So I think I'm gonna do NPP instead of test for my first cycle
- Thread starter Booger1
- Start date
Here's an idea if you're so concerned about Prostate cancer. How about NOT DOING STEROIDS AT ALL!!!
Listen dude, i don't like the pessimism, and i understand the concern, but jesus, steroids aren't everything. And beyond that, what are your stats now? Height, weight, time in the gym? I mean, if you are a little guy now, you know you can do things to grow NATURALLY right? Year after year after year.
This may sound hypocritical coming from a former competitive BBer, but my rule was, and always has been, health comes first. That doesn't mean what will kill me the slowest, or has the least chance of giving me prostate cancer (enlarged prostate whatever)... it means looking at the big picture.
If it came down to it for me, and there was any question, I would still be 200lbs and natural. Of course I got an ass like a jackhammer so the whole getting pussy thing would be irrelevant.
Seriously though, take a step back and evaluate.
Listen dude, i don't like the pessimism, and i understand the concern, but jesus, steroids aren't everything. And beyond that, what are your stats now? Height, weight, time in the gym? I mean, if you are a little guy now, you know you can do things to grow NATURALLY right? Year after year after year.
This may sound hypocritical coming from a former competitive BBer, but my rule was, and always has been, health comes first. That doesn't mean what will kill me the slowest, or has the least chance of giving me prostate cancer (enlarged prostate whatever)... it means looking at the big picture.
If it came down to it for me, and there was any question, I would still be 200lbs and natural. Of course I got an ass like a jackhammer so the whole getting pussy thing would be irrelevant.
Seriously though, take a step back and evaluate.
I am sure your ass is just as appreciated by the ladies as your opinion is by me.
I have a history of prostate trouble so yes I am concerned and I would be crazy to not be. I don't understand your suggestion that I should either be concerned about cancer or do AAS... are you suggesting that you can either be healthy or do AAS? I would like to achieve both and my purpose here was to get advise on a cycle that would allow me use AAS and WITHOUT DYING!!! (notice the use of caps and multiple exclamation marks for emphasis - I am a quick learner). I hope that I would be able to exploit the knowledge of all the helpful guys/gals on here and achieve my goal of being big and alive.
As far as you not liking my attitude - I don't give a rusty old jackhammer
Thanks for your input
bte2
I am banned!
maybe i am off base here because i know there is some research (maybe just broscience) of peptides causing growth of tumors... but i would say maybe take it easy on the androgens and look into peptides.
As far as your prostate problem i dont think there is anything that will heighten libido on an npp cycle and not further your prostate hypertrophy because the reason dht such as proviron heightens libido is that it is an active androgen in skin, scalp, and prostate, test is more active in muscle and less active (not active maybe?) in skin and scalp etc
peptides, primo, nandrolone, and test with finasteride are the only options i can think of that you could grow your muscles not your prostate
and lastly, viagra is an option for deca dick that doesnt uposet the prostate
As far as your prostate problem i dont think there is anything that will heighten libido on an npp cycle and not further your prostate hypertrophy because the reason dht such as proviron heightens libido is that it is an active androgen in skin, scalp, and prostate, test is more active in muscle and less active (not active maybe?) in skin and scalp etc
peptides, primo, nandrolone, and test with finasteride are the only options i can think of that you could grow your muscles not your prostate
and lastly, viagra is an option for deca dick that doesnt uposet the prostate
Last edited:
I am sure your ass is just as appreciated by the ladies as your opinion is by me.
I have a history of prostate trouble so yes I am concerned and I would be crazy to not be. I don't understand your suggestion that I should either be concerned about cancer or do AAS... are you suggesting that you can either be healthy or do AAS? I would like to achieve both and my purpose here was to get advise on a cycle that would allow me use AAS and WITHOUT DYING!!! (notice the use of caps and multiple exclamation marks for emphasis - I am a quick learner). I hope that I would be able to exploit the knowledge of all the helpful guys/gals on here and achieve my goal of being big and alive.
As far as you not liking my attitude - I don't give a rusty old jackhammer
Thanks for your input
you obviously missed my entire point. And do me a favor, don't edit my posts to your advantage. Because anyone can read up. As for the part in red, when did I ever say choose health or doing AAS? I didn't. I said you need to look at the big picture and evaluate what is more important. Getting big or getting DEAD.
with that being said, why not answer my question about your stats? Cycle history, weight, height will tell us volumes about you and maybe help us give you the proper advice.
