PCT Workout and Nutrition Plan

[quote]TRTblastcruise wrote:
prisoner just says that through research, he has found that 100mg/wk of testosterone does not suppress the hpta. [/quote]

Its been a while since I’ve read the taper thread, but if this is an accurate paraphrase, then if taken at literal face value, he is wrong. 100 mg/week is every bit of suppressive to the HPTA as higher doses–your LH and FSH will be ~0.

This is observed in the bloodwork of all of our TRT members.

Now if what he is trying to say is that it makes it easier for the HPTA to become “unsupressed” once the exogenous T is removed, then I could buy into that.

[quote]TRTblastcruise wrote:
Or you could have just answered my question. I don’t see any sort of evidence other than Prisoner saying “research shows” concerning whether there is actually no HPTA suppression during 100mg/wk of testosterone.

As for SERM controlling estrogen? of course it does bud… “It prevents estrogen from binding at the breast tissue” {quoted from Bonez} - PREVENTING SOMETHING FROM DOING SOMETHING IS EXERTING CONTROL OVER IT! You’re playing word games to sound “right” if you’re trying to say control is the wrong word.

As for what I said about “tapering” - 6 weeks ‘homestatis’ and 6 weeks actual tapering = 12 weeks which again means that the process of coming off the 12 week cycle is as long as the cycle in question was itself. That was all I said. Now this isn’t an issue if 100mg/wk really isn’t suppressive, and maybe its not, I just don’t see any evidence saying it isn’t. All we have is anecdotal evidence from Prisoner as well as a few who have tried it.
[/quote]

FYI, “controlling” something the biochem sense is almost always in reference to controlling its synthesis, conversion, or regulation. Not controlling it from binding to something. That is the sense I have always used it and heard it used in. So in IMO nolva does not “control” estrogen. It regulates symptoms (sometimes).

I read at least 1 journal article (I remember reading more) on low dose androgens not suppressing the HPTA after reading that thread, so yes there are articles out there. this was primarily in conjunction with muscle wasting or other diseases (HIV patients getting low dose androgens and such to try and stop wasting, etc). I will see if I can find them, although it was quite a while ago, over a two years. As for 100mg/wk, I don’t know if that’s really the ceiling or above the non-suppressive threshold. I do not recall if they tested any at that dose.

However, for a 12 week cycle, the stasis is a long time to wait and I agree with you on that. Nolva could be a better way to go from time management

[quote]TRTblastcruise wrote:
The whole point of a PCT is to make it so your natural functioning returns to normal. Continuing to provide exogenous test doesn’t seem that it would allow for that to happen. This is what I referred to in terms of no evidence - prisoner just says that through research, he has found that 100mg/wk of testosterone does not suppress the hpta.

What research? I see a number of cases where people did this taper protocol but still seemed highly shut down after this "homeostasis’ period.

The relevance of the length of the taper is the fact that you are turning a 12 week cycle (14 weeks of suppression) into at least 20 (12 weeks of cycle, 6 weeks of 100mg/wk, 2 weeks for that dosage to clear) weeks of suppression assuming that providing exogenous test will keep your natural test production suppressed.

By the way, no where did I talk about gyno. I talked about the SERM and its process of affecting the body’s release of LH in my third post on this thread.

I’m done arguing about this with you. I don’t believe that 100mg/wk of testosterone is in any way conducive to coming off a cycle in which the point is to get your natural system up and running again, so I believe the 6 week waiting period is completely useless, and even down to the week where you finally get to nearly 40mg/week, you’re still suppressing your natural production as you will be supplying your body with more testosterone that it naturally produced in the first place, continuing the suppression and inhibiting the return of your body’s natural system. [/quote]

Your opinion is fine. But you are definitely making plenty of assumptions in arriving to it.

40mg of test e is roughly 28.8mg of testosterone. A male produces between 2.5mg and 11mg per day. If someone is producing less than 28.8mg of of T per week that is very low and the person should be on TRT anyway, rendering your point moot. So your statement that 28.8mg of T is more than is naturally produced is too broad, as it doesnt apply to most of the people reading this (realtively young men).

About the length of PCT. It may not be ideal for someone but the length has nothing to do with its utility. Further, the whole duration of the stasis/taper is considered ‘off’ time, so anyone who believes in ‘time on = time off’ can actually start a new cycle QUICKER than someone who uses SERM PCT, as the two week waiting period and the 4 week SERM period is usually considered ‘on’ time.

Basically it comes down to the fact that there is more research supporting the efficacy of the stasis/taper than there is supporting what you are saying. And this is coming from someone who doesnt even use it.

