Trenbolone for HRT - Better than testosterone?

[Sworder]

Has the thought crossed your mind that testosterone is not the optimal androgen? I mean we all take medications to produce an effect that we believe is better, is there an androgen that is better tailored for longevity and wellness?

Consider CANCER, prostate cancer being the most prevalent one in males and is of great concern to every male as we age. Testosterone converts to DHT which is an androgen that targets prostate specific tissue. Sure, there isn't conclusive evidence that an excess in androgens will lead to prostate cancer BUT we can assume the less prostate related AR activation we endure, the better.

So, now would I personally move on to trenbolone HRT? Hell yes I would, IF there were some modifications done to the program. The main problem I see with trenbolone is the lack of aromatase, personally with testosterone I aromatase way too much I do not like that compound. Seriously, but if you consider that hCG would be prescribed along side the HRT that should give you enough estrogen to be healthy AND reduce the need for an AI. Hematocrit levels would improve to the point so that you do not have to donate blood every two months. If you consider the guys on HRT here, we all like a lot of androgens. The supraphysiological levels of testosterone produces supraphysiological levels of estrogen as well and then we have to supply an AI to combat the effects of testosterone .

I am not saying that trenbolone is the best androgen that should be used, but I believe that we should at least have an open mind to the possibility of using other androgens to optimize our health. Other androgens + hCG may be a better option. Masteron and hCG perhaps, the competition of estrogen at the receptor may be advantageous if hCG brings your e2 too high.

Mainpoints: Try to move away from testosterone as the main problem with testosterone is the DHT conversion leading to possible PROSTATE CANCER and supraphysiological levels of e2.

What are your opinions? Is testosterone the best androgen for HRT and why? What are the CONS of testosterone use that possibly other androgens can bypass?


17β-Hydroxyestra-4,9,11-trien-3-one (trenbolone) exhibits tissue selective anabolic activity: effects on muscle, bone, adiposity, hemoglobin, and prostate
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/300/4/E650.full

Abstract

Selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs ) now under development can protect against muscle and bone loss without causing prostate growth or polycythemia. 17β-Hydroxyestra-4,9,11-trien-3-one (trenbolone), a potent testosterone analog, may have SARM-like actions because, unlike testosterone, trenbolone does not undergo tissue-specific 5α-reduction to form more potent androgens. We tested the hypothesis that trenbolone-enanthate (TREN ) might prevent orchiectomy-induced losses in muscle and bone and visceral fat accumulation without increasing prostate mass or resulting in adverse hemoglobin elevations. Male F344 rats aged 3 mo underwent orchiectomy or remained intact and were administered graded doses of TREN, supraphysiological testosterone-enanthate, or vehicle for 29 days. In both intact and orchiectomized animals, all TREN doses and supraphysiological testosterone-enanthate augmented androgen-sensitive levator ani/bulbocavernosus muscle mass by 35–40% above shams (P ≤ 0.001) and produced a dose-dependent partial protection against orchiectomy-induced total and trabecular bone mineral density losses (P < 0.05) and visceral fat accumulation (P < 0.05). The lowest doses of TREN successfully maintained prostate mass and hemoglobin concentrations at sham levels in both intact and orchiectomized animals, whereas supraphysiological testosterone-enanthate and high-dose TREN elevated prostate mass by 84 and 68%, respectively (P < 0.01). In summary, low-dose administration of the non-5α-reducible androgen TREN maintains prostate mass and hemoglobin concentrations near the level of shams while producing potent myotrophic actions in skeletal muscle and partial protection against orchiectomy-induced bone loss and visceral fat accumulation. Our findings indicate that TREN has advantages over supraphysiological testosterone and supports the need for future preclinical studies examining the viability of TREN as an option for androgen replacement therapy.

[kelkel]

Interesting article and theory. Always thinking outside the box which is intriguing to me. Obviously the caveat to this is the medical community. Assuming there is a plethora of evidence and long-term studies it would still takes years for any accepted and legal change in their way of thinking. TRT is becoming more mainstream but look how far off base so many doctors are when it comes to understanding the simple basics of it.