Choosing the lesser of two evils when it comes to the issue of DEATH is not smart. What you hoped is that someone would agree with your desire to use NPP instead of test and you never got that so you're gonna keep asking until you get the answer you want. This is not the first thread like this and it won't be the last.
SO how about being honest, give us some stats, and we can set you in the right direction... if you'll go that way.
Last edited:
OOOOOOK so i guess some stats will help you give better advise than what has already been suggested. So let me throw some numbers at you and see what new advise you come up with. In fact, let me give you a few different stats and then you can give different cycles for each of these guys.
Remember to not mess with their prostates or keep it minimal.
Guy 1
Height: 6'6"
Weitht: 225
Cycle History: Obviously you did not read my post but maybe you can at least read the title.
Guy 2
Height: 5'10"
Weight: 125
Cycle History: Go up top and actually read the damn post again.
PS: Let me QUOTE you again, "Here's an idea if you're so concerned about Prostate cancer. How about NOT DOING STEROIDS AT ALL!!!" It seems to me that you are suggesting one can either be concerned about prostate cancer OR DO STEROIDS!!!
Last edited:
THE-DET-OAK
IncreasedMyT @ ULV
what the hell is your problem? why are you doggin RJ? just look at his avatar you imbosol you should be thankful he is even taking the time answer your ridiculous questions.
furthermore no one really even knows for sure if steroids cause prostate cancer even though there is strong correlation. most believe that when estrogen becomes dominant over test, that is what will bring it on faster.
Bottom line you dont deserve any helpful advice after your last post.
furthermore no one really even knows for sure if steroids cause prostate cancer even though there is strong correlation. most believe that when estrogen becomes dominant over test, that is what will bring it on faster.
Bottom line you dont deserve any helpful advice after your last post.
1badmofo
Shit that I say -------->
agreed, bro lose the attitude. You want advice and you are getting it. sorry you don't like what you hear
I have great respect you OAK and because I respect you and the no flaming policy on this board, will shut up now.
I agree RJ has a great body and I am sure he has paid his dues but I do believe he was unnecessarily disrespectful in his response.
THE-DET-OAK
IncreasedMyT @ ULV
ok fair enough-sorry i gotta a little mad cause you should respect veteran members of the board, they have a weird way of showing it sometimes but they post here cause they like to help. here is a great read showing that this is a very touchy subjective and somehow i dont think there is a definitive way to stop prostate cancer while using or not using steroids.
BPH caused by Testosterone or Estrogen?
In non-steroid users, older men are afflicted with BPH. This seems backwards, since BPH is supposed to be correlated with high androgens right? We know that older men have lower testosterone(and DHT) levels, so how is this possible?
Well there is 3 basic theories on what causes BPH for non-steroid users. No one yet seems to know for certain which theory is correct.
Theory 1 - Excessive estrogen levels. Older men have a higher estrogen and lower testosterone levels. According to research, the use of anti-estrogens are well documented to help shrink the prostate. The famous steroid research chemist Patrick Arnold, has claimed that there is more evidence pointing to a high estrogen to low testosterone being the cause of BPH.
Theory 2 - Despite the lowering testosterone levels( and hence DHT) levels in older men, research suggests men still probably accumulate high levels of DHT in the prostate. This would explain why people why older men can still get BPH despite declining levels of testosterone and DHT in the body. Another fact to help support this theory, is that Men who don’t produce DHT naturally due to genetic defect, also don’t develop BPH.
Theory 3 – Genetic Programmed growth. The fact that prostate cells awaken again in the mid 20’s to re-grow suggests that maybe BPH growth is programmed genetically. By the time men are in their 90’s, 90% will suffer from BPH.
Other interesting study results: In one study, when estrogen and dht were both reduced with hormonal blockers, the prostate gland actually increased in size. This is startling since if one of these hormones is to play a role in BPH, why when reducing both, did it cause prostate growth?
What causes prostate cancer?
First we must realize BPH and prostate cancer are not the same thing. BPH is a condition of excessive growth of the prostate. They do not know currently, if BPH is a pre-cursor condition to prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is actually a very common occurence in men, much more than the public is aware. It is said that most men would die of prostate cancer, if they didn’t die of something before that. Prostate cancer is usually very slow growing. Many elderly men live decades with prostate cancer and may not even know they have it.
