Primo: risk-reward profile... is it 'conspicuous consumption' or does it really only 'shine' with long-term use?

[Type-IIx]

So essentially, if you're not a competitor, ONE blast per year to gain size, then maintain that size with TRT (if possible), and not doing any diet/cutting cycles on any gear, other than using clen or something with GH perhaps to retain as much size while in a deficit.

See the competitor has two 16-20 week cycles at least, and they are doing it for money (hopefully) to justify putting their health on the line for the long-term.

Thanks for your input.

That is certainly not what I advocate, but what a "harm reduction guru" would if they weren't all retarded. Instead, we get "go by teh bloodz, and all AAS 'accrete protein similarly' so use 300 mg Primo and Test, snort oxytocin pre-workout, and slap on an estradiol patch and you'll get fuckin' hyoooooge without ANY DOWNSIDES"

 

[Deleted member 123722]

That is certainly not what I advocate, but what a "harm reduction guru" would if they weren't all retarded. Instead, we get "go by teh bloodz, and all AAS 'accrete protein similarly' so use 300 mg Primo and Test, snort oxytocin pre-workout, and slap on an estradiol patch and you'll get fuckin' hyoooooge without ANY DOWNSIDES"

What do you advocate?

My point, which no one really addressed other than you with a study, was the "time off" is really mind-game per say, because unless you are off for the rest of the year, as that study suggests, or done using steroids permanently after one cycle to reach your genetic limit ASAP, you're just prolonging the inevitable no matter if you're blasting for a year straight, or doing on-and-off blast/cruise for decades on end, if you are susceptible to whatever issues that may arise in the first place. So what I'm saying is, it must be the total time on vs off that truly matters, not how you decide to divide that time. I put it succinctly using the smoker analogy.

Another way to think of it is this:

Person A: Blasts 2 grams a year straight, but takes the following year off.

Person B: Blasts several cycles over time years, but their time off adds up to one year of no usage total.

Assuming they have the same genetics, who is more harmed/damaged?

 

[Type-IIx]

What do you advocate?

My point, which no one really addressed other than you with a study, was the "time off" is really mind-game per say, because unless you are off for the rest of the year, as that study suggests, or done using steroids permanently after one cycle to reach your genetic limit ASAP, you're just prolonging the inevitable no matter if you're blasting for a year straight, or doing on-and-off blast/cruise for decades on end, if you are susceptible to whatever issues that may arise in the first place. So what I'm saying is, it must be the total time on vs off that truly matters, not how you decide to divide that time. I put it succinctly using the smoker analogy.

Another way to think of it is this:

Person A: Blasts 2 grams a year straight, but takes the following year off.

Person B: Blasts several cycles over time years, but their time off adds up to one year of no usage total.

Assuming they have the same genetics, who is more harmed/damaged?

I advocate assessing the risk/reward (tradeoffs), that almost nobody actually understands (Peter Bond's Book on Steroids does a good job at enumerating them). The risk-averseness or risk-proneness of the individual should guide a balancing of the factors; so that nobody can stand in their place and make that determination for them. Does this sound familiar, by the way, I feel as though we've already had this conversation?

Given that age is a major CV risk factor, long-term (multiple years) AAS abuse dictating blasts up to say 800 +/- 200 mg weekly testosterone equivalent x 3 - 4 months by normalization of bloodwork values and cruises at ~200 mg test, is far more dangerous than a single years' use of 2 grams testosterone equivalent.

Again, too, the cardiac morphological and diastolic functional changes tend to accrue in the first case (Person A), while these can return to base-line in the second case (Person B).

I should also note that if your example is intended to compare Person A (reflecting common practice) versus a person that uses AAS strictly on a 1 year on/1 year off x multiple years schedule, it's not an ecologically valid comparison, as Person B does not exist.

There are people certainly that use AAS for a year and cease for multiple years thereafer, or forever, however.

 

[Deleted member 123722]

I advocate assessing the risk/reward (tradeoffs), that almost nobody actually understands (Peter Bond's Book on Steroids does a good job at enumerating them). The risk-averseness or risk-proneness of the individual should guide a balancing of the factors; so that nobody can stand in their place and make that determination for them. Does this sound familiar, by the way, I feel as though we've already had this conversation?

