First off, what in the hell are you smoking? You aren't talking to a board of total nimrods an amateurs fella. Any person that has been on test dosages above 500mg a week can tell you that if you aren't packing on weight and seeing a few sides by week 6 then something is wrong. I don't need to post a study on this as i have plenty of experience to back this up as i am sure many other do as well.
For example, a 10 week cycle nearing a gram seems to peak for me in weeks 5-8. That is when i am rolling making big strength and weight gains. I use the scale and the weights as the best short-term indicator of what is going on with me. Blood tests will only back up what i experience whether good or bad, but i(and i'm sure most others on this board) will know long before the test results come in as to whether the dosage was what it stated or not. The testing just backs up what our body and the weights have already told us.
@devildog93 First off, thanks for the condescension fella, great way to interact with me for the first time.
Second, you don't think there are nimrods on this board? Are you kidding me? Have you seen this and the hundreds of others just like this?
https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/first-cycle.134362214/
Third, so let me understand this, providing information backed up by science is not necessary here because you've got experience? That makes perfect sense. I'll shut my mouth now. Please PM Dr. Scally and Dr. Jim and inform them both that scientific information pertaining to physiology and physiologic differences is no longer needed here because you've got experience.
Now remember before you come back at me: I did not say the GP was legit, nor did I say it was bunk. But I think it's obvious to most experienced guys here that by two and a half weeks OP should have been feeling an increase in libido and some strength/reduced recovery times, at a minimum, so I think we all know where this is going. But you yourself said 5 weeks is when you hit your sweet spot and BoilerMech essentially said the same thing, so OP definitely has some more time to go before making a determination on the legitimacy of his GP, with blood work being the obvious determining factor.
Now, as for the study, One could infer that the study group, because of its increased time to peak testosterone effect, was given TRT dosages. This would account for the difference between your individual experience and what the research showed, right? In fact, if you had bothered to read the study you would have seen that test subjects were given between 350 and 700mg/ew in one study, 700-1050mg/ew, in a second study, and 1400mg/e2w in a third study. These studies were compiled over many years. Here is the exact section where they talked about dosages:
"In a study of 180 days of treatment with a 1% testosterone gel preparation (50 or 100 mg/day, contained in 5 or 10 g gel), mean muscle strength in the leg press exercise increased by 90 days and had not improved further at 180 days
(14). A study similar in design found an increase in lean body mass and an improvement of lower limb muscle strength after 6 months
(15). Another study using high doses of testosterone gel (starting dose 100 mg/day with possible up-titration to 150 mg/day) observed significant increases in leg press strength, chest press strength, and stair climbing power with a load within 6 months
(16). A study administering testosterone enanthate, 200 mg/2 weeks observed major effects to occur over the first 12 months of testosterone administration, thereafter minor increases could be observed
(17). It can be concluded that the effects of testosterone on muscle strength are demonstrable after 12–20 weeks and that depending on the achieved testosterone levels, the maximum effects are attained after 6 or 12 months. "
The amount of testosterone given to these test subjects are what I think we all would consider supra physiologic dosages since common TRT dosages are usually in the area of 100mg/ ew +/-. So what now devil dog?
You can disagree with the study all you want but making a judgement against the study and me based on your individual experience is wrong, and to call me out for simply providing information from a fact based study to help explain peak onset variances in a population speaks volumes about you.
~RO
