Topical Nandrolone w/ TRT

[irocktheyellow]

Hey All,

Just saw this topic discussed on More Plates More Dates YouTube channel. Does anyone have experience with this and/or have any data around the efficacy of a topical application?

Thanks,
Alex

[youthful55guy]

No data to help, but watching the topic with interest. Many years ago when I worked in a skin care laboratory, we did experiments to see if esterified vitamin A could affect the skin similarly to topical retinoic acid. Library research showed that all the necessary enzymes are present in the skin to break the ester bond and reduce the Vitamin A alcohol to the acid.

We used hairless mice in the experiment and indeed, we did show a dose-response to the amount of Vitamin A ester applied to the skin. The outcome measures were epidermal cell turnover and deposition of new collagen in the dermis as determined by histologist preparations. All standard tests at the time for the drug industry in assessing effectiveness of retinoic acid.

The results showed that indeed, esterified Vitamin A did have a similar effect as the retinoic acid controls and was dose dependent. Translating this to TRT and or topical nandrolone, we know that the enzymes necessary to cleave the ester are present in the skin. And we know from topical T preparations currently available that T does penetrate through the dermis. Does it have a similar effect and at what topical dose? That has (to my knowledge) yet to be determined.

[blshaw]

Nandrolone is not a TRT drug.

[dragon1952]

https://poddtoppen.se/podcast/1424766141/more-plates-more-dates/deca-only-for-hrt-a-comprehensive-overview-and-my-personal-blood-work
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299434709_Beyond_testosterone_cypionate_Evidence_behind_the_use_of_nandrolone_in_male_health_and_wellness

[blshaw]

Nice articles stating the known affects of Nandrolone… increased muscle mass and joint relief via increases in synovial fluid. All well known. Again… not a TRT drug. Not by the basic premise or the fact that it provides ANY long term health benefits. Quite the opposite. There is a reason no GP or Endo will prescribe it and is only available by clinics that make money to prescribe you drugs.

If you want to use Nandrolone, cool. But that belongs in the pharma section.

[dragon1952]

The articles (one was edited out by the mod) and many other articles out there are basically studying nandrolone as an alternative for TRT. Why do you think all these other steroids were created in the first place. For various medical applications. It’s just the stigma against them has overshadowed that. So to you they are strictly PED’s…great.

[blshaw]

@dragon1952

So to you they are strictly PED’s…great.

Not to me… to all those seeking their use as an adjunct to replacement therapy. Quite simply we have testosterone for TESTOSTERONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY. The only benefits to using Nandrolone are those I listed above. Nandrolone was developed as you said ‘for various medical applications’. The wasting diseases it is legit prescribed for are generally more detrimental to your health than the side effects of Nandrolone use. Also, anecdotally, you will see TRT clinics prescribing it in higher doses than those that do legitimately use it for wasting diseases.

[dragon1952]

@blshaw

Quite simply we have testosterone for TESTOSTERONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY.

Well it’s also referred to as HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY but heaven forbid since this is “T” Nation and the “T” Replacement forum (rolls eyes)

[blshaw]

@dragon1952

HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY

So you are proposing you are replacing your “lost or deficient” Nandrolone now? I’ll ignore the eye roll and keep it academic. Clearly we will agree to disagree but at least others get to see different view points.

[mnben87]

@dragon1952

Why do you think all these other steroids were created in the first place. For various medical applications.

And to bulk cattle up before slaughter, or make horses run fast. Some of the newer AAS were designed just for lifting weights and building muscle. Stuff like superdrol and epistane IIRC.

@blshaw

So you are proposing you are replacing your “lost or deficient” Nandrolone now?

Nandrolone is naturally present in the body IIRC. However, it is present in such small amounts that replacement for it would yield essentially no benefits.

[youthful55guy]

@anon18050987

I post too much detailed scientific boring stuff on here. So I am going to go out on a limb with some entertainment. Here’s my impression of nandrolone only HRT. Yes, I get some leeway here so this is effectively time lapsed

How did this post get so badly hijacked? The guy asked a simple question and somehow this has gotten into a debate over what is and is not TRT or HRT? Give it a rest and get back on topic!

[youthful55guy]

Sorry readalot. Did mean for that to be a reply to you. It was supposed to be a general reply to the thread.

[youthful55guy]

@anon18050987

What he doesn’t mention is that nandrolone can strongly upregulate beta-1 / beta-2 adrenergic receptors in the heart (dose response much more potent that testosterone):

Now that is interesting and something that I did not know. Thanks for sharing!

[wsmwannabe]

It appears that 2 of the 4 studies showed equivalent usage rates of 8mg/kg/wk, 1 mentioned 15 mg/(kgday) (I don’t know how to convert that) and one study did not specify dosage… That seems like a metric shit ton of gear. for me that would be 900 mg/wk, I’m using a little more than 1/3 of that. I understand there is inherent risk associated with all AAS usage, but these studies don’t seem to be in line with casual AAS users, and ALMOST seem like a scare tactic (not from you but from the individuals running the study).

What am I missing here? There are people much smarter than I on this forum, but this is how I interpret those studies. Can someone clarify this for me?