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]TRTblastcruise wrote:
prisoner just says that through research, he has found that 100mg/wk of testosterone does not suppress the hpta. [/quote]

Its been a while since I’ve read the taper thread, but if this is an accurate paraphrase, then if taken at literal face value, he is wrong. 100 mg/week is every bit of suppressive to the HPTA as higher doses–your LH and FSH will be ~0.

This is observed in the bloodwork of all of our TRT members.

Now if what he is trying to say is that it makes it easier for the HPTA to become “unsupressed” once the exogenous T is removed, then I could buy into that.

[/quote]

For my own curiosity and for the sake of being thorough, how long does it take for 100mg/wk to become completely suppressive (0 lh and fsh)?

I dont think the info is relevant to this topic, Im just wondering.

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

For my own curiosity and for the sake of being thorough, how long does it take for 100mg/wk to become completely suppressive (0 lh and fsh)?

I dont think the info is relevant to this topic, Im just wondering. [/quote]

I don’t know exactly, since most guys wait till around the 4 week mark after beginning TRT to get the follow up labs. But by the 4 week mark, they have fallen to 0.

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

For my own curiosity and for the sake of being thorough, how long does it take for 100mg/wk to become completely suppressive (0 lh and fsh)?

I dont think the info is relevant to this topic, Im just wondering. [/quote]

I don’t know exactly, since most guys wait till around the 4 week mark after beginning TRT to get the follow up labs. But by the 4 week mark, they have fallen to 0.[/quote]

And is it possible that TRT guys are starting with lower FSH and LH numbers than ‘healthy’ males?

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

For my own curiosity and for the sake of being thorough, how long does it take for 100mg/wk to become completely suppressive (0 lh and fsh)?

I dont think the info is relevant to this topic, Im just wondering. [/quote]

I don’t know exactly, since most guys wait till around the 4 week mark after beginning TRT to get the follow up labs. But by the 4 week mark, they have fallen to 0.[/quote]

And is it possible that TRT guys are starting with lower FSH and LH numbers than ‘healthy’ males? [/quote]

Its possible, but I think this would only apply to those who are secondary to begin with. Guys that are primary tend to actually have higher LH/FSH values since their pituitary turns up the intensity as the testicles aren’t responding.

I actually am starting TRT on Friday, with LH and FSH values of 2 and 3 times the upper range, respectively. So we will see in 4 weeks if my dosage takes that high of LH/FSH down to 0 in that time–I think this would indicate (in a n=1 sample size, of course) that TRT doses are fully suppressive in a short timeframe, which is what I am expecting.

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Its been a while since I’ve read the taper thread, but if this is an accurate paraphrase, then if taken at literal face value, he is wrong. 100 mg/week is every bit of suppressive to the HPTA as higher doses–your LH and FSH will be ~0.

This is observed in the bloodwork of all of our TRT members.

Now if what he is trying to say is that it makes it easier for the HPTA to become “unsupressed” once the exogenous T is removed, then I could buy into that.

[/quote]

Just to point out, the taper thread states that 100mg/week ->when combined with a SERM<- is not suppressive. Would the addition of a SERM to that statement change its plausibility in your mind?

Also, what position do you hold to be exposed to TRT members bloodwork? (Not trying to challenge your knowledge or its legitimacy, just curious so that I can better weight your opinion in my own head)

Cheers

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Your opinion is fine. But you are definitely making plenty of assumptions in arriving to it.

40mg of test e is roughly 28.8mg of testosterone. A male produces between 2.5mg and 11mg per day. If someone is producing less than 28.8mg of of T per week that is very low and the person should be on TRT anyway, rendering your point moot. So your statement that 28.8mg of T is more than is naturally produced is too broad, as it doesnt apply to most of the people reading this (realtively young men).

About the length of PCT. It may not be ideal for someone but the length has nothing to do with its utility. Further, the whole duration of the stasis/taper is considered ‘off’ time, so anyone who believes in ‘time on = time off’ can actually start a new cycle QUICKER than someone who uses SERM PCT, as the two week waiting period and the 4 week SERM period is usually considered ‘on’ time.

Basically it comes down to the fact that there is more research supporting the efficacy of the stasis/taper than there is supporting what you are saying. And this is coming from someone who doesnt even use it.

[/quote]

Alright I did make the mistake of miscalculating the actual amount of testosterone in X mls of test e due the ester weight. Either way, it seems to be that 100mg/wk is “proven” through lab tests as indicated by VTBalla to be suppressive. So that is at least 6 additional weeks of suppression at a dosage that is well below “cycle strength” but too high to let the body begin to function naturally.