The truth is, no one really knows what leads exactly to prostate cancer. There is a lot of conflicting data. In fact, if you look at many studies out there, most don’t even show a link between prostate cancer and higher testosterone levels. Yet, many doctors seem to believe it does. Some recent studies have shown that there was no increased risk of prostate cancer based on testosterone levels. Many doctors who put middle aged men on testosterone replacement therapy, have not seen a higher incidence of prostate cancer developing. Doctors are also usually worried about BPH from testosterone, but men have actually had a reduction in their BPH from using testosterone hormone replacement therapy to treat low testosterone.
The fear of prostate cancer by doctors, is one reason why doctors are often hesitant to do HRT(hormone replacement therapy). Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) therapy is for older men and others deficient in testosterone, to bring them up to healthy levels. The January 2004 New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) wrote that testosterone does not cause prostate cancer, but they need to be monitored, since it may stimulate hidden prostate cancer. What do they mean by hidden prostate cancers? Apparently in about half the men over age 50, they may have prostate cancer, but it is asymptomatic. In other words, it is not growing and causing harm. If they were to supplement with testosterone, according to them, it may possibly stimulate these harbored cancer cells into a aggressive form of prostate cancer. That is why doctors will check for PSA(prostae specific antigen), BPH, and have more frequent prostate exams when starting Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) therapy. PSA is a very accurate marker of existing cancer and when it goes back to zero it means the person has been cured. Testosterone therapy could “awaken” these sleeper cancer cells. This is what they theorize, yet there is no scientific research to show that this is really what happens.
What we do know, is that there is many factors that might increase the risk of prostate cancer.
1) Increased ejaculation in your 20’s. This may sound awkward, but there were some studies that recently came out with this result. They found that those who ejaculated a lot more frequently in their 20’s, had less likely occurence of prostate cancer. The prostate gland is known to hold a much higher concentration of the bodies’ toxins. The researchers believed that ejaculation may lead to “cleansing” the prostate from carcinogens (cancer causing toxins).
2) Genetics & Heredity – Prostate cancer also seems to run at a higher rate in families with a pre-disposition to it. There is currently research looking at various enzymes and prostate genes, that may be involved in developing the cancer. African americans also have a higher incidence of prostate cancer.
3) Diet/Environment – Diets high in animal fat increase incidence of prostate cancer. Men who moved from Japan where prostate cancer incidence is lower, had increased risk in their sons and grandsons when living in the U.S. Therefore, diet and other environmental factors seem to increase risk of prostate cancer.
Summary
Prostate cancer is caused by a variety of risk factors. Experts seem to continue to try and make this link between high testosterone levels (or other steroids) and prostate cancer, yet there is no real solid research proof that testosterone levels is the direct cause. There is a growing body of research showing there is no link and that it may be caused by other factors. If Testosterone and steroids caused prostate cancer, a lot of men at a young age would probably be getting prostate cancer.
BPH caused by Testosterone or Estrogen?
In non-steroid users, older men are afflicted with BPH. This seems backwards, since BPH is supposed to be correlated with high androgens right? We know that older men have lower testosterone(and DHT) levels, so how is this possible?
Well there is 3 basic theories on what causes BPH for non-steroid users. No one yet seems to know for certain which theory is correct.
Theory 1 - Excessive estrogen levels. Older men have a higher estrogen and lower testosterone levels. According to research, the use of anti-estrogens are well documented to help shrink the prostate. The famous steroid research chemist Patrick Arnold, has claimed that there is more evidence pointing to a high estrogen to low testosterone being the cause of BPH.
Theory 2 - Despite the lowering testosterone levels( and hence DHT) levels in older men, research suggests men still probably accumulate high levels of DHT in the prostate. This would explain why people why older men can still get BPH despite declining levels of testosterone and DHT in the body. Another fact to help support this theory, is that Men who don’t produce DHT naturally due to genetic defect, also don’t develop BPH.
Theory 3 – Genetic Programmed growth. The fact that prostate cells awaken again in the mid 20’s to re-grow suggests that maybe BPH growth is programmed genetically. By the time men are in their 90’s, 90% will suffer from BPH.
