms as you can, the myth about high testosterone causing prostate cancer.
Read the entire article, it's good:
https://www.harvardprostateknowledge.org/a-harvard-expert-shares-his-thoughts-on-testosterone-replacement-therapy
I've quoted the most pertinent area below and marked portions in red or bold.
"What about the risk of developing prostate cancer?
I think that the biggest hurdle for most physicians prescribing testosterone is the fear that they’re going to promote prostate cancer. [See “Incongruous findings,” below.] That’s because more than six decades ago, it was shown that if you lowered testosterone in men whose prostate cancer had metastasized, their condition improved. (It became a standard therapy that we still use today for men with advanced prostate cancer. We call it androgen deprivation or androgen-suppressive therapy.) The thinking became that if lowering testosterone makes prostate cancer disappear, at least for a while, then raising it must make prostate cancer grow. But even though it’s been a widely held belief for six decades, no one has found any additional evidence to support the theory.
Haven’t there been any studies that follow men who go on testosterone-replacement therapy to see what their rate of cancer is compared with that in men who are not on it?
As with a number of treatments or medicines that have been around for a long, long time, it hasn’t been scrutinized like a new drug would be. And although they’ve been discussed, there aren’t any large-scale, randomized controlled clinical trials of testosterone-replacement therapy under way. [See “A male equivalent to the Women’s Health Initiative?” below.]
There have been a number of smaller studies on men receiving testosterone-replacement therapy, and if you look at the results cumulatively, the rate of prostate cancer in these men was about 1% per year. If you look at men who show up for prostate cancer screening, same sort of age population, the rate tends to be about the same. You have to be cautious in comparing studies and combining the results, but there’s no signal in these results that testosterone-replacement therapy creates an unexpectedly high rate of prostate cancer.
We also have epidemiologic studies, like the Physicians’ Health Study, the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, and the Massachusetts Male Aging Study, that include tens of thousands of men who are followed for 5, 10, 15, or even 20 years. At the end of the study period, the researchers see who developed prostate cancer and who didn’t. They can then look at blood samples taken at the start of the study to see if, for example, the group that got prostate cancer had a higher level of testosterone over all. About 500,000 men have been entered in some 20 trials of this type around the world. Not one of those studies has shown a definitive correlation between prostate cancer and total testosterone. Three or four have shown weak associations, but none of those have been confirmed in subsequent studies.
Another point I’d like to make for people worried about a link between high testosterone and prostate cancer is that it just doesn’t make sense. Prostate cancer becomes more prevalent in men as they age, and that’s also when their testosterone levels decline. We almost never see it in men in their peak testosterone years, in their 20s for instance. We know from autopsy studies that 8% of men in their 20s already have tiny prostate cancers, so if testosterone really made prostate cancer grow so rapidly — we used to talk about it like it was pouring gasoline on a fire — we should see some appreciable rate of prostate cancer in men in their 20s. We don’t. So, I’m no longer worried that giving testosterone to men will make their hidden cancer grow, because I’m convinced that it doesn’t happen."
ChestRockwell
Member
@tenpoundsleft Please note that I didn't say TRT directly correlated with increased prostate cancer risk, I am not arguing with your post one bit.
I stand behind what I said in my last post, and I will refer everyone to Pitts unified theory for the basis of my claim: Validation of the Pitts unified theory of prostate cancer, late-onset hypogonadism and carcinoma: the role of steroid 5alpha-reductase and steroid ... - PubMed - NCBI
I stand behind what I said in my last post, and I will refer everyone to Pitts unified theory for the basis of my claim: Validation of the Pitts unified theory of prostate cancer, late-onset hypogonadism and carcinoma: the role of steroid 5alpha-reductase and steroid ... - PubMed - NCBI
tenpoundsleft
Member
That's a dense piece, but I found this interesting:
"Steroid aromatase inhibition increases testosterone and decreases oestrogen without the stimulatory effect on incidental prostate cancer by the increased testosterone."
So, they imply an assumption that increased testosterone drives prostate cancer, which the Harvard article refuted, and their study didn't find one either. Hmmmm