Which leads me to the second point - if 100mg/wk is suppressive, this should NOT be considered “off time” seeing as it is still suppressing natural functioning. And as indicated above, this would extend the cycle at least an additional 6 weeks where one would be suppressed if not several more weeks after that depending on when that person’s natural test producing proclivity is greater than the amount of exogenous test they are supplying and as such would initiate trying to produce its own testosterone again. So no, this is not faster than a traditional PCT because at the very least, the 100mg/wk during the waiting period cannot be considered “off time” thus extending the “cycle” by 6 weeks.

And bonez, again, i disagree that there is more “research” proving the theory than not. In fact, I again have still not seen any research other than Prisoner’s statement saying “research has shown that 100mg/wk is not suppressive” - however, VTballa has actual patient research indicating the exact opposite. It seems that at the very least, VTballa’s claim that 100mg/wk is suppressive based on actual blood results means that you are merely adding 6 weeks of suppression to the cycle with no added benefit towards making the cycle “easier to come off of” - you’re shut down still. Shut down is shut down, and if the point of the taper is to get yourself not to be shutdown, than the 6 week statis period is failing horribly.

When it comes to the actual taper part of the cycle, maybe this is good. You get to start having your body produce naturally again (at some point during the taper - I think 80mg a day still at the cusp of being suppressive depending on a person’s natural proclivity towards producing testosterone), while supplying it with some testosterone to make up for the gradually increasing production of the body.

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

For my own curiosity and for the sake of being thorough, how long does it take for 100mg/wk to become completely suppressive (0 lh and fsh)?

I dont think the info is relevant to this topic, Im just wondering. [/quote]

I don’t know exactly, since most guys wait till around the 4 week mark after beginning TRT to get the follow up labs. But by the 4 week mark, they have fallen to 0.[/quote]

And is it possible that TRT guys are starting with lower FSH and LH numbers than ‘healthy’ males? [/quote]

Its possible, but I think this would only apply to those who are secondary to begin with. Guys that are primary tend to actually have higher LH/FSH values since their pituitary turns up the intensity as the testicles aren’t responding.

.[/quote]

ah right

[quote]Intensified wrote:

Just to point out, the taper thread states that 100mg/week ->when combined with a SERM<- is not suppressive. Would the addition of a SERM to that statement change its plausibility in your mind?[/quote]

I don’t want to venture much into this area because I am not at all familiar with the finer points of combining SERMs and exogeneous T.

But at first glance, it doesn’t manke sense (to me) to combine a SERM with exogeneous T. If this works to maintain your natural production, why would you need to run HCG during your cycle? Or do PCT at all? All you would have to do is run a SERM with your cycle, your natural production would be mostly maintained, and you would be set once you removed the exogeneous T.

Members of the TRT forum (that choose to) usually post their labwork for feedback. I don’t have special insight into it, just have read every post on the TRT forum for the past 12 months :slight_smile:

Nearly all of my knowledge comes from there and another site with same topic.

And I just realized that we have hijacked the ever living shit out of this thread.

It would actually make a good addendum to the Taper thread. Anybody want to volunteer to requote some of the more useful posts from this thread into that one, and continue the discussion there?

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Intensified wrote:

Just to point out, the taper thread states that 100mg/week ->when combined with a SERM<- is not suppressive. Would the addition of a SERM to that statement change its plausibility in your mind?[/quote]

I don’t want to venture much into this area because I am not at all familiar with the finer points of combining SERMs and exogeneous T.

But at first glance, it doesn’t manke sense (to me) to combine a SERM with exogeneous T. If this works to maintain your natural production, why would you need to run HCG during your cycle? Or do PCT at all? All you would have to do is run a SERM with your cycle, your natural production would be mostly maintained, and you would be set once you removed the exogeneous T.

Members of the TRT forum (that choose to) usually post their labwork for feedback. I don’t have special insight into it, just have read every post on the TRT forum for the past 12 months :slight_smile:

Nearly all of my knowledge comes from there and another site with same topic.

[/quote]

Why run pct at all? Becase people use much more than 100mg/wk while on cycle. No where has it been said that a SERM prevents ANY amount of T from shutting down the hpta.

And i do not think this sjould be added to the taper thread as most ofthe posts are opinion and conjecture (and misinformation) from someone who hasnt even done the taper. I dont really think the theoretical opinion of someone who was unaware of ester weight is all that valuable

Edit

Where was it stated that SERM + T maintains natural produxtion? There is too much confusion here. From my understading the use of the SERM during the stasis is to stimulate lh production. Dante has written stuff along similar lines when he discusses blasting and cruising.