Other interesting study results: In one study, when estrogen and dht were both reduced with hormonal blockers, the prostate gland actually increased in size. This is startling since if one of these hormones is to play a role in BPH, why when reducing both, did it cause prostate growth?
What causes prostate cancer?
First we must realize BPH and prostate cancer are not the same thing. BPH is a condition of excessive growth of the prostate. They do not know currently, if BPH is a pre-cursor condition to prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is actually a very common occurence in men, much more than the public is aware. It is said that most men would die of prostate cancer, if they didn’t die of something before that. Prostate cancer is usually very slow growing. Many elderly men live decades with prostate cancer and may not even know they have it.
The truth is, no one really knows what leads exactly to prostate cancer. There is a lot of conflicting data. In fact, if you look at many studies out there, most don’t even show a link between prostate cancer and higher testosterone levels. Yet, many doctors seem to believe it does. Some recent studies have shown that there was no increased risk of prostate cancer based on testosterone levels. Many doctors who put middle aged men on testosterone replacement therapy, have not seen a higher incidence of prostate cancer developing. Doctors are also usually worried about BPH from testosterone, but men have actually had a reduction in their BPH from using testosterone hormone replacement therapy to treat low testosterone.
The fear of prostate cancer by doctors, is one reason why doctors are often hesitant to do HRT(hormone replacement therapy). Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) therapy is for older men and others deficient in testosterone, to bring them up to healthy levels. The January 2004 New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) wrote that testosterone does not cause prostate cancer, but they need to be monitored, since it may stimulate hidden prostate cancer. What do they mean by hidden prostate cancers? Apparently in about half the men over age 50, they may have prostate cancer, but it is asymptomatic. In other words, it is not growing and causing harm. If they were to supplement with testosterone, according to them, it may possibly stimulate these harbored cancer cells into a aggressive form of prostate cancer. That is why doctors will check for PSA(prostae specific antigen), BPH, and have more frequent prostate exams when starting Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) therapy. PSA is a very accurate marker of existing cancer and when it goes back to zero it means the person has been cured. Testosterone therapy could “awaken” these sleeper cancer cells. This is what they theorize, yet there is no scientific research to show that this is really what happens.
What we do know, is that there is many factors that might increase the risk of prostate cancer.
1) Increased ejaculation in your 20’s. This may sound awkward, but there were some studies that recently came out with this result. They found that those who ejaculated a lot more frequently in their 20’s, had less likely occurence of prostate cancer. The prostate gland is known to hold a much higher concentration of the bodies’ toxins. The researchers believed that ejaculation may lead to “cleansing” the prostate from carcinogens (cancer causing toxins).
2) Genetics & Heredity – Prostate cancer also seems to run at a higher rate in families with a pre-disposition to it. There is currently research looking at various enzymes and prostate genes, that may be involved in developing the cancer. African americans also have a higher incidence of prostate cancer.
3) Diet/Environment – Diets high in animal fat increase incidence of prostate cancer. Men who moved from Japan where prostate cancer incidence is lower, had increased risk in their sons and grandsons when living in the U.S. Therefore, diet and other environmental factors seem to increase risk of prostate cancer.
Summary
Prostate cancer is caused by a variety of risk factors. Experts seem to continue to try and make this link between high testosterone levels (or other steroids) and prostate cancer, yet there is no real solid research proof that testosterone levels is the direct cause. There is a growing body of research showing there is no link and that it may be caused by other factors. If Testosterone and steroids caused prostate cancer, a lot of men at a young age would probably be getting prostate cancer.
Just like with OAK, I have learned a lot from your post MoFO. I especially enjoyed your posts on peptides and once again I apologize to the board for violating its no flaming policy.
I do like what I hear... Mr. Humdiddly and several others who responded were of great help.
I do like what I hear... Mr. Humdiddly and several others who responded were of great help.
Last edited:
Lets hop you're not 5'10" and 125lbs.
Listen booger, i can admit when I am wrong. And I guess I missed that you are 30 and this is your first cycle.
Second, you can't flame me, because unlike most, i don't take the internet seriously. I know who I am and what i have achieved in life. So don't sweat apologizing to the other guys here on behalf of being a smart ass with me.
Now, all I was trying to say was it would seem to me that ensuring your overall health would be priority number 1. And i didn't get that from your posts. Which is why i suggested not doing steroids at all and thinking of alternatives. Honestly I could give a fuck less which way you go.