When we introduce HCG we elevate test as well as DHT, just to a lesser extent than with T. That, in and of itself would reduce the need for 5-AR-I's as well as AI's to some (probably large) degree. The addition of Tren at a very low dose, based on it being about 5 X more powerful than Test would be interesting "long term" to see how it is handled by the normal HRT-ers and their reaction to it.

Is test the best androgen for TRT? Unknown at this time and I consider myself rather well read. It is whats legally available to us right now which limits us. The problem with Test is what you noted, as well as IMO the over use of it in TRT, e.g. unnecessarily and / or overly prescribed by doc's lacking an understanding of hormones and what is needed to maximize ones endogenous production first and foremost. Meaning lifestyle changes, exercise, nutrition and proper supplementation can do wonders. Unfortunately we live in a society where instant gratification comes first and slow change is disdained. So many people could make simple changes and avoid TRT with just a little effort.

Very interesting though. By chance have you run any BW with your current similar protocol to see how things look?

kel

[Sworder]

Yes, but the main point of the hCG wouldn't be the testosterone . It would to get estrogen up to a sweet spot i.e. 20pg/dl. That is honestly the only reason for it, using an EOD protocol and checking it regularly would be of essence to dial in so that your estrogen is perfect. I was considering the possibility of incorporating a minimal amount of estrogen into the trenbolone mix to achieve it. But I know how much the guys love their hCG and I agree it's a great compound. Sure the testosterone would have to become a certain level for estrogen to get to a certain point, I don't know how to avoid this. Possible as stated including some estrogen in HRT compound.

The main problems are that would be avoided are the hematocrit, prostate AR activation possibly avoiding cancer and high e2.

I believe that SARMs are a great idea, there is so much research that needs to be done but the designer HRT drug of the future is certainly going to be a SARM. The cons of testosterone are listed and will be avoided, sooner or later.

The research needed to get some sort of data will probably never be done clinically, you would need a cohort of 300 guys and following them through out their lives to notice any cumulative negative effects or the positive effects. The largest benefit I see is prostate cancer and I believe that the PrC rate will be reduced. Another great compound that would be great to look in a clinical setting would be yearly Nandrolone treatment for osteoporosis in women. There are so many drugs that are possible to improve our health and longivity. They have been shown as well in animals to improve certain symptoms, it becomes an ethical argument if you were to introduce them to humans for research. The information is widely available and for personal health or to look out for your family there are possibilities to take advantage.

As of yet don't have complete labs, I want to wait a longer time to things stabilize and there wouldn't be any refutes based on short duration i.e. 2 months. So far I am glad that my hematocrit isn't blowing the roof off and no AI needs to be used, I would be counting the days until I can donate before. I am very sensitive to my hematocrit and can tell right away when it is high, head aches and lethargy mainly.

[kelkel]

Agree. I know your point re HCG and why. Interested in seeing your BW. If you don't plan on posting it I would appreciate letting me know if you don't mind.

kel

[Sworder]

Yes, I will make a post.

I would love to hear more opinions on this! Not looking to make it a discussion, just hearing opinions

[JohnnyVegas]

I don't have the knowledge base that many here have, so I will ask this:

Wouldn't Tren shut us down and we would then have zero Test for things like erections and libido? I don't need my TRT for building muscle - I can take anything I want for that. The Test I take is for quality of life. Energy, libido, sexual function, sleep, etc. Does Tren offer the same benefits?

[Sworder]

Yes, there are many androgens out there that offer the same as testosterone in terms of libido, energy, and sleep. The replacement dose of trenbolone would be very low.

Many think that testosterone is the only thing that can help erections and libido, this is not correct! An androgen that binds relatively well to the AR and a healthy amount of estrogen is the hormonal foundation to libido.

[Far from massive]

While this may be a fun topic to post, I really don't see any possibility for medical acceptance.

Testosterone is of course a naturally occuring hormone and these days when levels drop due to age or other reasons bringing them back up to par with exogenous Testosterone is considered a viable option with acceptable risks. To instead replace the lost Testosterone with Trenbolone would really be stepping into an area of unknown long and short term risks that the medical community would be very unlikely to want to explore. Myself I think it rather unlikely that in the abscense of sufficient testosterone levels due to the shutdown brought on by the Tren that a miriad of problems would not be seen in long term usage that would far outweigh the problems seen in Testosterone based TRT.

