MESO-Rx Exclusive How safe (dangerous) is 1000mg per week of testosterone?

[Rido]

If you do a cycle or two and you look better than guys that juice for 5 years your one of those blessed guys .

On Facebook I noticed this....


Some of these guys have been on AAS for 5 years and look like a strong natty gear and blast 2g per cycle... No food, no proper exercising.

Someone just posted their post test/tren cycle. I can't tell what the hell their gains were.

 

[29trt]

Some would make better gains on 1 gram cycle than others.
Some people cant take 150 mg test a week because of side effects(cholesterol , blood pressure , hair loss, acne etc)
Others take 2 grams and have no sides, its what you where born with .
On the androgen receptors i cant give you the definite answer backed by studies and probably no one can so the next best thing is guys who trained 100 ‘s of people and the observations they made.
One thing that is for sure is if you grow muscle the new muscle will have new receptors meaning the more you build the more AAS you can use .
Some have genetically more receptors in the right places so they can take more from the get go and use it to build muscle.
If you do a cycle or two and you look better than guys that juice for 5 years your one of those blessed guys .

ok that makes sense, more muscle fibers more AR... so we actually need to grow not only hypertrophy wise but hyperplasia wise which would explain part of the synergic effect that GH plays in the whole ecuation...
So yeah big guy more muscle mass more AR equates to more gear is able to be tolerated without having it spill over and give side effects (all genetic factors being equal, which never are...)

 

[29trt]

On Facebook I noticed this....


Some of these guys have been on AAS for 5 years and look like a strong natty gear and blast 2g per cycle... No food, no proper exercising.

Someone just posted their post test/tren cycle. I can't tell what the hell their gains were.

I don't think it's the food or the ex, the sad reality is some of us just can't build muscle whatever the gear. I experienced this myself... 300mg of only test! gained 22lbs.... added 100mg deca next cycle gained another 8lbs ... after a small cut to get to the same BF at the end yielded a total of 26lbs gained... third cycle.. getting greedy now... 500test 250deca...yielded.... exactly... nothing. zero more lean mass... except side effects... had to cut the cycle short after 6weeks...
so is that my limit for gear? would other compounds work better... who knows...
I am pretty sure that GH and insulin would trigger new growth... but I would have hoped to get further along with just AAS.
I am not going to pollute this thread with my personal experience anymore than this as it is just an example of one so irrelevant in the big picture.

 

[Rido]

I don't think it's the food or the ex, the sad reality is some of us just can't build muscle whatever the gear. I experienced this myself... 300mg of only test! gained 22lbs.... added 100mg deca next cycle gained another 8lbs ... after a small cut to get to the same BF at the end yielded a total of 26lbs gained... third cycle.. getting greedy now... 500test 250deca...yielded.... exactly... nothing. zero more lean mass... except side effects... had to cut the cycle short after 6weeks...
so is that my limit for gear? would other compounds work better... who knows...
I am pretty sure that GH and insulin would trigger new growth... but I would have hoped to get further along with just AAS.
I am not going to pollute this thread with my personal experience anymore than this as it is just an example of one so irrelevant in the big picture.

This particular guy on Facebook didn't look like he did much eating at all. He was 8 percent so idk why he would cut. 0 fat gain but 0 muscle gain. He looked a little inflated but I would expect that from a cycle in general

Well what about your training?

 

[29trt]

Yea and to be clear while I have seen a shit ton of posts I dont think anyone has advocated a gram for folk not meriting AKA JACCKED AS SHIT.. LOL

You make some interesting points as well comparing to blast/cruise scenario. I was only thinking as far as cycling on and off completely..

And not to take the thread off topic but you get me interested in any knowlege you have about Carnitine. I have not used it much. In the past I would buy the cold refrigerated stuff and it always seemed to make me a better person in subtle ways i could never quite put finger on... ANy links appreciated. Or maybe just expounding on how that equates to this subject.

I use carnitine on and off and cannot say it made a difference but I have only taken the oral route up to 4g a day, but most would advocate for the injectable... still there is a study made with just 2g of carnitine tartrate that showed an increase in AR in trained individuals.
would it have a synergistic effect with tons of AAS? maybe but couldn't find a study about that...

