Do people use too much gear than necessary?

[DECLAN]

Genetics are the main factor I say. Not everyone can be mr Olympia obviously. I know a guy who ran around 2 grams of gear and didn’t change much in appearance than when he ran 600-700mg of gear. Hence why I asked this question to begin with

Exactly, that is why some pros can get out of the sports still without medical problems even after decades of abuse because they have the genetics to tolerate huge doses.

There was an interview with Roman Fritz where he said he never had acne and hematology problems even while pushing doses.

It’s all genetics generally, if there are people who can be party animals downing liters of alcohol and doing lines every night but still end up with healthy organs, there are bodybuilders who are bound to resist AAS long term damage too.

 

[malfeasance]

Anybody listen to Fouad Abiad's podcast?

I do not know if he still does it, but for years he would have IFBB pros on his show to talk and BS and have fun. He asked almost all of them about steroid usage and doses and would always tell them that they do not have to answer.

The testosterone dose used on cycle almost always fell in the 1000-1500 range, with most clustering somewhere around 1200 mg a week. Now, they add other things, of course, but that dose of testosterone was the base. Almost all of them said that they tried higher doses of testosterone (some as high as 3-5G) but found the results not worth the side effects. The term "diminishing returns" was used a lot. I am talking about literally dozens of IFBB pros (I used to listen to his podcast religiously). They did not have to answer, and there was no reason to lie. Nobody answered like it was 1993, "500mg of test and some deca."

But these are all IFBB pros in the open class, the largest guys at the top of the sport.

These are not your 200 pound bodybuilder hoping to get to 215 by the end of winter.

I doubt any of us fall too far outside of the range they gave, meaning that I doubt any of us would benefit from higher doses than that range.

I also doubt any of us need those kind of doses, meaning your 200 pound guy trying to get to 215 does not really need 1200mg of test as a base with other steroids stacked on top to meet his goal.

And remember that the IFBB pros have made a decision that the risk to their health and life is worth it to make a living at what they are doing. As we know, that gamble does not always pay off in terms of making a living or, well, living.

We cannot pretend like there are not health consequences to this stuff.

 

[DECLAN]

Anybody listen to Fouad Abiad's podcast?

I do not know if he still does it, but for years he would have IFBB pros on his show to talk and BS and have fun. He asked almost all of them about steroid usage and doses and would always tell them that they do not have to answer.

The testosterone dose used on cycle almost always fell in the 1000-1500 range, with most clustering somewhere around 1200 mg a week. Now, they add other things, of course, but that dose of testosterone was the base. Almost all of them said that they tried higher doses of testosterone (some as high as 3-5G) but found the results not worth the side effects. The term "diminishing returns" was used a lot. I am talking about literally dozens of IFBB pros (I used to listen to his podcast religiously). They did not have to answer, and there was no reason to lie. Nobody answered like it was 1993, "500mg of test and some deca."

But these are all IFBB pros in the open class, the largest guys at the top of the sport.

These are not your 200 pound bodybuilder hoping to get to 215 by the end of winter.

I doubt any of us fall too far outside of the range they gave, meaning that I doubt any of us would benefit from higher doses than that range.

I also doubt any of us need those kind of doses, meaning your 200 pound guy trying to get to 215 does not really need 1200mg of test as a base with other steroids stacked on top to meet his goal.

And remember that the IFBB pros have made a decision that the risk to their health and life is worth it to make a living at what they are doing. As we know, that gamble does not always pay off in terms of making a living or, well, living.

We cannot pretend like there are not health consequences to this stuff.

Yeah, I love the old premise and way he did the interviews. Now, it’s just discussions on bodybuilding in general and they’re back on tiptoeing on the topic.

 

[malfeasance]

One more point I want to raise.

More and more studies are linking testosterone to higher coronary artery calcium.

Testosterone is positively associated with coronary artery calcium in a low cardiovascular disease risk population

AbstractBackground. In industrialized populations, low male testosterone is associated with higher rates of cardiovascular mortality. However, coronary ris

academic.oup.com

Now, the full story is more complicated. There are risks to low testosterone, including a higher risk of cardiovascular events, but this study (2023, last year) is pointing out that lower testosterone may not be what is driving that result, but obesity and other factors in the low testosterone group.

Nevertheless, a higher coronary artery calcium score is linked to testosterone.

The reason I bring this up is that there is no reversing artherosclerosis. Once it is there, it is there, and modern medicine has no way to get rid of it.

