very important topic , most harmful steroid to body organs , and the most toxic to the brain ? not tren (SCIENCE BACKED)

[readalot]

Looks like the fun really started right around here:

TRT to Supraphysiological Levels for Body Building

So you want the easy way out by using steroids? I would flip the logic a little and argue one should take the hard way out and exhaust all the other options (get those all "right"/"correct"/"95% of perfect") before you allow yourself to consider the AAS option. (see 7:35 and 8:55 / 9:33 a...

www.excelmale.com

But the whole thread contains a bunch of valuable references.

@anabolicmanx19 , let me know if I should just start this as a whole separate thread.

 

[readalot]

P.S. I am totally unwilling to make the trek over to ExcelMale

No paywall/firewall. You want me to copy all that work into a thread here?

Suit yourself. That's unfortunate. Another hour of my time to port all that vs 3s of your time to click. Thanks very much for letting me know.

 

[Type-IIx]

Speaking of rodent data, HEDs, AAS....

If you want some fun over the holidays keep it simple and take some time to try and make sense of the sum total (ok alot of it) available literature data on testosterone; attempt to draw conclusions on any hard and fast limits for cumulative dose vs toxicity. You really have to read the last half of the thread in details for reference papers and how an envelope of chronic toxicity could be developed. Still very murky and long term data points are all anecdotal.

Did not get a lot of feedback at ExcelMale so perhaps there are folks interested here?

TRT to Supraphysiological Levels for Body Building

Of course that's taking some liberties (cherry picking the blue and red data points but FWIW. Ok, update to post #93 above. I took all the rodent studies with testosterone and combined with the PK modeling of this paper. Doing so allows me to take the calculated weekly mean HEDs in post 93...

www.excelmale.com

View attachment 273534

Reading through the EM thread now. I didn't think I actually could, that's why I was unwilling. But it's accessible.

Whatever about your methods, I'll get into them a bit deeper when I have time. I'm really impressed by the presentation. What'd you use, R?

 

[readalot]

Reading through the EM thread now. I didn't think I actually could, that's why I was unwilling. But it's accessible.

Whatever about your methods, I'll get into them a bit deeper when I have time. I'm really impressed by the presentation. What'd you use, R?

Yeah ExcelMale is wide open to public without login.

Main graph is just Excel but used JMP for some intermediate regressions in post 93.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[readalot]

Whatever about your methods,

Posts 93 and 101

TRT to Supraphysiological Levels for Body Building

A key degree of freedom (that makes your question difficult to answer with a reasonable degree of confidence) is time. Chronic toxicity or acute toxicity? The figure above, while simplified, is instructive as an introduction. Add time above to make a 3d plot which would consider chronic...

www.excelmale.com

TRT to Supraphysiological Levels for Body Building

Of course that's taking some liberties (cherry picking the blue and red data points but FWIW. Ok, update to post #93 above. I took all the rodent studies with testosterone and combined with the PK modeling of this paper. Doing so allows me to take the calculated weekly mean HEDs in post 93...

www.excelmale.com

 

[Type-IIx]

Speaking of rodent data, HEDs, AAS....

If you want some fun over the holidays keep it simple and take some time to try and make sense of the sum total (ok alot of it) available literature data on testosterone; attempt to draw conclusions on any hard and fast limits for cumulative dose vs toxicity. You really have to read the last half of the thread in details for reference papers and how an envelope of chronic toxicity could be developed. Still very murky and long term data points are all anecdotal.

Did not get a lot of feedback at ExcelMale so perhaps there are folks interested here?

TRT to Supraphysiological Levels for Body Building

Of course that's taking some liberties (cherry picking the blue and red data points but FWIW. Ok, update to post #93 above. I took all the rodent studies with testosterone and combined with the PK modeling of this paper. Doing so allows me to take the calculated weekly mean HEDs in post 93...

www.excelmale.com

View attachment 273534

The reason you probably aren't getting a lot of feedback (I'll give you mine - this looks initially very good, I am impressed by the work), is due to basic intimidation, but also a substantial opacity to your methods and a certain gut instinct from many that these data might not mean much.

The "toxicity" outcome (really, outcomes) is too generalized, encompassing disparate aspects of unfavorable side effects from Nand & T (e.g., cardiac dysfunction.... and autonomic dysfunction? I must admit that I don't know anything about the latter aspect of T, and I'm more current on AAS research than many).