 

[29trt]

This particular guy on Facebook didn't look like he did much eating at all. He was 8 percent so idk why he would cut. 0 fat gain but 0 muscle gain. He looked a little inflated but I would expect that from a cycle in general

Well what about your training?

same training same diet( or lack of ) as deca makes me eat the house.
there was a confounding factor to this tough and that is the 1000mg of metformin I introduced two months before this cycle on the cruise and kept during. It definetly made me weaker or better said made me not gain strength on twice the amount of gear...
I will get bloods done to see if the metformin screwed my liver (unlikely but there are a few cases in literature) or reduced my b12 levels.
So I am not drawing any conclusions yet, and I will make a post about my experience when I figure it out.

 

[Rido]

same training same diet( or lack of ) as deca makes me eat the house.
there was a confounding factor to this tough and that is the 1000mg of metformin I introduced two months before this cycle on the cruise and kept during. It definetly made me weaker or better said made me not gain strength on twice the amount of gear...
I will get bloods done to see if the metformin screwed my liver (unlikely but there are a few cases in literature) or reduced my b12 levels.
So I am not drawing any conclusions yet, and I will make a post about my experience when I figure it out.

I guess personally my biggest gains were from this last cycle(3rd) on a bulk vs a recomp. I couldn't even keep GH going from the water retention during the bulk.


I wish you the best of luck bro. Maybe change up the training? Plenty of people to look into and follow their programs

 

[bignibba]

Yes on the 300 and most importantly you want to start with the lowest does that works because the more you take over time while not scientifically documented so much, it appears that the prior lower level of dosing MAY become less effective do sum unclear potential permanent down regulation. I am sure anyone who is strict to "science" would argue that point which I make. But this concept would actually serve as PRO for higher level with time and experience considered, and in addition to actual active muscle content.

Yes 1000 on a gym newbie or just someone not dedicated enough to have any real natural development is not only totally wasted but possibly a big negative long term due to early over stimulation and of all the wrong factors stimulated as well. With consideration of a test only starter cycle, 4-600 is the recommended starting test cycle dose the higher side being for more developed athletes prior to any AAS use..

It should be noted that in my first experience around 35 years old I found that 300mgs test C was about the perfect amount for me being barely around my genetic potential and also still incorporating a great deal of cardio related fitness into my routine. After that it became more of pump and hindrance to cardio based exercise, but not only I started to noticed diminishing returns for sure.

Additionally, there is always the anecdotal experiential concept that "One is going to get the most gains of their first few cycles/exposures". WHAT THEY FAIL TO QUALIFY IN THIS STATEMENT is that someone that has never trained, and never developed a good muscle base is not going to get shit regardless and 300 is more than enough in not completely unmerited in the case of the complete newbie. So that concept I would argue steroid cycling would fit more perfectly in a world where someone has trained hard for 2 years plus, can move a few plates on the bench with authority, and who it at least 75% succeeded to their GENETIC POTETIAL. That would be the perfect world and ONLY circumstance I would recommend AAS even as just a test only based starting protocol. And as they have also proven they are sticking with it and not got to waste as well..

Yes on the tren having a stronger affinity to muscle cells I believe is corrent scientific knowledge, Keep in mind again the classic cycle proportions with STACKING. As the earlier example i think with deca you pretty much stay around HALF the test dose in order to keep the proportions correct and this HAS VERY MUCH TO DO WITH RECEPTOR AFFINITIES as they relate to the end goal. I believe that with Tren you are supposed to have the Tren as the steroid in higher proportion, thus to allow the tren cycle to be A TREN CYCLE. And not have a bunch of test hogging cellular receptors. And also with tren cycles you have to keep some test in the mix, especially if you are low BMI, in order to maintain a high enough level of estrogen to remain fruitful. Personally I am not disciplined enough to run tren and I know it. However it should be noted that in my recent travels meeting people I am surprised at how many folks have disclaimed to me that they experience great hostility on a deca involved cycle.!!! But then again all this has SOME to do with individual genetics, but A MOUNTAIN to do with steroid proportions on cycle stacks.

