In case you’re not familiar with it, it’s the only study we have that used high dose test for an extended period of time and compared guys training as well as guys just sitting around doing nothing.
“The Effects of Supraphysiologic Doses of Testosterone on Muscle Size and Strength in Normal Men | NEJM” https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199607043350101
This study was in 1996. Arimidex wasn’t approved for medical use until 1995, only one year prior. Exemestain and letrozole weren’t even on the market yet. This study was just too long ago to make this type of correlation.
Amazing how all those bodybuilders in the seventies, eighties, and early nineties managed on massive doses of steroids who never had access to them in that case? 
Again, it’s some evidence, but not enough. Until there is along term study on the effects of estradiol in men on high dosage testosterone, we will never know if it is better to block some estrogen or not.
Those men were not blasting testosterone. Nandrolone and orals were the drug of choice back then. Nandrolone aromatizes significantly less than testosterone. Correlation does not equal causation.
Well, most of the old school bodybuilders are still around and they didn’t have access to an AI.
I for one will not fear something that has no evidence to suggest that I should fear it.
Uummmmm…you might want to do some fact checking there. I know a few personally and high dose test and dianabol was used A LOT.
This isn’t really true. Most of them are not still around, but some are. And some of them have had multiple heart valve surgery among other issue. You are being disingenuous here. High levels of test can (Anecdotally, there are no studies, so I have to go on dead acquaintances) have very negative effects onyour health, and so can heavy use of AI’s to pound that E2 down to zero (As was done for a while).
Apologies… SOME, agreed. It’s late and I’m getting tired.
“I know a few guys” is not an argument.
Eg: I’m not racist, I know a few…
“ Nandrolone became popular in the 1980s as a preferred steroid choice as it was perceived as having fewer side effects than other anabolic steroids, particularly those of increased growth of body hair and sudden, unpredictable outbursts. ”
I’m not getting my info from Wikipedia. I’m getting my info direct from the source. No need for Wikipedia.
There are actually quite a few studies implementing testosterone at high dosages for long periods of time. Ranging from 200-600mg/wk. We also have studies regarding oxymetholone at up to 150mg/day, oxandrolone at up to 80mg/day, methenolone at up to 1200mg/wk and nandrolone at up to 600mg/wk.
The prospect of testosterone being safer then synthetic AAS is IMO a fallacy. Testosterone is neuroprotective, has anti-oxidant capacity when administered within the realms of therapeutic dosing. When dosages climb, testosterone is likely neurotoxic and acts as a promotor of oxidative stress.
Testosterone (probably) isn’t particularly safer regarding the cardiac pathology observed following prolonged AAS abuse. Testosterone may not alter lipids quite as much as say, nandrolone, drostanolone or methenolone, but other mechanisms come into play. Elevated homocysteine, CRP, RAAS dysfunction (and thus altered BP), autonomic dysfunction/catecholamine up-regulation, direct AR binding within cardiac myocytes etc all exist with testosterone. If anything, something like methenolone might have a lesser effect on cardiac parameters as it generally has less of an effect on BP (11b HSD2 inhibition is also stronger with testosterone) and mg/mg primo is less potent.
There are genetic discrepancies regarding how prone one is to the more serious side effects induced via AAS. There is ample data (in vitro, rodent models and case reports) indicative that testosterone alone can induce deleterious long term outcomes. If cardiac pathology is partly mediated via direct AR binding, all AAS would be culpable. Testosterone doesn’t get a magic free pass just because it’s naturally produced (well… it does in therapeutic concentrations, but the body wasn’t designed to run with a TT of like 2500ng/dl for decades on end)
Old school bodybuilders in Europe/parts of the USA (60s, 70s) purportedly didn’t use a whole lot of testosterone. Cyclic templates from those eras were mostly compromised of 19-nortestosterone, methenolone, dehydromethyltestosterone, oxandrolone and stanozolol. Testosterone became more commonplace within the late 70s/early 80s.
I’m not sure of the mortality rates regarding golden era bodybuilders. But it does seem as if a large proportion of them (who used more conservatively within the 60’s/70’s) are still around today. That being said, many suffered from coronary artery disease/had myocardial infarctions in their 60s and 70s.