And of course, like you indicate yourself, even if we are to agree on an HED multiplier to start, it's simply not to be used in this manner because metabolism between species especially on chronic time-frames (here, very long, terms of years, in humans), where the crux of the data depends on AUC & the very y axis of your amalgamated data, is in person-years extrapolated from rodent.

As you know, HED is to be used only to extrapolate an initial/early clinical trial dose in man without any more information. We have known for well over 6 decades what bioactive T or Nand doses are in man, so we really have no reason to use HED in this manner at all.

IDK, I want to think we can do something with this, but it really strikes me as an ecologically invalid model.

 

[readalot]

The reason you probably aren't getting a lot of feedback (I'll give you mine - this looks initially very good, I am impressed by the work), is due to basic intimidation, but also a substantial opacity to your methods and a certain gut instinct from many that these data might not mean much.

The "toxicity" outcome (really, outcomes) is too generalized, encompassing disparate aspects of unfavorable side effects from Nand & T (e.g., cardiac dysfunction.... and autonomic dysfunction? I must admit that I don't know anything about the latter aspect of T, and I'm more current on AAS research than many).

And of course, like you indicate yourself, even if we are to agree on an HED multiplier to start, it's simply not to be used in this manner because metabolism between species especially on chronic time-frames (here, very long, terms of years, in humans), where the crux of the data depends on AUC & the very y axis of your amalgamated data, is in person-years extrapolated from rodent.

As you know, HED is to be used only to extrapolate an initial/early clinical trial dose in man without any more information. We have known for well over 6 decades what bioactive T or Nand doses are in man, so we really have no reason to use HED in this manner at all.

IDK, I want to think we can do something with this, but it really strikes me as an ecologically invalid model.

Thank you for taking a look and putting those comments together. The more I look at the analysis the more disgusted I get (similar to my physique).

It's a chop shop auto ....nice Corvette fiberglass body with a lawnmower engine/no engine. I like your descriptor: ecologically invalid. At first it was an exploration of this whole concept of how dangerous are supra TT/FT levels. The more I ponder it the more it becomes a fool's errand. Like predicting cancer from smoking. The individual is the important concept here.

Also the propagation of error is likely much worse than I make it look. There's also that pesky difference in pharmacokinetics in rodents vs people for a given adjusted mg/kg androgen in addition to all the great points made.

 

[Type-IIx]

Thank you for taking a look and putting those comments together. The more I look at the analysis the more disgusted I get (similar to my physique).

It's a chop shop auto ....nice Corvette fiberglass body with a lawnmower engine/no engine. I like your descriptor: ecologically invalid. At first it was an exploration of this whole concept of how dangerous are supra TT/FT levels. The more I ponder it the more it becomes a fool's errand. Like predicting cancer from smoking. The individual is the important concept here.

Also the propagation of error is likely much worse than I make it look. There's also that pesky difference in pharmacokinetics in rodents vs people for a given adjusted mg/kg androgen in addition to all the great points made.

Thing is, there's a certain ingenuity about the thought process that went into this. It was very interesting, I can see why you did what you did for the most part. I like the use of JMP, which is good software for this sort of work. It's just that the basic assumptions simply break down rapidly, but I completely understand your desire to want to make gold from shit with the rodent research out there.

If you try again with allllll human clinical trials and use JMP in the right ways you might tease out some interesting data to discuss.

Might I suggest that, before you set out with the exciting data viz/statistical work, you actually sit down and carefully write down the methods in a step-by-step, deductive manner. After you are bored with how it feels because it's so cut-and-dry and rote, then you can start to use JMP. But constrain yourself, don't try to skip steps in your process because you get excited by something. Take notes. This is a monthslong project. The result should be interesting hypotheses to test arrived at inductively from intentional work done with JMP.

 

[readalot]

Might I suggest that, before you set out with the exciting data viz/statistical work, you actually sit down and carefully write down the methods in a step-by-step, deductive manner. After you are bored with how it feels because it's so cut-and-dry and rote, then you can start to use JMP. But constrain yourself, don't try to skip steps in your process because you get excited by something. Take notes. This is a monthslong project. The result should be interesting hypotheses to test arrived at inductively from intentional work done with JMP.

Excellent process and approach. But then I would not have a house after being thrown out. Haha.