This is why i also asked for your stats. Now, why don't we stop the bickering and you tell me how tall you are and how much you weigh, BF% if you know it. You may have a long time to go naturally, even at 30 years old.
Believe it or not, I'm trying to help you. I'm just an asshole.
I am letting it go RJ.
I apologized not because of the way I responded to you but because I respect the truely helpful vets who come here to share their wisdom, because I value their advise and because I dont want to disrespect the Forum that serves as a gathering place for helpful vets and wannabes like me.
PS: 3J rocks
I apologized not because of the way I responded to you but because I respect the truely helpful vets who come here to share their wisdom, because I value their advise and because I dont want to disrespect the Forum that serves as a gathering place for helpful vets and wannabes like me.
PS: 3J rocks
Last edited:
I am letting it go RJ.
I apologized not because of the way I responded to you but because I respect the truely helpful vets who come here to share their wisdom, because I value their advise and because I dont want to disrespect the Forum that serves as a gathering place for helpful vets and wannabes like me.
PS: 3J rocks
well, i really would like to know your hgt/wght to help you out, but that last comment turned me the other way. lol
no reason to let anything go brother. Its the internet. Its a place for healthy debate. don't take it too seriously.
Mr. Humdiddly
Knowledge Receptacle
I have been collecting empirical data as of late. In the past two weeks Cyto has been backtalked to twice. RJ has caught flack 4 times. Teutonic got slammed once. DET-OAK had two mild run ins and Kane had 1 as well. Consensus dictates the level of injudiciousness in this board is elevating.
This is not limited to the vets however, had an argument with an individual who was preaching all esters are the same. Really so even though you get 26% more testosterone per milligram between TNE and Cypionate there is no difference in esters?
Makes my blood boil hence this will be my last post for a while. I am gonna do like Teutonic and Cyto and concentrate on the home front. Wasting time arguing with injudicious pricks is a waste of my life.
I will stop by now and again and I have a couple more research papers I am making for the board, but if you need me PM me cause I won't be checking posts that often till this issue gets resolved.
This is not limited to the vets however, had an argument with an individual who was preaching all esters are the same. Really so even though you get 26% more testosterone per milligram between TNE and Cypionate there is no difference in esters?
Makes my blood boil hence this will be my last post for a while. I am gonna do like Teutonic and Cyto and concentrate on the home front. Wasting time arguing with injudicious pricks is a waste of my life.
I will stop by now and again and I have a couple more research papers I am making for the board, but if you need me PM me cause I won't be checking posts that often till this issue gets resolved.
this post reads similar to Proverbs Chapter 1 vs 20 ~
but if the endless arguments from the fools cause the wise to get up and leave, all we'll be left with is fools arguing amongst themselves! honestly i wonder if witnessing the chaos that will ensue will irk you more than constantly calling out to those who refuse to listen.
either way gl hope you return soon and refreshed!
Last edited:
gorillaglue
Trenwreck
Mr. H:
I respect your education and level of knowledge, but not your arrogance, so pull the ivory tower out of your ass and save your insults ("Sigh, this is tedious, where the hell did you come up with this, etc...") and I will save mine.
You're right-Nandrolone cannot possibly be aromatized. Where did I get that idea...
I know that. I did make it far enough through 3rd grade to learn how to read. I was talking about tren. Sorry for the apparent confusion it seems to have caused you.
Really? Thank you for that; very edifying. Did I say it was the only symptom?
Without looking back at my post b/c I don't really care, IIRC, I said something like, if the OP is hellbent on running NPP for his first cycle, then it would make sense to combine it with something a bit more androgenic such as testosterone. But if solo nandrolone cycles float your boat, have at it.
Yes, finasteride isn't laced with testosterone, I will admit that much. However, if one were to run a test-only stack for example, then the inclusion of finasteride alongside the test would reduce the amount of androgenic negative feedback to the HPTA since DHT conversion would be diminished. Hence, HPTA shutdown would be reduced to some degree-it might be negligible depending on how much estrogenic negative feedback is being produced given that estrogen is much more suppresive to the HPTA in males, but the point remains. If coupled with a SERM instead of an Aromatase inhibitor (AI) to keep estrogen levels reasonable but also avoiding estro-related sides such as mammary ER stimulation (the worrisome one for most people), the finasteride/test/SERM combo would greatly reduce HPTA shutdown versus a typical test only cycle. This isn't a cycle I would run personally, but I would never run finasteride either, so I thought hypothetical discussion would be permissible instead.
