2months after osta/mk677 cycle and PCT bloodwork

[francosiciliano]

So I did a 6 week cycle of osta ED 25mg and mk 677 25mg ED. At the end of the 6 wks I checked my bloods and my test was at 140. That was the sign I needed to stop immediately and start pct. I did clomid 70/35/35/35 and nolva 40/20/20/20. Then I waited till this week and redid my bloods. Im not impressed with my test right now it's barely in the normal range on the low side. I was a college athlete and still have always made very good gains in performance when training so I doubt my test has always been low all my life or even recently even though Im getting very close to 40yrs old. So the question is should I do another PCT? If yes what? I have clomid and nolva on hand and can start literally today if needed. Don't know why my estrogen is low either. BTW I unfortunately was not smart enough to get blodds done before this first ever cycle of osta and Ive never taken anything other than over the counter supplements in the past.


Febuary 2016
Comp. ********* Panel (14)
Glucose, Serum 87 65-99 mg/dL 01
BUN 17 6-20 mg/dL 01

Creatinine, Serum 1.28 HIGH 0.76-1.27 mg/dL 01

eGFR If NonAfricn Am 71 >59 mL/min/1.73 01
eGFR If Africn Am 82 >59 mL/min/1.73 01
BUN/Creatinine Ratio 13 8-19 01
Sodium, Serum 141 134-144 mmol/L 01
Potassium, Serum 4.4 3.5-5.2 mmol/L 01
Chloride, Serum 100 97-108 mmol/L 01
Carbon Dioxide, Total 25 18-29 mmol/L 01
Calcium, Serum 8.8 8.7-10.2 mg/dL 01
Protein, Total, Serum 6.3 6.0-8.5 g/dL 01
Albumin, Serum 4.0 3.5-5.5 g/dL 01
Globulin, Total 2.3 1.5-4.5 g/dL 01
A/G Ratio 1.7 1.1-2.5 01
Bilirubin, Total 0.6 0.0-1.2 mg/dL 01
Alkaline Phosphatase, S 65 39-117 IU/L 01
AST (SGOT) 24 0-40 IU/L 01
ALT (SGPT) 16 0-44 IU/L 01

Testosterone, Serum
Testosterone, Serum 394 348-1197 ng/dL 01

Luteinizing Hormone(LH), S
LH 8.2 1.7-8.6 mIU/mL 01

FSH, Serum
FSH 5.9 1.5-12.4 mIU/mL 01

Estradiol
Estradiol <5.0 LOW 7.6-42.6 pg/mL 01

 

[francosiciliano]

These are my bloods from October 2015


Comp. ********* Panel (14)

Glucose, Serum 97 65-99 mg/dL 01

BUN 24 HIGH 6-20 mg/dL 01

Creatinine, Serum 1.43 HIGH 0.76-1.27 mg/dL 01

eGFR If NonAfricn Am 62 >59 mL/min/1.73 01
eGFR If Africn Am 72 >59 mL/min/1.73 01
BUN/Creatinine Ratio 17 8-19 01
Sodium, Serum 139 134-144 mmol/L 01
Potassium, Serum 5.0 3.5-5.2 mmol/L 01
Chloride, Serum 101 97-108 mmol/L 01
Carbon Dioxide, Total 24 18-29 mmol/L 01
Calcium, Serum 9.1 8.7-10.2 mg/dL 01
Protein, Total, Serum 6.5 6.0-8.5 g/dL 01
Albumin, Serum 4.3 3.5-5.5 g/dL 01
Globulin, Total 2.2 1.5-4.5 g/dL 01
A/G Ratio 2.0 1.1-2.5 01
Bilirubin, Total 0.5 0.0-1.2 mg/dL 01
Alkaline Phosphatase, S 61 39-117 IU/L 01
AST (SGOT) 35 0-40 IU/L 01

ALT (SGPT) 69 HIGH 0-44 IU/L 01

Testosterone, Serum

Testosterone, Serum 140 LOW 348-1197 ng/dL 01

Luteinizing Hormone(LH), S

LH 4.2 1.7-8.6 mIU/mL 01

FSH, Serum

FSH 3.5 1.5-12.4 mIU/mL 01


Estradiol

Estradiol 10.8 7.6-42.6 pg/mL 01
Roche ECLIA methodology

 

[juced_porkchop]

SARMS shut down your own production of test, so this is to be expected and not looked at "this indicated i needed to stop right away and do PCT" its what should be expected and why we all (most vets anyway) recommend ALWAYS using a test base, even just an HRT amount. (test is used for many functions in the body and having low- none is not the best idea)

another issue i see here is you got bloods done right after pct... you should wait a couple months after pct for this. PCT just HELPS recovery, finishing PCT doesn't necessarily mean you are or should be 100% recovered. clearly its worked to help because your T levels have gone p.
I would rec waiting till your at 8 weeks past PCT and then going for blood work and report back here with the info.


PS, there are alot of reckless shady supp/rc reps across many forums pushing SARMS as if they do not cause shutdown and try to market it like that to people that dont know anybetter. always do your own research before hand in anything you take.


dont freak out yet, give it a few more weeks or so and get more bloods, you didit too soon after pct IMO.

next time do a 12-14 week teste cycle and maybe add a SARM for the first couple months if you wish.

good luck!

 

[juced_porkchop]

also you should ALWAYS hae done blood work BEFORE cycle so you know where your at and what to aim for in recovery, now you do not know. also being 40 there is a good chance it was low to begin with and HRT is a likely good option. no point beating the fact you should have had pre-cycle blood work now..

if its been months after pct then do another of the same (clomid and tamox for 5 ish weeks) and wait a couple months and get bloods again, if not good then look into hrt.