[TennTarheel]

I seriously doubt it would ever happen bc of the iron wall that is the medical community, but DAMN It would be awesome. Tren is by far the best all around Andro there is.

[AD]

its probably safer, more natural, and more logical, to treat testosterone deficiency with testosterone replacement .

[Sworder]

its probably safer, more natural, and more logical, to treat testosterone deficiency with testosterone replacement.

Sure, at first glance. There are certain problems that occur with testosterone replacement that may be problematic. The main one in my opinion is its effect on the prostate and the venue to bypass the issue via alternative androgens exists, as they are trying to do with SARMs . More importantly, supraphysiological levels of testosterone are a lot worst than low dose trenbolone which will yield the same benefits in terms of libido, energy, muscular hypertrophy and visceral fat reduction. If you consider all the TRT patients which either use an AI or donate blood regularly, trenbolone would be a better option for them in terms of benefits/risks, in my opinion.

People always fear the unknown, get an understanding about different compounds and you will see there isn't much to fear. Start by reading the article and the effects it produces.

[HRTstudent]

If through thousands of years of evolution our bodies came up with testosterone ... I'm willing to bet there is a good reason for it.

If you don't believe at all in evolution of course, then, can you really expect to outsmart God?!

[HEVEW8]

After my high hematocrit scare I had, I looked into changing compounds... I thought that maybe I had a reaction to test cyp... I had a phlibodomy, and lowered the dose... Also switched to sub q injections... If one was to try Trenbolone -Acetate, could it be injected subQ, or dose it have to be IM? Also since tren is more powerful, would the dose need to be lowered, so if your on 100mg of test cyp per wk, what would the equivalent be of tren?

[AD]

i just read your article. the last para seems to have answered most questions.

[Sworder]

After my high hematocrit scare I had, I looked into changing compounds... I thought that maybe I had a reaction to test cyp... I had a phlibodomy, and lowered the dose... Also switched to sub q injections... If one was to try Trenbolone-Acetate, could it be injected subQ, or dose it have to be IM? Also since tren is more powerful, would the dose need to be lowered, so if your on 100mg of test cyp per wk, what would the equivalent be of tren?

It's nothing you should implement or think about doing. It's merely stimulating thought, as I have stated I believe SARMs are the future of HRT once they are formulated correctly to avoid the issues with TRT. Prostate cancer being the biggest problem, as is the supraphysiological estrogen and hematocrit.

If you don't believe at all in evolution of course, then, can you really expect to outsmart God?!

Yes, I do!
Simply, there are negative issues associated with testosterone replacement therapy and there are other androgens that can do the same job as testosterone without negative effects. I believe it is something worth pursuing as do the people who are developing these SARMs for HRT.

[Sworder]

i just read your article. the last para seems to have answered most questions.

It is pretty interesting, I am not saying trenbolone is the ultimate androgen for this and I hope I have made it clear that this would be for the guys that are constantly at supraphysiological levels as determined by their own body via aromatase or hematocrit. The partial inhibition to boneloss would be countered by supplying with estrogen, that is the major fallacy of trenbolone.

In conclusion, administration of TREN , a potent non-5α-reducible and nonestrogenic synthetic testosterone analog, produces robust myotrophic effects, partial inhibition of bone loss, prevention of visceral fat accumulation, and maintenance of Hb and prostate mass at the level of intact animals, at least at the lowest dose administered. These results suggest that lower-dose TREN induces favorable SARM-like effects on musculoskeletal tissue and adiposity and within specific accessory sex organs. Future research examining the safety and efficacy of this androgen in preclinical settings appears to be appropriate because the anabolic/androgenic ratio appears to be higher and because the risk/benefit ratio appears to be less than that of supraphysiological TE, at least in regard to prostate enlargement, although evaluating TREN and other SARMs in models of androgen-responsive prostate cancer is necessary prior to these agents being recommended for clinical testing.

[marcus300]

You replace testosterone deficiency with testosterone therapy and if this therapy is at the right levels you shouldn't be getting any negative side effects only benefits, the main reason why you hear of such sides is because of higher amounts of therapy, yes and of course we can always find studies stating the opposite of everything but in the real life world the right amounts of trt for people with low testosterone show far more positives than negatives.