There is a lot of GREAT information here at this site dating all the way back to before the docs started coming around here and just good old ROCK SOLID Bro Science. But back they it was easier to quality WHO it was with good information to listen to as there were less members. So if one is going back to the old school science that was practiced here and founded MESO the you would find the following...:

1. NEVER start steroid use without first obtaining baseline lab work. There specifics are plentiful in publication here is you research around 2007.
2. NEVER Use steroids under the age of at least 25 or so.
3. ALWAYS START with a basic test only cycle. The next logical progression was test and deca. There was also the notion of priming a test cycle with some dbol.
4. Tren wasn't even a thing back there for this site and the average steroid employing workout enthusiast.
5. And finally the average workout guy have no business EVER employing Insulin or GH. YOU WILL BE SORRY ONE DAY...
6. Lastly and most importantly the old schoolers put it simply in that IF YOU ARE FAT DONT EVEN WASTE YOUR TIME UNTIL YOU GET SKINNY BECAUSE THE STEROID WONT EVEN WORK. And they were right. In fact being older and fatter on my comback which started 4 years ago I can attest that Test and other steroid even MAY EVEN HAVE a greater ability to retain and proliferate fat cells, as opposed to developing existing and new muscle !!!!!!!!!!

Shit SARMS did not even exist then nor all these peptides conjugates.. So start small and earn it.

You sound like you are on the right and most important track WHICH IS EDUCATING YOURSELF. Congrats and welcome to Meso ...!

I disagree with the last point,as someone who started using while fat.
I am close to 7 feet tall and a powelifter and i dont care about looks just strength btw.
I noticed after 2 years of using i recomped without really trying and now my bmr is way higher than when natty,like 2k calories higher and i find losing weight easy as fuck.Now i am lighter than when i started with significant more muscle and less fat and i can eat way more.
I am still not "skinny" because i dont want to be but its so much easier to lose weight.I struggle to keep the weight i have.And when i lose some weight its all fat.

 

[GuerillaPete]

ok that makes sense, more muscle fibers more AR... so we actually need to grow not only hypertrophy wise but hyperplasia wise which would explain part of the synergic effect that GH plays in the whole ecuation...
So yeah big guy more muscle mass more AR equates to more gear is able to be tolerated without having it spill over and give side effects (all genetic factors being equal, which never are...)

I think the good old hypertrophy is enough for this .
You should listen to the Broderick Chavez podcast with Foaud Abiad if you want to know more .
He explains it in a way that is easy to understand.

Some of these guys have been on AAS for 5 years and look like a strong natty gear and blast 2g per cycle... No food, no proper exercising.

For comparison i have a friend with fast metabolism he can take any steroid no matter if wet or dry he can eat anything and does not get fat.
If he can eat enough he just gains muscle 0 fat .
So you see no matter what people try and tell you to get muscular and ripped does not take the same level of effort for everyone .
AR , metabolism , tolerance to drugs ,appetite they all play a role on how you progress.
Some people just get the side effects other the gains most of us are in the middle somewhere .

 

[Fenrir51]

What are the benefits of 1 gram a week vs a lower dose? At some point your hematocrit and RBCs are going to be too high.

 

[Rido]

What are the benefits of 1 gram a week vs a lower dose? At some point your hematocrit and RBCs are going to be too high.

for me, my platelets would shoot up. I would assume my platelets may reach 650+ if I run a gram...

 

[GuerillaPete]

What are the benefits of 1 gram a week vs a lower dose? At some point your hematocrit and RBCs are going to be too high.

Would testosterone be worse then other anabolic for RBC?

 

[Rido]

Would testosterone be worse then other anabolic for RBC?

I think EQ/drol would be worse. I don't see mast, var, winstrol being worse.

 

[JuicyJ]

Q How safe (dangerous) is 1000mg per week Testosterone?

What do you think?

Here's what @Bill Roberts has to say:

Safety and Effectiveness of Testosterone at 1000 Milligrams per Week

Q: You talked about a gram per week of testosterone. Isn’t that ridiculous? What about say 200 mg? A: It is my view that the farther one is from one’s

thinksteroids.com

I was just blasting a Test only cycle (plus hGH, hCG, Slin, TB500, Arimidex). I went from 250 mg EOD (937.5), up to 250 mg ED. I ran this "test only" cycle for 6 weeks, pyramiding up and down to my cruise of 300 mg/week. Ive been using gear for 18 years, but have never done just test for an AAS cycle. My buddy swears this was his favorite cycle of all time, anf I was reluctant to stick to one compound at a high dosage, vs. my usual cycle of a few different compounds in a lower dosage, with a similar total anabolic load to the test only cycle (max of 1,875 mg/week).

