Starting AAS Later in Life vs. Younger

[Throwback]

I've heard both sides stating that if you start blasting later (40+) that you don't have the accumulated organ stress of someone who has been blasting for a decade or more and therefore have more "wiggle room" in your dose exploration.

The other side of the coin says that starting younger builds adaptations, allowing experienced users to better recover/rejuvenate their health markers off-cycle and better tolerate high doses on-cycle.

So which camp are you in? I'm sure it's much more nuanced than these two simplified views so go ahead and educate me. As a new AAS user at age 46, I'm very interested in what realistic expectations I should have as I experiment with future cycles.

I began in 2014 at 54 years old. I was not in the gym previously.
I read and researched everything i could on the subject of PED use, TRT, hormone use in livestock, blood work and HRT since 2012 .
Im 5'8 and never exceeded 155 lbs throughout my adult life.
Starting at 155 lbs in 2014 i consistently lifted, ate right ran 3 cycles of 12 weeks and ran trt at 150mg/wk test.
By 2019 i was a solid 208.
However i got sidetracked during covid which morphed into other life issues that kept me out of any gym till April 2025.
I did stay on trt during those years and even thru august when i pulled bloods ...test 742 E2 20.6 etc my weight was 172.
As we speak, Sept 2 2025 I am a month from my 63rd birthday, weigh 196lbs 18 inch arms, 18.5 neck, 44 inch around chest/back and 31 inch waist at 5ft 8in.
With 9 weeks to go on blast
I am absolutely good with having waited till my 50s to start although i think beginning in your mid 40s wouldnt be bad.

 

[adrenalytic]

I began in 2014 at 54 years old. I was not in the gym previously.
I read and researched everything i could on the subject of PED use, TRT, hormone use in livestock, blood work and HRT since 2012 .
Im 5'8 and never exceeded 155 lbs throughout my adult life.
Starting at 155 lbs in 2014 i consistently lifted, ate right ran 3 cycles of 12 weeks and ran trt at 150mg/wk test.
By 2019 i was a solid 208.
However i got sidetracked during covid which morphed into other life issues that kept me out of any gym till April 2025.
I did stay on trt during those years and even thru august when i pulled bloods ...test 742 E2 20.6 etc my weight was 172.
As we speak, Sept 2 2025 I am a month from my 63rd birthday, weigh 196lbs 18 inch arms, 18.5 neck, 44 inch around chest/back and 31 inch waist at 5ft 8in.
With 9 weeks to go on blast
I am absolutely good with having waited till my 50s to start although i think beginning in your mid 40s wouldnt be bad.

hell ya brotha, keep killin it. Lookin good.

 

[juicebro]

Your organs are more resilient when you are younger. If we are comparing the same amount of AAS abuse in early life vs 40+ I have no doubt early use gives you more longevity. Chances are you already have health issues in your 40s like decreased heart and kidney function, elevated cac score etc.

I remember hearing something interesting. All we need to do is stay alive for another 5-10 years until they come out with all kinds of new drugs that stop or reverse aging among other health issues...and we can live 50+ more years.

 

[Buffed Shark]

If i'm understanding correctly your question was all factors being equal. Would a younger aas user or an older aas user have better qol and longevity.

In this assumption we'll assume both have reasonable genetics been exercising resonably over the years no extra sensetivity to aas and just an average response or not all those factors are equal.

Its simple. The one who starts later would definitely have better chance in longevity health. For the simple fact he didn't spend years exhausting his liver, kidneys, lipids, etc. As the younger guy has been for the last so many yrs.

Now if we are looking at gains (which is not your question i know but for the sake of a complete pic) then the one who started younger will obviously achieve more simply because of all the enhancements he's been getting over the years.

With all the research out there i dont think there's one meta analysis or credible scientific paper that can directly relate longevity to the use of AAS. We know TRT helps we can argue some dosage of gh can also help. Inarguably both and alot of peptides can improve qol and logically also aid in longevity. But then you see all the people who live to their 100's in great health and realize they've never seen a dr. My grandma died at 97 never took an advil.