Many Doctors put patients on to higher amount which in turn creates negative sides. There are studies showing that testosterone therapy reduces prostate cancer and also demonstrated no difference in prostate cancer incidents among hypogonadal men using trt compared with men in the general population and while we are at it isn't there loads of studies on humans showing a lower chance of heart disease in trt patients.

I'm not even going to go into trying to educate you on tren sides even at low dose because even someone like you with zero experience should know these things but to post yet another study what is done on rats tells me your blind at what you truely look like. I am sorry if this might upset you because its not my intention but you do talk such rubbish and you must be the no1 imbecile currently on here. Not only do you copy and paste nearly everything you post from other forums to try and look good but you are so irritating because you seem to walk around with your head in the sand even after the knowledgeable guys/staff on here have numerous times tried to educate you and put you right on many topics. My advice to you is to listen to people and learn and take your head out of the sand

I am going to have to stop looking at your posts from now on because Christmas is coming and its the time to have fun and enjoy yourself and reading your posts just doesnt do that for me






note to self - dont read anymore posts by sworderbull

[Vettester]

LMFAO!!! Agree with TRT and balance. Keep just the right amount in the system and the body will more than likely have a very good chance to achieve homeostasis.

[Sworder]

@Marcus300

I find it funny that you can write such a large post that contains little to no points. I am not upset because I see no points which prove this wrong. Educate you on "tren sides", yeah, really please do. HRT patients are not going to be taking 200mg Tren E/day, like you would for a cycle.

Now I don't know what upsets you more, that my points are actually valid or that you cannot refute them. I haven't seen anybody in this thread do the latter so the topic still stands.

Sincerely and respectfully, Sworderbull

EDIT: You do have some good points, but I don't see them pertaining to the subject directly.

[jimmyinkedup]

The potential issue i see would be lipid values. Progesterone plays hell on lipids. Estrogen does not - in fact it improves lipid profile. The question I would have is would long term progestin use wreak havoc on our lipid profile? The hcg alongside for e2 makes sense if it can be dialed in properly. Can there be a balance achieve between e2/progesterone to allow for proper lipid metabolism/values? I dont know. there are also isues of toxicity with tren that do not exist with test. Will the lower doses make this insignificant? Or will long term low dose tren therapy create the same potential issues as far as hepatic and possibly renal issues.
I read a lot of broscience about how tren isn't bad on liver/ kidneys - the metabolites make your piss brown etc. Well maybe so but all I know is that when i tried methyltren for the first (and only) time , at a moderate dose , within 3 weeks i was in the hospital with rhabdomyolosis and going into renal failure. So tren does some toxic things to the body. Now granted that was oral tren etc..im just saying. The likelihood is the rhabdo triggered the renal failure as the rapid breakdown of skeletal muscle placed strain on the kidneys. I do not know - some here would be better able to answer.
So overall the 2 questions or concerns I would pose are
1- lipid profile management
2 - low dose / long term toxicity issues - do they exist and to what degree.

To a lesser degree I think one also needs to look at the back filling of hormonal pathway ie: preg / dhea ..will it be the same etc.
This would/should be done under strict supervision with regular blood work so these questions can be answered.
Sworder do you think the future holds a revalor type product for humans? That may eliminate the need for the hcg altogether? A tren/estrodiol all in one ?

[lovbyts]

In regards to low level toxicity over long term exposure this is one study I found they did in fish due to cattle run off.

A systematic review has shown that a number of endocrine disruptors with steroid -modulating effects may also exert mutagenic and carcinogenic activities. For trenbolone , an androgenic compound, there is controversy about its genotoxic properties in the literature, apparently with a strong dependence on the choice of the test system. Since fish and other aquatic animals are at risk of exposure to run-offs from cattle feedlots or sewage-discharge sites containing trenbolone, potential consequences to aquatic ecosystems need to be assessed. To this end, the potential genotoxic hazard of trenbolone was tested in vitro in the permanent rainbow trout-liver cell-line RTL-W1, as well as in primary cell cultures derived from zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryos after in vivo exposure. In either test system, a potential genotoxic hazard characterized by biphasic dose-response curves could be documented even at exposure concentrations of 30μg/L. These results thus confirm the conclusion that the steroid trenbolone may act as a genotoxic substance.