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

And i do not think this sjould be added to the taper thread as most ofthe posts are opinion and conjecture (and misinformation) from someone who hasnt even done the taper. I dont really think the theoretical opinion of someone who was unaware of ester weight is all that valuable

Edit

Where was it stated that SERM + T maintains natural produxtion? There is too much confusion here. From my understading the use of the SERM during the stasis is to stimulate lh production. Dante has written stuff along similar lines when he discusses blasting and cruising. [/quote]

Lol… I know of ester weight bonez. I left it out in that post and admitted to it.

I think this should certainly be added to the taper thread since no where in the taper thread is Prisoner’s “research” that 100mg per week of testosterone is not suppressive addressed or debated, it is simply taken as a fact, which, in fact, is not true.

EDIT: Have you read the taper thread? “the research showed no hpta suppression while using a serm and low dose testosterone - 100mg per week” - Prisoner in his first quote on that stickied thread. This would indicated that natural production is maintained at these doses. No where does it state that the SERM is used to stimulate LH production. And as for adding it to the stickied taper thread - there is a post on the last page asking about this “research” mentioned in the taper outline on page 1 by prisoner. This question was never addressed.

What is of no value is information that is highly questionable with no “research” to prove it such as 100mg a week of testosterone being not suppressive - how is an exogenous dosage that is higher than natural production not going to suppress the functioning of your natural system (and yes this after the enanthate ester is taken into account)? And, if this is true that 100mg is suppressive, what is the point of furthering the suppression an additional 6 weeks at sub-cycle dose?

The whole taper would make more sense if the waiting period was a non suppressive dose to start your body “thinking” it needed to make more testosterone, but 100mg/wk seems to high. And again this would be dependent on the person as the range for natural daily test production is rather broad, so a non suppressive dose for a high producing person would be much different than a dose for a low producing person.

I’d like to state that my issue is not with the actual taper, but with the dosage recommended for this “homeostatis” period because it still suppressive and as such seems counterproductive in post cycle therapy where the goal is to make natural production return to its normal state.

EDIT 2: Funny, I found a post in the taper thread from Bonez talking about Nolvadex and its use to “control” estrogen… so you were just playing word games with me.

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

Why run pct at all? Becase people use much more than 100mg/wk while on cycle. No where has it been said that a SERM prevents ANY amount of T from shutting down the hpta. [/quote]

Fair point.

[quote]
Where was it stated that SERM + T maintains natural produxtion? [/quote]

I was addressing this specifically:

[quote]Intensified wrote:

Just to point out, the taper thread states that 100mg/week ->when combined with a SERM<- is not suppressive. [/quote]

I was not attempting to address whether the statement is factual or not, as I am not decided on what I think about it.

[quote]
There is too much confusion here.[/quote]

Agreed. IMO, the major source of this confusion is that we haven’t settled on a real definition of “suppressed”. When I am using that term, I am referring solely to LH/FSH ~ 0. It seems there has been at least one poster that uses supressed to refer to a level of suppression corresponding to the time that it would take to recover. So in my definition, a 100 mg/week dosage is just as suppressive as a 2g/week dosage (LH/FSH both ~0), but in the other definition, it would take you longer to recover from the latter, so it is more “suppressive” than the former.

Or I could just be in need of lunch feeding lol

[quote]
From my understading the use of the SERM during the stasis is to stimulate lh production. Dante has written stuff along similar lines when he discusses blasting and cruising. [/quote]

I think this is a good addition once you get down to a non-suppressive dose, but from what I can tell, we haven’t come to a consensus on what that non-suppressive dose actually is.

[quote]TRTblastcruise wrote:

I think this should certainly be added to the taper thread since no where in the taper thread is Prisoner’s “research” that 100mg per week of testosterone is not suppressive addressed or debated, it is simply taken as a fact, which, in fact, is not true. [/quote]

Agreed. I just went back and read the whole thread, and it was questioned a few times but never actually rebutted.

[quote]
What is of no value is information that is highly questionable with no “research” to prove it such as 100mg a week of testosterone being not suppressive - how is an exogenous dosage that is higher than natural production not going to suppress the functioning of your natural system (and yes this after the enanthate ester is taken into account)? And, if this is true that 100mg is suppressive, what is the point of furthering the suppression an additional 6 weeks at sub-cycle dose?[/quote]

This is where I am confused as well. I don’t see the benefit of cruising on a suppressive TRT dose if you can get your own system back up and running in a shorter time, thus producing an equivalent natural dose.