 

[readalot]

If i'm understanding correctly your question was all factors being equal. Would a younger aas user or an older aas user have better qol and longevity.

In this assumption we'll assume both have reasonable genetics been exercising resonably over the years no extra sensetivity to aas and just an average response or not all those factors are equal.

Its simple. The one who starts later would definitely have better chance in longevity health. For the simple fact he didn't spend years exhausting his liver, kidneys, lipids, etc. As the younger guy has been for the last so many yrs.

Now if we are looking at gains (which is not your question i know but for the sake of a complete pic) then the one who started younger will obviously achieve more simply because of all the enhancements he's been getting over the years.

With all the research out there i dont think there's one meta analysis or credible scientific paper that can directly relate longevity to the use of AAS. We know TRT helps we can argue some dosage of gh can also help. Inarguably both and alot of peptides can improve qol and logically also aid in longevity. But then you see all the people who live to their 100's in great health and realize they've never seen a dr. My grandma died at 97 never took an advil.

No intro.

 

[Eddie.]

From what I've seen your question is pointing mostly towards who's gonna have a better outcome, right? Then hands down the younger one, more resilient to health issues, young guys can take 1gr tren and call it a day, usually older dudes smell 19nors for example and they get side effects.

As for me me personally, i started at 35 so I'm almost 2 years enhanced. Before that i trained 19 years as a natty. I delayed it because i knew if i had started then i wouldn't come off, so i took the decision and now i married the needle. Ideally if i could go back in time I'd start 3-4 years earlier. Yes, i still have some room to push things a little but i don't intend to blast my socks off at 45+, so if everything goes well I'm gonna make things spicy for a few years more and then use only the necessary amount of test and gh to maintain or slowly progress.

 

[adrenalytic]

From what I've seen your question is pointing mostly towards who's gonna have a better outcome, right?

Sort of. I'll try to better clarify.

Let's take two twins, that way we assume identical genetics.

(we don't care about gains here, just organ health and biomarkers)

Twin A starts experimenting with AAS at age 25 and continues using for the rest of his life. He is, for the most part, a responsible user. He gets regular bloodwork and addresses side effects immediately. He pushes his doses as high as the side effects will allow while on blast. His cycles are 16-20 weeks and then drops to a TRT cruise so he can get back to baseline before his next blast.

Twin B had other interests in his youth and did not follow his brother down this path. Fast forward a bit, he begins to notice signs of low T in his 40's and his brother convinces him that TRT is the way. At age 45, Twin B decides to not just TRT or even TRT+ but full on blast (1 gram+). He gains size and looks amazing. He's hooked. He has done his due diligence in researching and plans to do future cycles responsibly.

Both twins are now pushing 50. Which twin is better positioned to continue cycling between TRT and responsible blasting? Does one have to be more careful than the other? Is one more at-risk than the other? Does any of this matter as long as the usage is done in a responsible manner with age taken into consideration? Any other thoughts?

 

[Eddie.]

Sort of. I'll try to better clarify.

Let's take two twins, that way we assume identical genetics.

(we don't care about gains here, just organ health and biomarkers)

Twin A starts experimenting with AAS at age 25 and continues using for the rest of his life. He is, for the most part, a responsible user. He gets regular bloodwork and addresses side effects immediately. He pushes his doses as high as the side effects will allow while on blast. His cycles are 16-20 weeks and then drops to a TRT cruise so he can get back to baseline before his next blast.

Twin B had other interests in his youth and did not follow his brother down this path. Fast forward a bit, he begins to notice signs of low T in his 40's and his brother convinces him that TRT is the way. At age 45, Twin B decides to not just TRT or even TRT+ but full on blast (1 gram+). He gains size and looks amazing. He's hooked. He has done his due diligence in researching and plans to do future cycles responsibly.

Both twins are now pushing 50. Which twin is better positioned to continue cycling between TRT and responsible blasting? Does one have to be more careful than the other? Is one more at-risk than the other? Does any of this matter as long as the usage is done in a responsible manner with age taken into consideration? Any other thoughts?