[bigboy67]

wouldnt there be issues with long term Tren usage with regards to prolactin levels as well? Unless you dont mind leaky nipples and all....

[Sworder]

@Jimmy

Great post. I do not know how trenbolone would affect a lipid panel! As you know, testosterone replacement therapy that drives test/estrogen supraphysiological causes a poor lipid panel. Then add an AI such as Arimidex which has been known to cause lipid imbalances. I believe the more appropriate question would which would effect lipid values the most? Test + AI or trenbolone.

I was thinking about how much "progesterone like activity" trenbolone has. A good marker I believe is in the fluid retention as progesterone is a diuretic and would cut you up. I have heard people complain about trenbolone "drying" up, I personally do not find trenbolone to produce this effect. Although, it may act like progesterone on different tissues. The activity is unknown in the end but honestly I do not believe it to act very much like progesterone. Nandrolone is supposed to act like progesterone as well, I do not believe that I see that very much with nandrolone either. There is binding but not very much activity that progesterone has, from the data I have seen. Speaking of nandrolone, somebody I know cruises on I think it is 100-150mg Nandrolone/week, but I haven't asked how his lipid panels look like.

Yes, the pathways of the metabolites of trenbolone are different and the effects would be cumulative. The liver and kidney effects are largely unknown and the doses used to produce any negative effects that "bros" have complained about is 8-12 times more than the HRT dose of trenbolone which would probably be around 0.4mgxKG/week. You can guess what effects 1000-1500mg testosterone /week would have.

Honestly, to by-pass the DHT conversion which is one of the main concerns of testosterone in regard to prostate cancer is preferable and most advantageous . HCG is useful and I like it too, but there are some hormonal aspects that are bad and I think optimally hCG should be left out and a trenbolone/estrogen combination would be preferable. It is very new to incorporate hCG in HRT and in that protocol it is beneficial I agree. The point is to look at the problems testosterone produces and think of a compound that would work around those.

SARMs will definitely be the future of HRT, avoiding all the bad tissue responses and only producing the positive effects is the objective. I was going to write the post in regards to SARMs first but I changed it to trenbolone for it's incredible anabolic effects compared to testosterone. The SARM would need some conversion to estrogen as well at a lesser ratio than testosterone OR estrogen would have to be included as well.

Again, the trenbolone HRT is mainly aimed at those TRT patients which regularly are at or pushing supraphysiological levels so they require therapeutic phlebotomy and/or an aromatase inhibitor.

It would still be very interesting to the conservative TRT patient in an attempt to work around prostate cancer.

wouldnt there be issues with long term Tren usage with regards to prolactin levels as well? Unless you dont mind leaky nipples and all....

I have seen estrogen been correlated strongly to elevated prolactin levels, not trenbolone. Have you? My opinion on prolactin and Tren /Deca is found here.

[TennTarheel]

Tren , alone, Absolutely has a "drying out" effect. It also lowers your HDL readings tremendously, as well as cause gyno and erectile issues even at low doses.

[Sworder]

It also lowers your HDL readings tremendously, as well as cause gyno and erectile issues even at low doses.

Myth, myth, myth.

Please provide support for the mechanism of action for any of the things you are describing. Unless you can't because there is no such thing..

The drying out effect I have heard and I could describe how that would work if it was true, I personally haven't found it to be true with trenbolone and definitely not nandrolone so I am still iffy on that one. A reason to why people report it is because they ran trenbolone only and estrogen was lowered so their fluid retention decreased.

[TennTarheel]

Facts, all of them. I've personally seen it in more than a few guys.

[Sworder]

Ok, I just didn't want you to post anecdotes of other people, which may have more than one variable than trenbolone . Thanks for your input, it weighs heavy in the interest of science.

Keep in mind how many times you see guys on testosterone only cycles whom have a lack of libido. Has to be the testosterone right?

[TennTarheel]

No other variables. You just don't have experience with it. Anecdotal evidence is where the rubber meets the road.