 

[tx045]

Some people feel fine at 394tt. You'd really need previous bloodwork to establish a baseline. You never know your levels could've been close to 400 previously

 

[francosiciliano]

So to give a more accurate time line that we are talking about Ill break it down better.
OSTA ended oct16, 2015 which is a few days after I got my bloodwork done that month which is posted in my second post of this thread.
The next day oct 17, 2015 is when I started the pct of clomid and nolva until mid nov exactly 28days later. I did not get blood work done right after.
Now I just got new blood work done about 14wks later.

I feel fine but I felt totally fine when my test was 140 as well. I felt really good about 2 wks into the pct though.

Any thoughts on why my estrogen is so low?

 

[tx045]

Also wouldn't hurt to blast some hcg for a couple of weeks before you try your restart

 

[FL3X MAGNUM]

I was going to say what JP already said. It's hard to say if osta really hurt you that bad or get any idea of your baseline without a test before hand.

 

[cybrsage]

Some SARMs do not shut you down at all, but most shut you down some, and one that I know of is heavily suppressive (per the medical study about it). IMO, "some" should be treated as "all" to be on the safe side.

 

[francosiciliano]

I was going to say what JP already said. It's hard to say if osta really hurt you that bad or get any idea of your baseline without a test before hand.

Don't really know how you are making that assumption. Even if my test was exactly the same before as it is now (394) it still went down to 140 after using osta for 6 weeks. Are you saying that my test went down to 140 from something completely unrelated to osta or are you saying that a more than 50% drop in test isn't very suppressive?

 

[FL3X MAGNUM]

Don't really know how you are making that assumption. Even if my test was exactly the same before as it is now (394) it still went down to 140 after using osta for 6 weeks. Are you saying that my test went down to 140 from something completely unrelated to osta or are you saying that a more than 50% drop in test isn't very suppressive?

No I was trying to say maybe your test was low to begin with and the osta didn't drop it much. You got your tests back, saw it was low, and your PCT supplements actually raised it to higher than it was before you were even on osta.

 

[cybrsage]

People are saying that it is hard to know what effects the SARMs had without having a "before using SARMs" baseline to use as a guide. My baseline test level is 153...so yeah, I am on TRT for life. Had I used SARMs without having a baseline done I would be shocked at how low my test level was after using SARMs and naturally blamed them for the super low level...even if all I used was GW50 (which is 100% non-suppressive) So basically people are saying a before use blood test is vital for restoring normal operation of your systems - without that you do not know what normal is for you.

 

[tx045]

Did you make any gains

 

[francosiciliano]

I would say whatever gains I made they were minimal. Maybe 2lbs at best. I think if I would have been on hcg at the time to maintain my natural test level I would have made better gains.

 

[anzel]

Does anybody make any noticing gains with sarms or ppar's?

 

[cybrsage]

PPARs, such as GW, give me a HUGE HUGE HUGE boost in endurance. It is very noticeable for me.

 

[anzel]

Once I read that gw was dropped I'm research due to its causing cancer in animal studies I scratched that one off!
Anything g else? Osta? Anybody see gains?

 

[cybrsage]

Once I read that gw was dropped I'm research due to its causing cancer in animal studies I scratched that one off!
Anything g else? Osta? Anybody see gains?

Cancers were triggered at 10mg/kg/day. They claim "all doses" in the studies, but the only dose lower than 10mg/kg/day was no dose at all...and you cannot blame GW50 if mice and rats got cancer while NOT taking it. But let that dose amount sink in a bit. I weigh around 84kg, which means I would need to drink down 840mg a day to be at their LOWEST dose!!!! My god man, at that level I am not surprised it did not cause spontaneous combustion of the mice and rats! When I run GW50, I run it as 30mg a day, which is a full 28 times lower than that used in the study. Most people only take 20mg a day, which is 42 times lower! So yeah, I would not worry about cancer from a measly 20 - 30mg a day of GW50.

But a replacement for GW50 is AICAR. I have a bottle of GW50 on its way to me and then I will compare it to AICAR in my AICAR log thread I started. If memory serves me properly, I think I liked GW50 better for endurance, but I want to be able to quantify how much better it is, so I am withholding judgement until I run some GW50 again. I am getting everything from the same source, SarmsSource, so I do not introduce any additional variables into the mix (like I would if I used two different companies). You can find my AICAR log here, it also includes a link to my write up about AICAR and how it works: http://www.steroidology.com/forum/anabolic-steroid-forum/683980-aicar-vs-gw50-endurance-etc.html How it works can be found here: http://www.steroidology.com/forum/a...carboxamide-ribonucleotide-how-does-work.html

 

[anzel]

Ok good reply and I like a healthy debate so allow me to continue and postulate this...
At the dose Given to the rats they saw cancer but they also saw the benefits that humans take it for such as fat reduction and endurance. Didn't the scientist give them the high dose in order to make those positive gains happen to begin with? In oth e r words I they gave them a lower dose nothing would have happened. In other other words they had to keep increasing the dose until they saw the benefits. And just then while they are all giving high fives someone sees cancer and they pull the plug.

So here s my logic. If the dose was too high that it caused cancer and they pulled the plug then that means a lower dose had no benefits either. They would have just lowered the dose till there was no cancer report and enjoy the benefits

 

[anzel]

All drugs are dangerous at some dosage but they still sell them based on a safe dose that they figure out. Does the drug help without hurting?
So why did they abandon a drug that showed certain benefits if the dose was all wrong? Why not just lower the dose?