In that case I'd say the one who started later. Exposure is crucial on this matter, abusing for 30 years is obviously more detrimental to abusing for 10 years.

I thought the question was more like what if you have one twin start blasting at 25 for a decade and at 35 transition to a true trt vs twin nr 2 start blasting for a decade at 45 and then go to trt, which in that case the younger one would be probably healthier at a higher age.

 

[adrenalytic]

In that case I'd say the one who started later. Exposure is crucial on this matter, abusing for 30 years is obviously more detrimental to abusing for 10 years.

So you don't think Twin A's years of responsible use and adaptations will outweigh the accumulated harm caused from prolonged use?

I thought the question was more like what if you have one twin start blasting at 25 for a decade and at 35 transition to a true trt vs twin nr 2 start blasting for a decade at 45 and then go to trt, which in that case the younger one would be probably healthier at a higher age.

Yah, that's my bad for not being clearer. Going back and reading, it does sound like I'm asking for a comparison between an old guy and a young guy when really I want to compare two old guys who started at different times.

Thanks for your input, brother.

 

[Earthworm Jim]

I had a lot of anger issues the first 30 something years of my life and didn't know it until it landed me in a bunch of trouble so I can only imagine how much worse things would have been if I had been on gear then

 

[Eddie.]

So you don't think Twin A's years of responsible use and adaptations will outweigh the accumulated harm caused from prolonged use?

Honestly no, but that's just my guessing here.

Thanks for your input, brother.

You're welcome buddy!

 

[Buffed Shark]

So you don't think Twin A's years of responsible use and adaptations will outweigh the accumulated harm caused from prolonged use?



Yah, that's my bad for not being clearer. Going back and reading, it does sound like I'm asking for a comparison between an old guy and a young guy when really I want to compare two old guys who started at different times.

Thanks for your input, brother.

Regardless of managing damage and harm done from using AAS for prolonged times, especially in your example Twin A is pushing to the his limits for 10+ years consistently accumlating lipids, hepa and kidney functions cardiovascular and what not fatigue where his twin b had non of that. Assuming twin B didn't get an alcoholic or non alcoholic fatty liver and has been in a relatively healthy situation. At twin B starting point ground zero is 45 with perfect health and functions.

Where twin A at that same exact point is yes probably more jacked but certainly no where near twin B's health even with identical bio markers cbc, lipid values. Because simply all the ups and downs in all those markers constantly for 10 years must have done something.

Push forward at age 65 twin A has over 45 or some years of AAS AND Twin B is at 25. Also highly doubt a 55+ sane person would wanna be blasting tren so there's also that.

I'm not a dr or a scientist and this isn't bro science either. I guess it's just common sense. I could be wrong but i'll be curious to see an arguable point with this

 

[Buffed Shark]

No intro.

Coming right up

 

[cousinmuscles]

In my mid teens I started taking training seriously and eventually found a gym with many bodybuilders, a dozen of them had been in the bodybuilding magazines. I went along well with them and through reasoning they convinced me not to take steroids, and if I ever did, do it later and do it in a scientific manner, research the compounds, understand how they damage your health, monitor and mitigate those issues. Back then this was nearly impossible, blood work had to be ordered by a doctor or done in another country. Also I realized the costs would mean I would have to work and get by just enough.

Fast forward after 15 years of training I found I had low testosterone which meant everything took a different path.

The difference between me having done steroids then vs as I did, starting in my 30s is as follows;

1) Financial/career. Blood work, a proper diet, all required supplements are nothing for me now, while they'd overwhelm me back then when I was saving money and not making much. I also included the word career because when that it settled (I run my own business), it is several times easier to get on track for a long term plan. Spending a few thousand $ on doing things correctly through proper diet, supplementation, blood work, medicines if needed, may be nothing for me now, but if I spent it back then, I would have lost out on the compound effects of investing that money to be able to make more in the future.