[unreal24278]

@anon18050987

So your sensitizing your heart to catecholamines you naturally produce and potentially changing the morphology and electrical signalling of your heart.

Dude, this is a terrific idea… But let’s turn it up a notch and add in some beta-2 agonists. Beta adrenergic receptors desensitise fairly quickly, add in something that can slightly offset this.

@anon18050987

my hypothesis is the significant effect of ND on chronic pain/join pain happens at the brain (neurotransmitters), not regeneration of the joint.

Perhaps, we don’t have enough literature to go on relating to potential pain-blunting mechanisms. Furthermore, the majority of the data we have at had pertains to rodent models. Rats have different metabolic/elimination pathways/enzymes and as a result results garnered within rodent models can differ when the same stimulus/exposure is give to a human.

I can link some data relating to the impact of nandrolone on healing rates regarding tendon rupture/injury. I don’t spend all that much time on the Pharma section nowadays. Talking about anabolic steroids online just seems like a bad idea.

@wsmwannabe

It appears that 2 of the 4 studies showed equivalent usage rates of 8mg/kg/wk, 1 mentioned 15 mg/(kgday) (I don’t know how to convert that) and one study did not specify dosage… That seems like a metric shit ton of gear. for me that would be 900 mg/wk

Not really, the concept of HED is important. A human equivalent dose for 8mg/kg for a 100kg male would be around 130mg/wk. Interestingly testosterone dosages of around 5mg/kg induce cardiac pathology within rodent models.

There’s an in-vitro study of which indicates nandrolone is likely more destructive when regarding vascular health. The study design is rather poor, but it grants further evidence to state nandrolone should probably be left out if longevity is at hand. The researchers expose endothelial cells (in vitro) to nandrolone, nandrolone metabolites, testosterone etc. Androgen concentrations were increased until 50% of the cells present had undergone apoptosis. Nandrolone did so at a concentration 11x lower than testosterone (the concentration was still massive as the effect had to be garnered within an acute timeframe)

@wsmwannabe

1 mentioned 15 mg/(kgday)

15*100 (lets say you’re 100kg) * 7
/6.2 = 1693.5

My left ventricle would explode…

@anon18050987

When I used ND along with TRT I watched my pulse pressure (systolic minus diastolic) slowly increase from 40 mmHg to over 60 mmHg. The systolic kept going up and diastolic dropped 10 points.

All AAS seem to have an effect regarding catecholamine up-regulation. Some are more sensitive to the autonomic destabilisation induced via AAS, hence arrhythmias, resting tachycardia/increased pulse rate etc. Nandrolone/19-nors and testosterone appear to be particularly potent, haven’t seen much data on other synthetics.

[wsmwannabe]

@unreal24278

@wsmwannabe

It appears that 2 of the 4 studies showed equivalent usage rates of 8mg/kg/wk, 1 mentioned 15 mg/(kgday) (I don’t know how to convert that) and one study did not specify dosage… That seems like a metric shit ton of gear. for me that would be 900 mg/wk

Not really, the concept of HED is important. A human equivalent dose for 8mg/kg for a 100kg male would be around 130mg/wk. Interestingly testosterone dosages of around 5mg/kg induce cardiac pathology within rodent models.

I was a little unclear, according to the one study, it was called out that the dosages used on rats (5mg/kg 2x/wk) were equivalent to a human using 8mg/kg/wk, which for a 100kg person would be 800 mg/wk, or for me that would be 896 mg/wk.

[unreal24278]

@blshaw

Again… not a TRT drug.

Halotestin is FDA approved for use as TRT (fluoxymesterolone). Just a cool fact not many people know about. Methyltestosterone is too, both can still currently be prescribed in the USA to treat hypogonadism. They’re terrible choices though… Not suitable for long term use (lipids, hepatic pathology etc)

[wsmwannabe]

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification.

I did just test my BP with a little home tester (so take that for whatever it’s worth), and the avg of 3 tests was 127/63. The systolic is pretty normal for me but the diastolic is a little low. I usually ride around in the high 70’s.

I’m currently running 3.125 mg/kg/wk NPP and have been on cycle for about 5.5 weeks now. I’m not sure what the value is in mentioning this, but I thought it might be worth something

[unreal24278]

@anon18050987

Since this is the TRT thread, TRT really is 50-70 mg/week of testosterone.

50-70mg seems low, if you’re referring to total amount of base hormone per week I’d be more inclined to agree. 100-125mg/wk of medium/long estered test would probably be appropriate for most. For guys with PAIS (rare) they need much more.

@anon18050987

Thinking you can do more than this without any long term consequences may be shortsided. But, the experiments are being run and we’ll see in 10-20 years.

I’d agree within relation to “any long term consequence”. That being said I don’t believe everyone who tries/uses gear will drop in their 40’s. Lifestyle/genetics play a role, it’s Russian roulette and some people will get off scot free, others will take 10 years off and occasionally some will take 40-50 years off etc.

[unreal24278]

Rodent models are also indicative of low dose T inducing cardiotoxicity. That being said, I do think it can be said nandrolone is considerably more toxic when compared to testosterone given the amount of data at our disposal

Tomorrow I’ll link some interesting data regarding rodent models + trenbolone.