And conversely, very poor lighting can make a well defined bodybuilder look smooth. I got to see that first hand at the 1981 AAU Mr America in Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas. It was the last year for the NPC being under the AAU. I was a National Judge and judged the Light Weight Class, Light-heavy Weight Class, and the Overall.
The prejudging was held in a convention hall with low ceiling. The lighting washed out everyone except Tim Belknap.
This was the absolute worst lighting for a bodybuilding show that I have ever seen, by FAR.
The Night Show (and Overall) was a little better. It was in their stage auditorium. But very poor, IMO.
I think (I don’t remember certainly) that my urologist said that he doesn’t prescribe it for lengthy amounts of time. I don’t recall why either.
Some have said they feel mentally unwell from it.
One cannot “optimize” clomid the way one supposedly “optimizes” TRT. My view is that actual TRT cannot be optimized as there is no special T value in the normal range and I am certain that there is no difference in physical function or well being dependent on values in the normal range, at say, 500 to 1000 ng/dl. I have tested at 500 to 1000 for two decades and I could not and cannot notice a lick of a difference.
As obnoxious as it sounds, for years, I referred to what I’ve recently learned is “TOT” as cyborg TRT, transhumanist TRT, and bionic-man TRT. And as has been rightfully pointed out in this article is that such use of T is really just doing roids lite.
It is used for PCT (post cycle therapy) pretty commonly. Some doctors Rx it. I had a buddy that was on like 10 mg/day of it, and his TT went from like 300 to 900 ng/dL.
There are problems with it though. Eye issues are common. Stuff like floaters or slightly blurry vision.
It also raises SHBG for most people. So even though TT is higher, FT may not improve much.
I think the general consensus is that TRT is a better long term treatment if fertility isn’t a concern.
I don’t agree here. Let’s just assume a guy uses the same injection frequency and tests blood at trough. If he has a trough TT of 1000 ng/dL for a long period of time, he will be physically stronger (physical function). This is assuming everything else is constant. It might not be a huge difference, but it will have some impact over the long term.
I was just going with the numbers you went with. I still believe a trough difference of like 3-400 ng/dL for a long period (like a year) will have small differences.
Again, maybe I am picking nits here. It isn’t going to be 5 lbs of lean tissue, but it might be 1-2 lbs long term.
I do see a lot of clinics Rx TOT (superhuman mini cycles). It seems the cookie cutter protocol that two of my buddies have gotten recently is 200 mg/wk of Test C right out of the gate.
I don’t think its medically responsible. I have a feeling Hippocrates might have something to say about it lol. One of my buddies (or acquaintance) seems much more red all the time. To me that is a sign that the dose is too high.
I am not against people using higher dosages, and have done so myself.
Medical doctors take the Hippocratic oath. Which is to do no harm. IIRC, when Hippocrates came up with the oath, he was observing medical practitioners basically be cowboys more or less. Using treatments that weren’t effective and likely harmful. I think part of the meaning of the oath is for doctors to take a scientific approach to medicine. Not just try stuff out on people.
I’d say some of the hormone clinics have doctors that are not respecting their oath. Again, I think there should be a place for “steroid experts”, but it should be a medical doctor that has taken the oath. It can even be someone with a degree in medicine. I just don’t think they should be called a doctor of medicine if that’s what they want to do.
I never realized how much of a mecca it was for bodybuilders until I lifted trained there for a number of years while I lived in San Diego. It must have been fun to train there in the 90s.
Fun (unrelated) fact, but the phrase “do no harm” is not actually in the Hippocratic oath, everyone just assumes it is.
Had a college debate tournament that was related to healthcare, other team made their entire argument surrounding the “do no harm” principle all doctors swear to. Case was essentially just handed to us once we pointed out that doctors just objectively do not swear to that.
My comment is that you just have to have lived through the 1960’s and 1970’s to have the comfort knowing that the AAS you got from the doctor was all pharmaceutical grade.
And then have been shut down and had to look for sources outside the bounds of the law. I went straight from being prescribed “low” dose (ask Hank) legal, pharmaceutical AAS, to getting AAS wherever I could, all being illegal. And “what” did I actually buy? Who made it? Will I get sick?
I went went straight from pure, legal, prescribed AAS from a doctor that some people might not believe the doctor is honoring their “do no harm” oath, to seeking AAS from sources that could very well lead to me being harmed.
Oh 100%. The meaning behind it is very similar, and I totally agree with your previous post as a whole. The “do no harm” principle is honestly left out mainly as the actual oath is more nuanced. After all, as a doctor, actually “doing no harm” is a fairly impossible standard to actually maintain over a career. You try your best, but sometimes harm will be done, that’s just how the field shakes out ya know?
My reply was not meant to argue with ya, More just to point l something that I always thought was interesting, how society just collectively has made up parts of a very historic and well documented tradition.