2) Knowledge on hormones, health et.c. I have had years to accumulate knowledge, not to mention the availability of information then vs now is night and day. On one hand this means younger people can make more informed decisions, however I question whether they can digest all the information and make wise choices. I knew I would be on exogenous test for life before starting and acted accordingly. Knowing how to monitor health parameters and adjust AAS usage, diet, supplements, medicines takes some time, especially since there is no one size fits all approach.

3) Training/experience. Even before AAS I had a history of getting injured due to training too hard. Yet still I got myself into big setbacks with the aggression and strength I got from trenbolone, cost me a few thousand $ in PRP/hyaluronic acid treatments in areas with stubborn scar tissue and over 2 years in limbo, no gains. With my love for heavy and hard training, I would have wrecked myself if I used these things earlier.

I guess being extremely gifted and having chances of getting on the Olympia stage can be reasons to start AAS early, but in that case you will have coaches who want to help you due to the sheer talent you possess, and the process will be many times easier vs my path.

If not, I can't see how me in my late teens or early 20s would manage all these things when I didn't have stability and wealth that I had when I was 28 when I started. Even if I did, I would have missed other opportunities because of not focusing on attaining wealth, investing and working my ass off. Just the few thousand $ per year needed, at ages 17-25, would set me back from being able to do other things with that money and the compound effects of using that money properly. I question whether I would have done things right or just ran cycles and assumed all is good as long as I took some time off between the cycles...

 

[cousinmuscles]

Regarding having more resilience at a younger age, I would argue that I was more careless which would counter the resilience of being a decade younger. I took a multivitamin and had a decent diet at best. Honestly, this is the most realistic point I can see about myself. Sure I am the same person, but I can't compare my current self with what I did then. I believed that the oatmeal in my diet was good enough to cleanse out the toxins I accumulated from the junk food in my semi-clean diet. Meanwhile now I am chasing targets in blood work numbers, being my own lab rat.

I would have quickly expended whatever additional resilience I had.

 

[ToesOverKnees]

Im reading that true natural peak with very smart training - key being very smart - anyones gains can stop after 4 or 5 years without great knowledge, takes 15 years.
With gains extremely slow between years 10 and 15, like putting just 10 pounds a year in your squat in years 10 to 15.
I think a great middle ground is 5 years of natty training so you get a chance to figure out some of your body but aren't wasting years optimising for not much return.
When do men stop growing in height completely usually? Not starting until then or close to then is a good idea.

 

[OldGHGuy]

I would have waited, too, but 18-23 is when the college football is played so waiting until my late 20's early 30's made no sense at the time

 

[Throwback]

If i'm understanding correctly your question was all factors being equal. Would a younger aas user or an older aas user have better qol and longevity.

In this assumption we'll assume both have reasonable genetics been exercising resonably over the years no extra sensetivity to aas and just an average response or not all those factors are equal.

Its simple. The one who starts later would definitely have better chance in longevity health. For the simple fact he didn't spend years exhausting his liver, kidneys, lipids, etc. As the younger guy has been for the last so many yrs.

Now if we are looking at gains (which is not your question i know but for the sake of a complete pic) then the one who started younger will obviously achieve more simply because of all the enhancements he's been getting over the years.

With all the research out there i dont think there's one meta analysis or credible scientific paper that can directly relate longevity to the use of AAS. We know TRT helps we can argue some dosage of gh can also help. Inarguably both and alot of peptides can improve qol and logically also aid in longevity. But then you see all the people who live to their 100's in great health and realize they've never seen a dr. My grandma died at 97 never took an advil.

When its our individual checkout time....it is when it is.
Lol
I agree 100% with your comments above.
My great grandparents were 106 104 on my moms side, my dads side 102 and 96.
My grandmother 94 on moms side grandfather 80 but he had polio as a child and was bedridden quite alot.
My mom was 87 when she passed and my dad is driving, getting around, living alone and just divorced his wife this past summer at 93.
None of em hardly see Doctors.....
Im 63 next month....(God willing)
Currently on a blast ...5'8 194 @approx 20%bf maybe a lil less.