My memory sucks, but ALL AAS promote increased nitrogen retention in the presence of sufficient calories and protein. The 19-nors aren't special in this regard. However, and again I guess I confused the matter by even mentioning tren, tren has signficant GR affinity and anti-glucocorticoid effects not unlike anavar. Strong suppression of cortisol on cycle due to tren, tren + var, etc can produce a significant cortisol rebound effect when the cycle ends. Consequently, it makes some degree of sense to stop the tren (for example) a few weeks before stopping testosterone (if running alongside) or else ending the tren cycle with a few weeks of replacement dosing of test before ending the cycle completely.
Cortisol rebound-where the hell did I come up with it? I read it in a book.
That's funny; I get a pretty noticeable estro rebound after just a few weeks of .625mg/day of letrozole. Very pronounced at 2.5mg a day for a few short weeks.
---------
I don't have the level of formal education that you do, nor do I care, but am I missing something here (honest, serious, no sarcasm)? I do remember reading about a direct correlation between estrogen and cortisol, but I have read a bajillion studies on letrozole, and none of them have indicated any significant effect on adrenal steroid synthesis (in contrast to its dramatic effects on estrogen). I even had an anesthesiologist friend of mine call the manufacturer of Femara directly and they said "no effect on adrenal steroid synthesis".
No, I wasn't suggesting a cycle at all, much less an oral only cycle, just possible steroids. However, if the OP is really so concerned about his prostate, he would do best to avoid AAS altogether.
No, they aren't. Testosterone is an endogenously produced AAS. It can be exogenously administered, but I kind of assumed that was obvious given the audience. The only difference of importance is that for most people, typical endogenous test levels do not adversely affect HPTA function in the manner typical of say 600mg/wk of IM test cyp.
That's your opinion...unless you have some clinical evidence you were planning to share with us to support this forum theory...
And granted, AAS-using BB'ers aren't castrated sheep (at least not in the literal sense), the few studies on trenbolone ace in animals are interesting nonetheless.
-----------
EDIT: "Backtalked to?" So it is "injudicious" to have an opinion that does not align with your own. Why is that? Because of your extensive educational credentials? Sorry (Mom), I didn't know that we weren't allowed to have our own opinions and discuss them in a semi-intelligent manner. It won't happen again, and yes, I am going to do my chores right now, before dinner, as promised. Seriously, grow up; there is no need for this high horse nonsense. Clearly I could learn a lot from you, and there are other things that you can do with your time that are more worthwhile, but it is hard to consider comments and advice when they are delivered so dogmatically, insultingly, and callously. We are all human and we are learning (well most of us are learning, I hope).
With that said, the following is not directed at Mr. H. There are definitely some people on this thread that -really- need to grow the fuck up and lose the attitude and at least give the overly helpful vets who are giving them sound advice a hearing before opening their mouths (yes, I am agreeing with Mr. H here, if I understand his above post correctly). If you can't control your poise and attitude when you are -planning- a first cycle (and a horrible one at that-NPP solo, give me a break), then what the hell do you think AAS are going to do to your negativity when you are on cycle?
I respect your education and level of knowledge, but not your arrogance, so pull the ivory tower out of your ass and save your insults ("Sigh, this is tedious, where the hell did you come up with this, etc...") and I will save mine.
-----------
-----------
-------------
-------------
You're right-Nandrolone cannot possibly be aromatized. Where did I get that idea...
I know that. I did make it far enough through 3rd grade to learn how to read. I was talking about tren. Sorry for the apparent confusion it seems to have caused you.
Really? Thank you for that; very edifying. Did I say it was the only symptom?
Without looking back at my post b/c I don't really care, IIRC, I said something like, if the OP is hellbent on running NPP for his first cycle, then it would make sense to combine it with something a bit more androgenic such as testosterone. But if solo nandrolone cycles float your boat, have at it.