[Sworder]

Definitely and thanks for the skid marks

[HRTstudent]

It's nothing you should implement or think about doing. It's merely stimulating thought, as I have stated I believe SARMs are the future of HRT once they are formulated correctly to avoid the issues with TRT. Prostate cancer being the biggest problem, as is the supraphysiological estrogen and hematocrit.



Yes, I do!
Simply, there are negative issues associated with testosterone replacement therapy and there are other androgens that can do the same job as testosterone without negative effects. I believe it is something worth pursuing as do the people who are developing these SARMs for HRT.

There is a big difference between SARMS and the common testosterone derivatives! Keep in mind, these testosterone derivatives were all developed by pharma and the medical institutions to try to extract the positive effects of testosterone and minimize the negatives. Clearly they didn't work that well except in certain situations and only for a small handful of drugs.

The side effects you listed are largely avoidable, and some doctors seem to have very good success (Dr Mark Gordon was recently mentioned). And prostate cancer is not increased from TRT...

Regardless, expecting to outsmart these many millions of years of evolution is a fool's game! Just work with it but don't try to rewrite the whole script, I say!

[Sworder]

And prostate cancer is not increased from TRT...

I never said that, I said testosterone converts to DHT; DHT is an androgen that is very active in the prostate. If you would switch out testosterone(DHT) and run on another compound that isn't as active in the prostate you might be able to avoid cancer.

[Juced_porkchop]

I thinks its a bad idea, regardless of dose.
mood, energy and the restof other negative effects... for what exactly?
Ill stick to testosterone ..

and DHT does NOT CAUSE cancer, just like hGH dosn't CAUSE cancer.
If you HAVE cancer thats another case and many hormones can play a role in its growth, hrt would differ with cancer along with AI's and other anti-cancer drugs used.

Personally I would not EVER rec tren as hrt... I could give care less how androgenic it is, that's not my concern... its the other issues/effect from tren I care about.

[Sworder]

@HRTstudent

If the side effects are largely avoidable, why is there so many guys talking about hematocrit and estrogen management? It's because they want more out of the testosterone and suffer negative consequences. I have stated three or four times that this is largely directed at guys that are balancing on supra levels.

Yes, on the molecular level there is a large difference between SARMs and other AAS. They both have the same goal and you mentioned, extract positive effects of testosterone and minimize the negatives.

Millions of years of evolution? From Homo Erectus LMAO, you know that during the past 100 years we have dropped our testosterone levels significantly. Wonder why... Just showing that your idea of evolution would be congruent with my theory the less testosterone the better Also, got any peer-reviewed studies that God exists?

Medicine is based on fighting the diseases and problems nature has provided for us. That whole "the is a reason for why it is that way" is illogical and goes against medicine. Medicine sees faults and tries to correct them.

[TennTarheel]

I thinks its a bad idea, regardless of dose.
mood, energy and the restof other negative effects... for what exactly?
Ill stick to testosterone ..

and DHT does NOT CAUSE cancer, just like hGH dosn't CAUSE cancer.
If you HAVE cancer thats another case and many hormones can play a role in its growth, hrt would differ with cancer along with AI's and other anti-cancer drugs used.

Personally I would not EVER rec tren as hrt... I could give care less how androgenic it is, that's not my concern... its the other issues/effect from tren I care about.

Yes, it only exacerbates a problem that is already there. Speeds the process so to speak

[Sworder]

@Juced_porkchop

For what exactly? I believe I was very specific in why you would want another androgen than testosterone , the main purpose is to avoid the DHT conversion and excessive aromatase/hematocrit.

DHT does not cause cancer right? Sure, it doesn't. You know the enzyme that converts testosterone to DHT, 5 alpha reductase(5AR). Some men have something called 5 Alpha Reductase Deficiency Syndrome, as the name implies. This results in less DHT conversion from testosterone. Do you think that these men have a high chance of cancer? No they do not!