The study above is not even about exogenous testosterone. The men with naturally higher levels of testosterone had higher CAC scores. He studied an indigenous population to get away from the other confounding variables. These natives were not eating from the burger drive through.

Worth thinking about.

 

[malfeasance]

I know a guy who ran around 2 grams of gear and didn’t change much in appearance than when he ran 600-700mg of gear. Hence why I asked this question to begin with

That is pretty surprising.

I found a big difference pushing beyond 600mg - I mean, most guys start on 500.

 

[ackmack78]

Genetics are the main factor I say. Not everyone can be mr Olympia obviously. I know a guy who ran around 2 grams of gear and didn’t change much in appearance than when he ran 600-700mg of gear. Hence why I asked this question to begin with

Ya but was his diet on point and the training at least half way decent. If you're not progressively pushing the food day in and day out it's a waste.

 

[Ouch]

Wow at the natty levels in the 700s when off. Congrats. I would come off, too, if I could have levels like that when off.





As to that study with test doses up to 600mg: In case folks do not remember it, the guys taking 600mg grew more muscle.

So does that process stop if you go to 700? 750? 800? We do not know. The study did not try 750mg or 1000mg. All we know is that more is better up to 600mg. I bet 750 is even better (and those of you who have tried it probably know that is true).

They also examined the effects of lower doses. The muscle growth was 100% dose dependent in that study, and lower doses did not grow that much. They did not use 200, though. It was 25, 50, 125, 300, and 600.

Nutrition was the same for all categories (in other words, the 600mg a week guys were not eating more than the 125mg guys). There was also no exercise. Yes, that is correct, their thigh muscles grew in a dose dependent manner without extra food and with no resistance exercise stimulus.

Testosterone dose-response relationships in healthy young men - PubMed

Testosterone increases muscle mass and strength and regulates other physiological processes, but we do not know whether testosterone effects are dose dependent and whether dose requirements for maintaining various androgen-dependent processes are similar. To determine the effects of graded doses...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/ajpendo.2001.281.6.E1172?rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed&url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org

View attachment 292047

That’s my level while taking 12.5mg Enclo 5x per week. But yeah, it’s definitely why I still cycle off and haven’t gone to TRT yet. I’m guessing it will stop working eventually, but for now I’m gonna keep riding that train as long as it lasts!

 

[malfeasance]

Do you ever stay natty for a while, no clomid or any other chemical or hormone? If so, what happens to your levels then?

 

[jankoch]

On the other hand, hemoglobin increased by dose, and HDL decreased by dose.

So there it is - side effects are also dose dependent.

Fat free mass includes water, so the lbm gain can be just another increased side effect (water+salt retention) and not really effect. Since the sexual desire went down I think we can make the smart guess they had E2 problems in the 600mg weekly group and that makes that LBM gain coming from water way more likely. I think most, if not all 3kg difference is water.

IGF1 levels doesnt seem to change too much going from 300 to 600 tho. We can argue systemic IGF levels dont matter, but then we have Leg presses and strength didnt increase much either. Fat mass decreased same.

So actually for me this study means more like 600 isn't necessary better than 300. So I do not understand how this study is the proof that 'more is better'.

this study is 'flawed' as participants didnt train, took an AI with high test etc.

 

[malfeasance]

Fat free mass includes water, so the lbm gain can be just another increased side effect (water+salt retention) and not really effect. Since the sexual desire went down I think we can make the smart guess they had E2 problems in the 600mg weekly group and that makes that LBM gain coming from water way more likely. I think most, if not all 3kg difference is water.

IGF1 levels doesnt seem to change too much going from 300 to 600 tho. We can argue systemic IGF levels dont matter, but then we have Leg presses and strength didnt increase much either. Fat mass decreased same.

So actually for me this study means more like 600 isn't necessary better than 300. So I do not understand how this study is the proof that 'more is better'.

this study is 'flawed' as participants didnt train, took an AI with high test etc.

Please do not get offended, but I guess you did not read the study. I linked the entire text of the study, please check out the second link in my post. You will see that they measured water retention before and after to control for your concern that in a DEXA scan "fat free mass includes water." The result was that the ratios of total body water to fat free mass did not significantly change in any group, including the 600mg per week.

There was a change in quadriceps muscle volume and thigh muscle volume, as well.

It should not really be surprising that all out heavy pressing strength did not increase that much from 300 to 600 in folks who were doing no strength training. It did, however, increase with the higher dose in spite of no leg training, just not as much as the huge jump for the 300 mg folks.