Back then it was common knowledge that stanozolol was a mild drug, we know better today (lipiiiiiddddddsss)
Do you know a lot of people who have died from AAS? Legitimately curious, and if so… what dosages are we talking about? I’ve always pondered as to whether risk is heavily dependant on dose/genetics and lifestyle (there’s obviously a compound dependant risk)… or if it’s like cigarettes wherein any amount (referring to supra dosages, not TRT) practically triples heart disease risk
There are plenty of bodybuilders who have died at a young age, Andreas Munzer, Rich Piana and Dallas McCarver come to mind. Of course they were doing far more than TRT, probably using GH, Insulin, diuretics, etc… Can’t really compare to TRT. That being said TRT is fairly new. There are no studies that I am aware of where people had constant TT of 1500 for 20+ years. TRT is replacement for low T. 1500+ are not normal levels. Are there long term side effects of being at these level constantly? Who knows… Only something like 2% of natural men have TT over 1000. Practically no one is over 1100. Even if you adjust for the fact that levels continue to go down due to diet and environmental factors it wasn’t like out grandads where running around with TT levels at 1500+. If you are going to go through the trouble of taking exogenous test you might as well be at the top of the normal range which is around 1000. 1500+ is not TRT IMO.
I was referring to bodybuilders within the golden era. Modern era bodybuilding can be likened akin to a death cult. Rampant, extreme drug abuse is causing competitors to drop dead at alarming rates.
I never said it was, it isn’t. That’s what I’d call “generous TRT”. It’s a cruise dose/a light permablast.
I’m on TRT, I generally fluctuate around 550-800ng/dl.
Sorry. Wasn’t trying to imply you were saying 1500+ was TRT but it seems to be the norm on this forum. People taking 200-300mg a week of test running levels of 1500+ and saying they are on TRT and need these levels to feel ‘normal’.
Yep there are people who need almost 1500+ to feel optimal and there is nothing wrong with that if they can handle it well.
I discovered I feel best around 1400-1500, stopped asking myself stupid questions regarding how safe is that when all my other markers are good and even cholesterol has improved when I run these with zero improvement on diet.
Recently I had some issues with protocol changes but soon Im gonna be back at these levels
People are still narrow minded regarding TRT.
Everyone things only in terms of blood levels, protocol and e2.
When in reality so many details can make huge difference - how do you inject, sub q or IM, how deep, what exactly ester you use - totally possible on two different esters with similar levels and protocols to feel totally different. Some people feel best with propionate, others with enanthate and etc. So many important variables people ignore
If you randomly tested 1000 men who produce testosterone endogenously how many do you think would have natural levels of 1500+. Factor out the old people and test 1000 men between 18-40. How many of those 1000 would have TT of 1500? If you need T of this level maybe there are other issues involved? How is your sleep? Nutrition? Exercise? Relationship? Job? If your nutrition sucks, you sleep like shit are constantly stressed out, hate your job and your wife no amount of T is going to make you feel optimal. It is not a silver bullet.
Feeling “great” at higher dosages doesn’t equate to optimisation/the best protocol to ensure longevity. Is running 1400ng/dl year round harmful? Who knows… genetic variables, lifestyle etc factor into long term outcomes. I certainly wouldn’t want to be walking around with 1500gn/dl year round at 65-70 years old. Many people feel good on cycle too, that doesn’t mean you should be blasting year round.
TRT refers to testosterone replacement therapy, 1500ng/dl (absent of sky high SHBG) isn’t indicative of physiologic replacement. It’s totally fine if you wish to use higher dosages, so long as you’re realistic about the potential long term ramifications. 1500ng/dl isn’t as dangerous as 3000ng/dl, but it isn’t as safe as 750ng/dl.
There is def a correlation with testosterone and increased risk for DVT, running a HCT of 54% isn’t “safe” either. People talk about people who live in mountainous terrain, but fail to accept for the clinical data indicating those living at high altitudes DO have a higher risk of stroke.
Exogenous testosterone works differently than endogenous and you cannot compared apples to pairs. Looking for other underlying issues and wasting my time? No thanks. I see a lot of people getting self-psyched by looking whats wrong with them. If you need higher levels to feel good you just need higher levels and thats it.