I switched from Aromasin to Arimidex and honestly didn't have a drastic increase in side effects that I was expecting. I felt highly anabolic and like Superman over the 6 weeks, noticing significant results to my physique. I took TB500 to counter left ventricular hypertrophy, as I usually do. I took 2 IU of GH per day with 8-12 IU of Humulin R. I used no orals, other than the occasional 12.5 mg of Anadrol sublingually preworkout on the odd training day.

I generally don't go over 600 mg/week of test unless its for competition prep, and utilize Tren, Deca, EQ, Mast, or Primo... I honestly preferred the test only cycle at around 1,000 mg/week. I haven't got my blood work done since finishing the cycle, but stay responsible using my Telmisartan, Ezetimibe, Nebivolol, plus my daily vitamins, minerals and supplements. For advanced users I don't see any issue with a gram of test per week. Most guys I know surpass this anyways with their cycles.

 

[narta]

Lastly and most importantly the old schoolers put it simply in that IF YOU ARE FAT DONT EVEN WASTE YOUR TIME UNTIL YOU GET SKINNY BECAUSE THE STEROID WONT EVEN WORK. And they were right. In fact being older and fatter on my comback which started 4 years ago I can attest that Test and other steroid even MAY EVEN HAVE a greater ability to retain and proliferate fat cells, as opposed to developing existing and new muscle !!!!!!!!!!

This is bonafide BULLSHIT. Plenty of FAT people put the work, diet discipline and gear use in, and changed their body composition dramatically.
Higher fat might have an impact on aromatization, but the drugs work their intended role no matter what.
Don't confuse higher fat with laziness and poor diet, that may be the case for the gen pop but for an actual dedicated gymrat it can speed up the process 10x

 

[GuerillaPete]

This is bonafide BULLSHIT. Plenty of FAT people put the work, diet discipline and gear use in, and changed their body composition dramatically.
Higher fat might have an impact on aromatization, but the drugs work their intended role no matter what.
Don't confuse higher fat with laziness and poor diet, that may be the case for the gen pop but for an actual dedicated gymrat it can speed up the process 10x

Except when comming of a cut when your body is more efficient in using nutrients and also super compensates for the lack of and muscle growth is prioritized over fat gain .(for a while )

 

[BBC3]

I disagree with the last point,as someone who started using while fat.
I am close to 7 feet tall and a powelifter and i dont care about looks just strength btw.
I noticed after 2 years of using i recomped without really trying and now my bmr is way higher than when natty,like 2k calories higher and i find losing weight easy as fuck.Now i am lighter than when i started with significant more muscle and less fat and i can eat way more.
I am still not "skinny" because i dont want to be but its so much easier to lose weight.I struggle to keep the weight i have.And when i lose some weight its all fat.

And @narta.. Let me clarify as some times I get moving to fast.

The statement "won't work if you are fat" can obviously be qualified different for different folk and more importantly "WONT WORK" meaning to what degree they consider working... And NO I did not get half the returns on my recent comeback as to compared to my first love affair with test back in 2007 when i was not as fat.

Now if you are going to include other steroids more exotic that testosterone, that's a bit different especially if you are using steroids that cant engage the estrogen production process..., as far as fat loss and even muscle gain in lieu of estrogen not rising proportionally. But of couse if you are fat these steroids may bring you up to optimal proportional balance for growth now even..

And yea, if already fat, you can re-composition the body with help from test alone. Keep in mind the context of this thread was TESTOSTERONE.. But thats a weak muted down return with equal gains in FAT for that matter... So in my mind the old school description here "wont work", would be right on target because I dont call getting fatter for every dollar of muscle hypertropy "Working". I don't even consider getting heavier and it being all muscle "working". Heavier being retaining fat and gaining a bit of muscle. And keep in mind in terms of fat cell POPULATION, once the have manifested via hyperplasia, they will ALWAYS be there just waiting to blow back up. And the funny part is fat hypertophy is best achieved with ZERO WORK. LOL. But kinda interesting if you think about it like that. But, sure though if you want to include "Working in the wrong direction".... And dont tell me that if you are fat you can run test alone and drop body fat. Maybe shrink it for a minute. The best you can do is walk the tightrope as it always takes equal proportional increases in estrogen to androgen activity to grow muscle OR fat.. But its going no where AS A CELL short of some serious effort and substance application that is dangerous. But to translate even if your strength-to-weighing on the scale proportion APPEARS to be moving in the right direction seemingly indicating proper "Growth", this in no way means that you are not also achieving gains in adipose tissue via hyperplasia, and just not fully activation of blowing up yet... NEVER underestimate the bodies propensity to put on fat, whether its apparent at the time or not. I wager its the easier of the two to generate new cells in the body..