Leg power increased significantly from 300mg to 600mg, indicating a significant change in sports performance and functional use as a result. Strength depends greatly on neural adaptation from training. Power, however, maybe does not so much, and higher doses of testosterone gave the participants more power. Nottingham leg extensor power rig was used.

You say sexual desire went down, but the study says no significant changes.

Read the whole thing. You might come away with a better opinion of the study. It was measuring only the effect of different dosages of testosterone, which is why they didn't train and food was kept the same.

 

[pigeonhed]

Thank you @malfeasance for the link and info. Was good to read and honestly I like seeing studies on Testosterone, obviously.

My take:
The study looked at a group of Tsimane people, who live in the Bolivian Amazon and have a low risk of heart disease. Researchers found that higher levels of testosterone were linked to more calcium buildup in the arteries, which is a sign of heart disease. This suggests that testosterone might affect heart health even in people who live active, healthy lives, challenging the idea that it’s just modern lifestyles causing this link.

 

[AlexDavis43]

One more point I want to raise.

More and more studies are linking testosterone to higher coronary artery calcium.

Testosterone is positively associated with coronary artery calcium in a low cardiovascular disease risk population

AbstractBackground. In industrialized populations, low male testosterone is associated with higher rates of cardiovascular mortality. However, coronary ris

academic.oup.com

Now, the full story is more complicated. There are risks to low testosterone, including a higher risk of cardiovascular events, but this study (2023, last year) is pointing out that lower testosterone may not be what is driving that result, but obesity and other factors in the low testosterone group.

Thank you @malfeasance for the link and info. Was good to read and honestly I like seeing studies on Testosterone, obviously.

My take:
The study looked at a group of Tsimane people, who live in the Bolivian Amazon and have a low risk of heart disease. Researchers found that higher levels of testosterone were linked to more calcium buildup in the arteries, which is a sign of heart disease. This suggests that testosterone might affect heart health even in people who live active, healthy lives, challenging the idea that it’s just modern lifestyles causing this link.

This recent meta on TRT (actual TRT doses, not TRT+ or cruising or whatever it's called it now) showed no significant effect on cardiovascular risk.

More nuanced albeit much longer review here.

But as alluded to above, these studies refer to TRT doses. Not self-prescribed or "TRT clinic" doses of 200 mg/wk or more. It's mostly around 100-120 mg/wk so maybe not applicable for most Meso members.

 

[Ouch]

Do you ever stay natty for a while, no clomid or any other chemical or hormone? If so, what happens to your levels then?

Ive been on prescription Enclomiphene for a few years now. I have not tested my levels without it recently but IIRC the last one completely natty was in the low 400s.

I did, however, plan to get a reading prior to my current cycle cause I was curious too. Stupidly I just stopped taking the Enclo cold turkey and, low and behold, I actually got a gyno flare up. Didn’t even cross my mind that was possible. So that messed my plan up because I hopped on Ralox right away and then started my cycle once the flare up was over.

 

[malfeasance]

This recent meta on TRT (actual TRT doses, not TRT+ or cruising or whatever it's called it now) showed no significant effect on cardiovascular risk.

More nuanced albeit much longer review here.

But as alluded to above, these studies refer to TRT doses. Not self-prescribed or "TRT clinic" doses of 200 mg/wk or more. It's mostly around 100-120 mg/wk so maybe not applicable for most Meso members.

Please note 2 things. (1) the study in the post of mine you quoted is not TRT at all. It is about testosterone, and, in the study, natural levels of testosterone. (2) It is not about a general "cardiovascular risk." It is about one issue, CAC score. The study found a positive correlation between testosterone levels and CAC score. The study controlled for diet and such by studying an indigenous tribe without access to modern food.

 

[HeatherSwanson]

Personally, I've seen guys using 2-4 times more per gram of the same PED's I regularly use and get less results. I think the ingredients to success are as well all know is sleep, diet, over all health, training habits, drugs and alcohol or lack there of and consistent regular high quality sex. Tons of reading dumped in this thread and I can't wait to have a look at some of the larger posts later tonight.

 

[Liter O' Test]

Personally, I've seen guys using 2-4 times more per gram of the same PED's I regularly use and get less results.

regarding female vs male ive heard people theorize something about womens androgen receptors being different/more sensitive

I think the ingredients to success are as well all know is sleep, diet, over all health, training habits, drugs and alcohol or lack there of and consistent regular high quality sex. Tons of reading dumped in this thread and I can't wait to have a look at some of the larger posts later tonight.

its genetics, they want to brag about their "mentality" and "discipline", acting like they are getting twice the results just by eating stuff that doesn't taste good. plenty of guys train hard, eat enough and dont stay out partying every weekend.