Given that age is a major CV risk factor, long-term (multiple years) AAS abuse dictating blasts up to say 800 +/- 200 mg weekly testosterone equivalent x 3 - 4 months by normalization of bloodwork values and cruises at ~200 mg test, is far more dangerous than a single years' use of 2 grams testosterone equivalent.

Again, too, the cardiac morphological and diastolic functional changes tend to accrue in the first case (Person A), while these can return to base-line in the second case (Person B).

I should also note that if your example is intended to compare Person A (reflecting common practice) versus a person that uses AAS strictly on a 1 year on/1 year off x multiple years schedule, it's not an ecologically valid comparison, as Person B does not exist.

There are people certainly that use AAS for a year and cease for multiple years thereafer, or forever, however.

Person B does exist, because what I mean is someone who cycles off gear, and the total amount cycling off would equate a year, but their time off is not all at once, like Person A.

Example: Lets say a year is 50 weeks only for simplicity's sake; Person B would be 10 weeks on, then 10 weeks off; it would take them two years to have a total of one year off...compared to Person A, who takes a year off straight.

 

[Type-IIx]

Person B does exist, because what I mean is someone who cycles off gear, and the total amount cycling off would equate a year, but their time off is not all at once, like Person A.

Example: Lets say a year is 50 weeks only for simplicity's sake; Person B would be 10 weeks on, then 10 weeks off; it would take them two years to have a total of one year off...compared to Person A, who takes a year off straight.

In either case, you're accruing cardiac maladaptations because you're not taking 2 - 3x time off versus time on. There'd be no significant difference between Person A & B. There might be a dose-dependency to 2 g versus lower doses that accrues greater cardiac maladaptations, but I don't understand why your example considers dose; if we're talking an ecologically valid comparison, dose should be equivalent between Persons.

 

[Deleted member 123722]

In either case, you're accruing cardiac maladaptations because you're not taking 2 - 3x time off versus time on. There'd be no significant difference between Person A & B. There might be a dose-dependency to 2 g versus lower doses that accrues greater cardiac maladaptations, but I don't understand why your example considers dose; if we're talking an ecologically valid comparison, dose should be equivalent between Persons.

Right, I'm just trying to assess the reason behind talking off at all; and if it to reduce the maladptions that you speak of, and that can be done in that 2-3x time period that makes sense, but it won't be done with what people typically do, which is that 6-8 week period between Bulk and contest prep, for competitive bodybuilders.

What I'm learning here is a noncompetitor like myself, should probably reduce his use to a mass phase for 20 weeks, then a cruise phase to maintain his size he gained, then when appropriate do a cut with very low doses of gear, using clenbuterol and gh.

As much as I have been flip-floppy with gh, it seems beneficial as we get older, and we can reduce gear doses, so one could take 5ius for life and lower steroid use.

So I were to cruise on 200cyp/200primo as Crildi explained, I could also cruise on just 200 cyp and 5iu gh. or some variation.

Speaking of test, what is your assessment of that study Milo Sarcev sites to justify his 500mg of Test usage for 30 years straight?

 

[malfeasance]

In either case, you're accruing cardiac maladaptations because you're not taking 2 - 3x time off versus time on.

So how long for a long time user to stay off to get rid of the accrued cardiac maladaptations?

2-3x would be very dependent upon how long one was on. Let's take your person A, who cycled for years. Now he wants to make sure he is healthy again. How long would you tell person A to stay off? How would he know when he has rid himself of cardiac maladaptations? Are any of them permanent?

 

[malfeasance]

Ack, this thread went off the rails completely.

I'd just like to use this opportunity to point out the absurdity of guiding blasts by normalization of bloodwork values:

If you look at the HAARLEM trial data, it showed that 16 weeks x 904 mg testosterone equivalent induced cardiac morphological changes (e.g., left ventricle mass ↑ by 28.3 g) and diastolic function (e.g., E/A-ratio by T₁ declined -0.45), that were reversed by the following year post-cycle (by month 9 of complete cessation, i.e. by the following year's cycle start date).