[quote]
The whole taper would make more sense if the waiting period was a non suppressive dose to start your body “thinking” it needed to make more testosterone, but 100mg/wk seems to high. And again this would be dependent on the person as the range for natural daily test production is rather broad, so a non suppressive dose for a high producing person would be much different than a dose for a low producing person. [/quote]

Agreed. I think Bill Roberts addresses this in one of the threads that it linked to in the stickey, in that he recommends dropping down to about 75 mg/day for a stasis period. To me, this makes more sense.

Agreed. I am not knocking the protocol as it seems to have worked for many guys here, and I haven’t seen but one member have an issue implementing it, but its possible that it provides a good outcome in spite of the 100 mg/week stasis, not because of it. IMO, the gradual taper from 100 mg/week down to 0 should gain the credit for the protocol’s success.

Though, it is possible that the wait period “primes” the body to successfully taper off later, but its premise (that it is a non-suppressive dose) puts it on shaky ground as far as necessity.

[quote]TRTblastcruise wrote:
I disagree. I think a Nolva PCT will always be run when you finally come off cycle regardless of whether you want to mess around with tapering or not. [/quote]

Truth.

In my opinion:

HCG should ALWAYS be used on a cycle long enough where testicular shrinkage could be an issue, anything much over 6 weeks in my book. And NEVER used in the PCT and NEVER used higher than about 100-250mcg/day every 2-3 days.

Letro or another AI should always be used on cycle and during the PCT as a test booster and direct estrogen control. I personally will only use letro, as I am incredibly familiar and comfortable with it.

Nolva should always be used in the PCT, I dont recommend EVER dosing higher than 20mg with the exception of perhaps frontloading it a bit the FIRST DAY at 40.

I dont much believe in the test taper, most longer esters will self taper anyways if you use Test Prop to come off your longer ester injectables.

PCT is going to suck, trying to ease into it is nonsense, just rip that bandaid, deal with it, be better within 1-2 weeks.

If you absolutely have to, 2.5-5mg/day dbol right before you hit legs or back has been fine with me in the past.

BUT it DOES delay the PCT, dont let anyone tell you it doesnt, a restarting HPTA is sensitive.

But 2.5 - 5mg twice a week hasnt seem to do much besides stretch the PCT about a week.

And personally I will be using GH peptides in EVERY PCT, hell I refuse to come off them period.

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]TRTblastcruise wrote:

I think this should certainly be added to the taper thread since no where in the taper thread is Prisoner’s “research” that 100mg per week of testosterone is not suppressive addressed or debated, it is simply taken as a fact, which, in fact, is not true. [/quote]

Agreed. I just went back and read the whole thread, and it was questioned a few times but never actually rebutted.

[quote]
What is of no value is information that is highly questionable with no “research” to prove it such as 100mg a week of testosterone being not suppressive - how is an exogenous dosage that is higher than natural production not going to suppress the functioning of your natural system (and yes this after the enanthate ester is taken into account)? And, if this is true that 100mg is suppressive, what is the point of furthering the suppression an additional 6 weeks at sub-cycle dose?[/quote]

This is where I am confused as well. I don’t see the benefit of cruising on a suppressive TRT dose if you can get your own system back up and running in a shorter time, thus producing an equivalent natural dose.

FWIW I agree with you on the “priming” aspect. I think there are two components here: 1) whether the 100mg/week dose is suppressive or not and 2) whether the stay at 100mg/wk primes the body for easier recovery by resensitizing androgen receptors and other bits of the body to a level of testosterone that is close to “normal”.

I do not think these are mutually exclusive, although they are largely separate issues. As for 1) I tend to favor Bill Roberts’ dose recommendation and he suppprts his reasoning for it, at least in an n=1 scenario, with his personal bloodwork. Do not recall if he had journals or not. 100mg does seem high, and if it is possible to stasis at a dose that is not suppressive, then I would rather do that. As for 2) it is possible that even if the 75-100mg stasis dose is supressive to lh/fsh, it resensitizes the body to "normal levels of circulating androgens and therefore is still useful. In other words, you need a stasis period–whether suppressive or not–to get the body used to having a more “natural” level, and therefore being quicker to recover from with proper support as VT suggested.

Regardless, I agree with you that.i have only seen one or two posters have trouble with it, and everybody who does it seems to rave about it’s easy recovery compared to standard pct. For that reason if for no other I like it, although I think it has some solid grounding conceptually.

This deserves better post/articulation, but I am on my phone and it sucks ass to try and thumb type shit. Sorry for any typos btw.