 

[malfeasance]

and consistent regular high quality sex.

Cardio!

 

[jankoch]

Please do not get offended, but I guess you did not read the study. I linked the entire text of the study, please check out the second link in my post. You will see that they measured water retention before and after to control for your concern that in a DEXA scan "fat free mass includes water." The result was that the ratios of total body water to fat free mass did not significantly change in any group, including the 600mg per week.

There was a change in quadriceps muscle volume and thigh muscle volume, as well.

It should not really be surprising that all out heavy pressing strength did not increase that much from 300 to 600 in folks who were doing no strength training. It did, however, increase with the higher dose in spite of no leg training, just not as much as the huge jump for the 300 mg folks.

Leg power increased significantly from 300mg to 600mg, indicating a significant change in sports performance and functional use as a result. Strength depends greatly on neural adaptation from training. Power, however, maybe does not so much, and higher doses of testosterone gave the participants more power. Nottingham leg extensor power rig was used.

You say sexual desire went down, but the study says no significant changes.

Read the whole thing. You might come away with a better opinion of the study. It was measuring only the effect of different dosages of testosterone, which is why they didn't train and food was kept the same.

first I didnt read the study, only checked the graphs you attached.
After reading the study, I am still not certain how can they differentiate so certainly:
"For estimation of total body water, the men ingested 10 g of2H2O (10, 11), and plasma samples were drawn at −15, 0, 120, 180, and 240 min. We measured2H abundance in plasma by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (10, 11)"
1. dexa is not too exact and thats an understatement
2. not really sure how a drop of blood can be a good indicator of how much water muscles retain in a very high androgen environment.

Based on the graphs you attached, all the things I said you can check yourself (beside the water retention, which is debatable). Strenght didnt seem to increase much going to 600 from 300. Sexual desire dropped slightly compared to 300mg group, albeit we can say its not significant.

 

[malfeasance]

first I didnt read the study, only checked the graphs you attached.
After reading the study, I am still not certain how can they differentiate so certainly:
"For estimation of total body water, the men ingested 10 g of2H2O (10, 11), and plasma samples were drawn at −15, 0, 120, 180, and 240 min. We measured2H abundance in plasma by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (10, 11)"
1. dexa is not too exact and thats an understatement
2. not really sure how a drop of blood can be a good indicator of how much water muscles retain in a very high androgen environment.

Based on the graphs you attached, all the things I said you can check yourself (beside the water retention, which is debatable). Strenght didnt seem to increase much going to 600 from 300. Sexual desire dropped slightly compared to 300mg group, albeit we can say its not significant.

I can look at the graph and see strength is not much higher in 600 than 300, just as you say, but, again, no strength training, so not surprising. Strength requires neural adaptation, which requires strength training. But power was up significantly.

No surprise that untrained men are more powerful than women. That's why they do not get to box each other. And the reason is testosterone. Men have it, and women don't. That is why high school boys can defeat professional women in soccer and the Venus sisters get swept back to back by a man rated number 350 in tennis, and now they do not claim that they could compete with the top 100 men. Testosterone equals power. 20 weeks of testosterone at 600mg a week increased it quite noticeably.

Sexual desire, not statistically significant - statistical significance is important to determining whether the difference you are seeing is simply due to chance or coincidence. It is math. It helps determine the validity of the result. A value that is within the realm of chance or coincidence is not statistically significant.

As for dexa not being exact, that range of error is going to get plugged into the math when they calculate for significance.

I get your critiques, but I am not so sure that they undermine the value of this study. Note that they also did water weighing and not just Dexa. They compared the water weighing and DEXA in an attempt to evaluate water retention, so the part you quote above is only a portion of what they did to rule out water retention.

So the young men on 600 mg weekly for 20 weeks were bigger and more powerful than the young men on 300 mg a week for 20 weeks. You can chalk it all up to water retention if you want, but I do not think that adequately explains it, and the researchers appeared to be well aware of the issue and did at least two things to control the results so that water retention is not what was being measured.

 

[malfeasance]

By the way, there is more to statistical significance than not or significant. It is a number that indicates the probability or certainty of the result. "Not" means it is the same as coincidental and happens when below a certain cutoff, but even above that the certainty can be weak or strong.