Combined rhGH use contributed to significantly higher left ventricular end-diastolic volume 3D & left ventricular end-systolic volume 3D (mL). Perhaps interesting to some, number of AAS (reflecting synergy between compounds, permitting dose reduction) were associated with lower left ventricular end-diastolic volume 3D & left ventricular end-systolic volume 3D.

This argues for a time off = 2 - 3x time on (or one 12 - 16 week cycle yearly) if you actually want to reduce harm to base-line levels. Otherwise, you're essentially allowing these changes to accrue steadily.

Normalization of blood-work values is utterly meaningless bro-science to justify resuming a blast, given the physical changes that occur, not least of all (and not confined to), to the heart.

Of course, I recognize that few will be persuaded to come off completely or follow any of this for their health (except some of the older TRT guys) without something more scary than nerd shit and an increased risk of death by "the silent killer."

I do suggest, however, looking at recent entries to the training log of Mac11wildcat - where you can observe that IFBB pros do indeed ratchet down their AAS use more substantially than most will believe (and even come off completely). If he can do it, you can do it (otherwise you're probably rationalizing your drug abuse).

Since you did not post a link to the HARLEM trial data, I cannot check this for myself. The data showed that a 16 week cycle at 9/10 of a gram weekly caused bad changes (e.g., left ventricle mass ↑ by 28.3 g) and diastolic function (e.g., E/A-ratio by T₁ declined -0.45 - no idea what that means!), so ouch. The bad changes were reversed by month 9 of not pinning,

I have a question.

Is that the first time that they checked, or did they check at 3 months, at 6 months, and so on? Did they check earlier than 9 months?

Left ventricle mass - I assume it decreases in tiny amounts over time, not all at once.

E/A-ratio by . . . ok, read a little on Goole, so I have an idea, even if it is not a very good one. Is this something that changes daily in tiny increments, or does it suddenly normalize all at once?

 

[malfeasance]

I would guess most of us participating here probably manifest these maladaptations, so this is useful information.

 

[Rido]

So I were to cruise on 200cyp/200primo as Crildi explained, I could also cruise on just 200 cyp and 5iu gh. or some variation.

I would say to cruise on 200 test to be quite honest. You keep mentioning "competitors" but you arent competing.

 

[malfeasance]

I used to cruise on 100 or 150 when I competed. Mac11Wildcat takes months off (0mg/ week - no cruise), and he did before he was a pro, too.

I think most users here vastly overestimate what they "need" in a cruise to hold onto their "size."

At 200/200 test/primo, your cardiovascular system gets no break at all. The same might be argued for 200mg testosterone. For most guys that is going to be high outside the human reference range.

If the idea is to give your cardiovascular system a break, then, well, give it one.

 

[Deleted member 123722]

I would guess most of us participating here probably manifest these maladaptations, so this is useful information.

Don't we change our hearts anyway by simply being "athletic" in the first place?

 

[Deleted member 123722]

I would say to cruise on 200 test to be quite honest. You keep mentioning "competitors" but you arent competing.

Correct. I really have no justification to take the shit I'm taking, unless I'm trying to turn myself into an Instagram influencer or something lol. I guess I wanted to see if I could get to that level, but I think it's too late for someone like me to try to monetize myself, if even possible. It seems to me, the second you get into real good shape, suddenly your social media explodes.

I only even considered this because I've been huge on social media before, albeit politically.

 

[malfeasance]

Don't we change our hearts anyway by simply being "athletic" in the first place?

Yes, but there is a big difference between the changes to your heart that come about from riding your bike hard on hilly terrain for mile after mile several times a week over months compared to spending months injecting 1.5 grams testosterone and 750 mg Deca and popping 150mg anadrol, along with growth hormone and insulin, for months.

They just do not have the same effect on your mortality, even though they both induce changes.