Too bad I don't find my next job applying my trade to this stuff. I envy some of you guys sometimes.

All the human clinical trials way too short. But I did enjoy putting together the dose response data which helped me with this project as well. Got a lot of work to do to get all this transferred over to a usable FT model. And BTW all my spot checks from forum data indicate cFTV holds up pretty well all the way to 60 ng/dl FT by equilibrium dialysis. Maintains the 20% positive bias at most.

Have a nice evening/morning/day.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

Is nandrolone really all that toxic compared to testosterone? It’s my favourite but I tend to limit its use due to all this toxicity that they say it have

 

[Petarosus188]

I always wondered why people keep taking deca....if you just demand wet anabolic injectable....trestolone is so much stronger...

 

[OldGHGuy]

Excellent process and approach. But then I would not have a house after being thrown out. Haha.

Too bad I don't find my next job applying my trade to this stuff. I envy some of you guys sometimes.

All the human clinical trials way too short. But I did enjoy putting together the dose response data which helped me with this project as well. Got a lot of work to do to get all this transferred over to a usable FT model. And BTW all my spot checks from forum data indicate cFTV holds up pretty well all the way to 60 ng/dl FT by equilibrium dialysis. Maintains the 20% positive bias at most.

Have a nice evening/morning/day.

The irony of all of this highly intellectual and educated discourse is that it is about TAKING STEROIDS, which we all know is not good for health to a degree, depending on amount, duration, genetics and countless other factors. The same discourse could be had about heroin.

The more interesting question to me is "What makes steroids so attractive that highly intelligent people, who KNOW they are unhealthy, continue to do them anyway AND all the while exhaust their brain capacity in a lost-cause and basically fruitless attempt to examine the dangers?

 

[Millard]

The irony of all of this highly intellectual and educated discourse is that it is about TAKING STEROIDS, which we all know is not good for health to a degree, depending on amount, duration, genetics and countless other factors. The same discourse could be had about heroin.

The more interesting question to me is "What makes steroids so attractive that highly intelligent people, who KNOW they are unhealthy, continue to do them anyway AND all the while exhaust their brain capacity in a lost-cause and basically fruitless attempt to examine the dangers?

It is exactly the "highly intellectual and educated discourse" that examines risk/reward and minimizing associated harm. The fact is that most activities - and arguably the most satisfying, rewarding, and progress-oriented ones - involve various elements of risk.

Those who don't assume such risk tend to compromise success/achievement/progress in exchange for short-term safety/security. There is nothing wrong with that but to suggest that it is the only intelligent and educated approach is misguided.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

I always wondered why people keep taking deca....if you just demand wet anabolic injectable....trestolone is so much stronger...

Cause it’s tried and true and it works very good especially if you respond good to it.

 

[OldGHGuy]

It is exactly the "highly intellectual and educated discourse" that examines risk/reward and minimizing associated harm. The fact is that most activities - and arguably the most satisfying, rewarding, and progress-oriented ones - involve various elements of risk.

Those who don't assume such risk tend to compromise success/achievement/progress in exchange for short-term safety/security. There is nothing wrong with that but to suggest that it is the only intelligent and educated approach is misguided.

Not sure I understand your last sentence. Are you suggesting their are other approaches with merit such as "uneducated" approaches? If so, I guess you are correct.

"There is nothing wrong with that but to suggest that it is the only intelligent and educated approach is misguided."

This steroid topic is very simple: the more you take, the more risk AND It is impossible (and dangerous) to predict individual response and implications. I respect it and the science is very interesting but there is no answer to be found, hidden in the charts, to the question "How can I use these drugs safely?". It's a fool's errand. It's synonomous with studying smoking's effects on health. All you really need to know is if you do it, it will hurt you to some unknown extent.

 

[Millard]

Not sure I understand your last sentence. Are you suggesting their are other approaches with merit such as "uneducated" approaches? If so, I guess you are correct.

"There is nothing wrong with that but to suggest that it is the only intelligent and educated approach is misguided."

Basically, you are suggesting that the only intelligent/educated approach is to avoid engaging in risky activities and avoid even the mere examination of risk/reward of such activities.

You are basically calling risk/reward analysis and harm reduction an uneducated/unintelligent approach.

I couldn't disagree more.

Harm reduction is not "how can I use these drugs safely?"