While many things that I have mentioned are caveated as "sourced and repeated knowlege", I can tell you this. I am now convinced that testosterone use is AT LEAST as effective as causing hypertrophy in body fat. I would not even be surprise if it not even more effective in hyperPLASIA of adipose tissue, as opposed to muscle. Thats two cents from me though. Could have to do with age aas well..

And it sounds like @narta you are pre-dispositioning to reference highly dedicated athletes. Most people don't do shit. And of the ones that do a very small percentage is elite or uses gear. So yea that old school statement was also made in the context of advising both gym and steroid newbies..

"For every day we are alive on this Earth and consuming a Caloric SURPLUS, we are either adding muscle or fat. Which one do you want it to be." and again the interesting part is like my example I like to use about how EASY it is to effect a negative as compared to the difficulty in attaining and achieving a positive. ANYONE CAN TAKE A HAMMER AND SMASH THEIR OWN BIG TOE. BUT HOW MANY CAN BUILD A HOUSE..!

Body fat acquisition and retention merely take lying on the couch eating Twinkies. Muscle acquisition and retention requires that painful thing called WORK. EITHER fat OR Muscle can shrink and atrophy, temporarily. Either can also hypertrophy very by simple or hard but known effective methodology. KILLING AND REMOVING FAT CELLS is something that short of surgery is pretty impossible. Same as muscle. But which one again is it easier to come by hyperplasia in??!?!?!? Again, we must define and qualify the statement "Steroids will not work if fat"...

 

[HB_22]

but the drugs work

This.

 

[Rido]

And @narta.. Let me clarify as some times I get moving to fast.

The statement "won't work if you are fat" can obviously be qualified different for different folk and more importantly "WONT WORK" meaning to what degree they consider working... And NO I did not get half the returns on my recent comeback as to compared to my first love affair with test back in 2007 when i was not as fat.

Now if you are going to include other steroids more exotic that testosterone, that's a bit different especially if you are using steroids that cant engage the estrogen production process..., as far as fat loss and even muscle gain in lieu of estrogen not rising proportionally. But of couse if you are fat these steroids may bring you up to optimal proportional balance for growth now even..

And yea, if already fat, you can re-composition the body with help from test alone. Keep in mind the context of this thread was TESTOSTERONE.. But thats a weak muted down return with equal gains in FAT for that matter... So in my mind the old school description here "wont work", would be right on target because I dont call getting fatter for every dollar of muscle hypertropy "Working". I don't even consider getting heavier and it being all muscle "working". Heavier being retaining fat and gaining a bit of muscle. And keep in mind in terms of fat cell POPULATION, once the have manifested via hyperplasia, they will ALWAYS be there just waiting to blow back up. And the funny part is fat hypertophy is best achieved with ZERO WORK. LOL. But kinda interesting if you think about it like that. But, sure though if you want to include "Working in the wrong direction".... And dont tell me that if you are fat you can run test alone and drop body fat. Maybe shrink it for a minute. The best you can do is walk the tightrope as it always takes equal proportional increases in estrogen to androgen activity to grow muscle OR fat.. But its going no where AS A CELL short of some serious effort and substance application that is dangerous. But to translate even if your strength-to-weighing scale proportion APPEARS to be moving in the right direction seemingly indicating proper "Growth", this in no way means that you are not also achieving gains in adipose tissue via hyperplasia, and just not fully activation of blowing up yet... NEVER underestimate the bodies propensity to put on fat, whether its apparent at the time or not. I wager its the easier of the two to generate new cells in the body..

While many things that I have mentioned are caveated as "sourced and repeated knowlege", I can tell you this. I am now convinced that testosterone use is AT LEAST as effective as causing hypertrophy in body fat. I would not even be surprise if it not even more effective in hyperPLASIA of adipose tissue, as opposed to muscle. Thats two cents for me though. Could have to do with age aas well..

And it sounds like @narta you are pre-dispositioning to reference highly dedicated athletes. Most people don't do shit. And of the ones that do a very small percentage is elite or uses gear. So yea that old school statement was also made in the context of advising both gym and steroid newbies..

 

[BBC3]

View attachment 240426

Are you really going to make me get out a magnifying glass to read a criticism or insult? Or are you just trying to confirm my age by eyesight degradation!???