I can literally see the changes in my heart getting more efficient when doing cardio. If I keep the speed and intensity the same, I can see reductions in my heart rate necessary to do the same amount of work - it literally changes each workout - like, for instance, 30 minutes at the same pace and intensity gets my heart rate over 150 bpm, the next day I can't get over 150 bpm, so I increase the time to 35 minutes, and only in the last 5 minutes can I barely get over 150. The next day it is lower 140s. It keeps dropping until a couple workouts later it is under 140. Those changes happen quickly.

LVH from cardio is very different in several ways from LVH from steroids or high blood pressure.

That's why we don't see Tour De France competitors dropping like Olympia competitors.

Strength training induces some changes, too, not all beneficial, but I don't really know how much of those are tied to steroid use, and any study of strength competitors or avid strength trainers is bound to include a lot of steroid users.

 

[Deleted member 123722]

Yes, but there is a big difference between the changes to your heart that come about from riding your bike hard on hilly terrain for mile after mile several times a week over months compared to spending months injecting 1.5 grams testosterone and 750 mg Deca and popping 150mg anadrol, along with growth hormone and insulin, for months.

They just do not have the same effect on your mortality, even though they both induce changes.

I can literally see the changes in my heart getting more efficient when doing cardio. If I keep the speed and intensity the same, I can see reductions in my heart rate necessary to do the same amount of work - it literally changes each workout - like, for instance, 30 minutes at the same pace and intensity gets my heart rate over 150 bpm, the next day I can't get over 150 bpm, so I increase the time to 35 minutes, and only in the last 5 minutes can I barely get over 150. The next day it is lower 140s. It keeps dropping until a couple workouts later it is under 140. Those changes happen quickly.

LVH from cardio is very different in several ways from LVH from steroids or high blood pressure.

That's why we don't see Tour De France competitors dropping like Olympia competitors.

Strength training induces some changes, too, not all beneficial, but I don't really know how much of those are tied to steroid use, and any study of strength competitors or avid strength trainers is bound to include a lot of steroid users.

So LVH is not necessarily just caused by high blood pressure? Because I don't ever get high blood pressure while on, so I think I'm safe, but it seems maybe even just taking steroids causes this, according to your statement?

 

[Jin23]

Right ... As if cardiac changes is the Only thing to worry about ...

 

[malfeasance]

Left ventricular hypertrophy in athletes

Abstract. Participation in regular intensive exercise is associated with a modest increase in left ventricular wall thickness (LVWT) and cavity size. The m

academic.oup.com

 

[malfeasance]

The Athlete Grey Zone: Distinguishing Pathologic From Physiologic Left Ventricular Hypertrophy - American College of Cardiology

www.acc.org

 

[Deleted member 123722]

Right ... As if cardiac changes is the Only thing to worry about ...

Instead of shitting on people, why not educate them with what else.

but now doing so, it's like telling someone "you're a dumb faggot LULZ," and never telling them why.

What good are these snarky comments?

There are many times I post shit that I already know, just to share knowledge with others who may not know; this is a community is it not? Are we not supposed to share things to make other understand? Many times I'll even play devil advocate, so people can understand why they should accept something being told, rather than just blindingly accepting what they are told.

 

[Rido]

Instead of shitting on people, why not educate them with what else.

but now doing so, it's like telling someone "you're a dumb faggot LULZ," and never telling them why.

What good are these snarky comments?

It's the fact you keep returning to blood work and an EKG that is the reason you are healthy.

Idk how long you have been blasting and I guess maybe because I work in health, I understand that cardiac changes/issues can happen overtime and it goes more than simply blood work.

People have told you in other threads that their EKG seems fine and then all of a sudden they have heart failure. We have told you it goes further past blood work, and I'm not going to go over basic medical knowledge and educate you. You should be doing that on your own.




Jin23 has mentioned a neurological toll on you but have you ever searched up neurologic health markers and if there are any?

You kept. saying "logically" but you have a limited understanding of health markers and you cannot draw a proper conclusion from your actions. It's like solving algebra when you do not understand multiplication.


People have tried to educate you, but you are trying to justify your actions. You kept saying it was "fear of the unknown".

Maybe jin is right and all these androgens over time have fucked your brain.


It's not just us, people in other threads have made comments about your practice but you refuse to listen.