Yes, finasteride isn't laced with testosterone, I will admit that much. However, if one were to run a test-only stack for example, then the inclusion of finasteride alongside the test would reduce the amount of androgenic negative feedback to the HPTA since DHT conversion would be diminished. Hence, HPTA shutdown would be reduced to some degree-it might be negligible depending on how much estrogenic negative feedback is being produced given that estrogen is much more suppresive to the HPTA in males, but the point remains. If coupled with a SERM instead of an Aromatase inhibitor (AI) to keep estrogen levels reasonable but also avoiding estro-related sides such as mammary ER stimulation (the worrisome one for most people), the finasteride/test/SERM combo would greatly reduce HPTA shutdown versus a typical test only cycle. This isn't a cycle I would run personally, but I would never run finasteride either, so I thought hypothetical discussion would be permissible instead.
My memory sucks, but ALL AAS promote increased nitrogen retention in the presence of sufficient calories and protein. The 19-nors aren't special in this regard. However, and again I guess I confused the matter by even mentioning tren, tren has signficant GR affinity and anti-glucocorticoid effects not unlike anavar. Strong suppression of cortisol on cycle due to tren, tren + var, etc can produce a significant cortisol rebound effect when the cycle ends. Consequently, it makes some degree of sense to stop the tren (for example) a few weeks before stopping testosterone (if running alongside) or else ending the tren cycle with a few weeks of replacement dosing of test before ending the cycle completely.
Cortisol rebound-where the hell did I come up with it? I read it in a book
.That's funny; I get a pretty noticeable estro rebound after just a few weeks of .625mg/day of letrozole. Very pronounced at 2.5mg a day for a few short weeks.
---------
------------
------------
-------------
I don't have the level of formal education that you do, nor do I care, but am I missing something here (honest, serious, no sarcasm)? I do remember reading about a direct correlation between estrogen and cortisol, but I have read a bajillion studies on letrozole, and none of them have indicated any significant effect on adrenal steroid synthesis (in contrast to its dramatic effects on estrogen). I even had an anesthesiologist friend of mine call the manufacturer of Femara directly and they said "no effect on adrenal steroid synthesis".
No, I wasn't suggesting a cycle at all, much less an oral only cycle, just possible steroids. However, if the OP is really so concerned about his prostate, he would do best to avoid AAS altogether.
No, they aren't. Testosterone is an endogenously produced AAS. It can be exogenously administered, but I kind of assumed that was obvious given the audience. The only difference of importance is that for most people, typical endogenous test levels do not adversely affect HPTA function in the manner typical of say 600mg/wk of IM test cyp.
That's your opinion...unless you have some clinical evidence you were planning to share with us to support this forum theory...
And granted, AAS-using BB'ers aren't castrated sheep (at least not in the literal sense), the few studies on trenbolone ace in animals are interesting nonetheless.
-----------
EDIT: "Backtalked to?" So it is "injudicious" to have an opinion that does not align with your own. Why is that? Because of your extensive educational credentials? Sorry (Mom), I didn't know that we weren't allowed to have our own opinions and discuss them in a semi-intelligent manner. It won't happen again, and yes, I am going to do my chores right now, before dinner, as promised. Seriously, grow up; there is no need for this high horse nonsense. Clearly I could learn a lot from you, and there are other things that you can do with your time that are more worthwhile, but it is hard to consider comments and advice when they are delivered so dogmatically, insultingly, and callously. We are all human and we are learning (well most of us are learning, I hope).
With that said, the following is not directed at Mr. H. There are definitely some people on this thread that -really- need to grow the fuck up and lose the attitude and at least give the overly helpful vets who are giving them sound advice a hearing before opening their mouths (yes, I am agreeing with Mr. H here, if I understand his above post correctly). If you can't control your poise and attitude when you are -planning- a first cycle (and a horrible one at that-NPP solo, give me a break), then what the hell do you think AAS are going to do to your negativity when you are on cycle?
Last edited:
gorillaglue
Trenwreck
Good post.
Prostate cancer is a very complicated subject relative to AAS use. What causes PCa doesn't necessarily contribute to its continued advancement/development/etc, and in some cases, an initially androgen-responsive line of PCa cells can become androgen-unresponsive. Interesting stuff, and like alluded to in the above posts, there isn't even a universally accepted theory of what causes PCa.
I remember reading that study about coadministration of finasteride and arimidex to beagles (I think it was beagles). The beagles' prostates enlarged substantially and testosterone levels increased a hell of a lot (like 7-10x baseline) while estrogen and DHT decreased. This was a BPH-type study, but still fascinating nonetheless.