The phrase "harm reduction" actually assumes that harm exists and only suggests the reduction/minimization of harm.

Harm reduction is "how can I reduce the harm associated with the use of drugs?"

 

[OldGHGuy]

When did I suggest "the only intelligent/educated approach is to avoid engaging in risky activities". This is you making assumptions. Never said or implied that.

With respect to your statement "The phrase "harm reduction" actually assumes that harm exists and only suggests the reduction/minimization of harm." I understand the concept here completely. My point is one cannot get any more detailed than "the more you use [beyond true TRT natural levels] the more risk". Truly quantifying this risk is impossible due to individuality. And finding a magic combination or method that makes it "safe" is impossible. The data and discourse is interesting, but I question its usefulness beyond the basic statement "the more you use, the more harm".

I also understand "Well we need to discuss the different compounds and which are more dangerous and for what reasons, etc". However, individuality also makes this a mostly meritless exercise, as anyone who has followed these boards long enough knows. Too much individuality in response.

 

[Millard]

Truly quantifying this risk is impossible due to individuality. And finding a magic combination or method that makes it "safe" is impossible. The data and discourse is interesting, but I question its usefulness beyond the basic statement "the more you use, the more harm".

Ok. Gotcha. I agree that more data is needed. But in the absence of this data, I don't think we should stop trying to find solutions and strategies to minimize harm even for those who take more risks.

"Truly quantifying" risk may not be possible to the specificity and individuality you want. However, I think there is a lot that can be done to improve the risk/reward ratio for everyone no matter how much risk they assume.

I don't disagree with the statements that "the more you use, the more harm" or "finding a magical combination or method that makes it safe is impossible".

I just disagree with the stance that an educated/intelligent analysis of risk/benefit is futile for helping anyone involved in AAS at any level.

There is utility in knowing more than the more you use, the more harm.

It is not unknowable. We need more data. And we should not stop trying to collect, process, incorporate, analyze, interpret, etc every bit of additional data we find towards the goal of harm reduction.

Whether we should care about what bodybuilders who use AAS and expend resources to help them is another debate. But we do here.

 

[OldGHGuy]

Ok. Gotcha. I agree that more data is needed. But in the absence of this data, I don't think we should stop trying to find solutions and strategies to minimize harm even for those who take more risks.

"Truly quantifying" risk may not be possible to the specificity and individuality you want. However, I think there is a lot that can be done to improve the risk/reward ratio for everyone no matter how much risk they assume.

I don't disagree with the statements that "the more you use, the more harm" or "finding a magical combination or method that makes it safe is impossible".

I just disagree with the stance that an educated/intelligent analysis of risk/benefit is futile for helping anyone involved in AAS at any level.

There is utility in knowing more than the more you use, the more harm.

Fair enough.

 

[readalot]

The same discourse could be had about heroin.

The more interesting question to me is "What makes steroids so attractive that highly intelligent people, who KNOW they are unhealthy, continue to do them anyway AND all the while exhaust their brain capacity in a lost-cause and basically fruitless attempt to examine the dangers?

There is no GetBig with heroin.

Ok shredded? Maybe.


Big and Shredded? No way.

Got my first dumbbells when I was 5. The thirst/hunger/addiction was always there.

I loved BB, but it never loved my physique back. Rinse and repeat adding the AAS. But the AAS definitely did help after I exhausted all the other things. Endless muscle marketing from the 80s and 90s probably did not help.

In short: mental problems

To your point, AAS are to be avoided at all costs when younger and in school if you plan on completing a rigorous academic curriculum and you have an addictive personality. Opportunity cost when young is such an important concept to understand.


Shameless plug: this is currently the best I got for a quantitivative tool/chart that puts it all in one place. Unfortunate it is for total testosterone instead of free, but eventually we may get there. Helps the reader understand where all those multipliers come from you see thrown around.

Tool to Assess your TT dose response --Percentile Curves

Continuing the dose response thread over here. This would be a great place to crowdsource data. https://forums.t-nation.com/t/tool-to-assess-your-tt-dose-response-percentile-curves/277628 https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/readalot-aka-tareload-introduction.134419973/post-3171563 I...

thinksteroids.com

Quantifies risk? No. Does give you a decent road map for dose response as you ponder risk. Was a useful tool in the more fruitless exercise above.