As supported by:
5alpha-reductase isozymes and androgen actions in the prostate.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19250191

Abstract

Androgens acting via the androgen receptor play critical roles in prostate development, growth, and pathogenesis. There are two potent androgens, testosterone and dihydrotestosterone (DHT), in humans and mammals. DHT is converted from testosterone by 5alpha-reductase isozymes. Two 5alpha-reductase isozymes have been identified. Although both isozymes are expressed, 5alpha-reductase-2 is the predominant isozyme in the human prostate. Mutations in 5alpha-reductase-2 gene cause the 5alpha-reductase-2 deficiency syndrome. Affected 46, XY individuals have a small, nonpalpable, and rudimentary prostate in adulthood. Neither benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) nor prostate cancer has been reported in these patients. The prostate is small in animals with 5alpha-reductase-2 gene knockout or treated with specific 5alpha-reductase inhibitors. 5alpha-reductase isozymes are molecular targets for the prevention and treatment of BPH and prostate cancer. Moreover, androgen actions on prostate gene expression and cell growth are directly modulated by estrogen receptor ligands via protein-protein interactions. The studies of 5alpha-reductases and androgen actions highlight the importance of 5alpha-reductase isozymes in male sexual differentiation and prostate physiology and pathophysiology.


Also why are you saying that tren is androgenic ? It has the same ratio as testosterone in most tests, 1:1. DHT on the other hand is the most androgenic, 1:1.75. Stick to testosterone, as would I. Testosterone is a great hormones, it's the 5AR enzymes that causes problems later on in life after male traits have been established.

Also, here the epidemiology of prostate cancer. I believe hormones play a part in the causation, do you?

Prostate cancer epidemiology
http://www.bioscience.org/u37153137/.../1891/1891.pdf

[Far from massive]

One medical journal article looking for notoriety does not equal a new horizon in HRT therapy.

As far as SARMs being the future of HRT talk about jumping from the griddle into the frying pan. I just don't see the benefit in trading the sides sometimes seen with low dose Test for those sometimes seen with SARMS.

[Sworder]

One medical journal article looking for notoriety does not equal a new horizon in HRT therapy.
As far as SARMs being the future of HRT talk about jumping from the griddle into the frying pan. I just don't see the benefit in trading the sides sometimes seen with low dose Test for those sometimes seen with SARMS.

It's one medical study that I have chosen to incorporate to prove my point. Are you refuting it based on any information or data or are you metaphorically closing your mind and saying nay?

I am not equating a new horizon in HRTherapy to a "medical journal", you did. I am explaining the problems testosterone (mainly DHT) can cause and possibilities around it.

SARMs are in their infant stage, they will undoubtedly be the future of HRT. Why do you think men live shorter lives than women? Could there be some hormonal differences between the two? Do you believe that if we could develop a hormone substitute that would improve longevity, wellness, and anti-aging we would use it?

[Sworder]

You know the enzyme that converts testosterone to DHT, 5 alpha reductase(5AR). Some men have something called 5 Alpha Reductase Deficiency Syndrome, as the name implies. This results in less DHT conversion from testosterone. Do you think that these men have a high chance of cancer? No they do not!

Yes, but these men already have a developed prostate. If a person is 5AR deficient he will never develop a normal sized prostate as do the HRT patients for which you are suggesting this for. So no, it is not agreed that 5AR deficiency would result in a lower probability for prostate cancer. What would be interesting would be to take a person who has a developed prostate and then selectively block 5AR enzymes. That being said, 5AR inhibitors would be effective in reducing PrC probability in that case. I guess you are right, found this study:

Effect of Dutasteride on the Risk of Prostate Cancer
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...icleDiscussion
The 5α-reductase inhibitors that are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia block the conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone and may reduce the risk of prostate cancer.1 The results of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial showed that finasteride, as compared with placebo, reduced the risk of prostate cancer by 25%, but among the tumors that were detected, there was a 27% increase in the number of those that had Gleason scores of 7 to 10.2 (The Gleason score is the sum of the two most common histologic patterns or grades in a prostate tumor, each of which is graded on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most cytologically aggressive.) A subsequent analysis showed that the odds ratio for tumors with Gleason scores of 7 to 10 in the finasteride group decreased from 1.27 to 1.03 in a logistic model that included both baseline variables that are known to affect the risk of cancer and the post-baseline prostate volume.3 Guidance on the use of 5α-reductase inhibitors to prevent prostate cancer has been published recently.4

There are two isoforms of 5α-reductase, type 1 and type 2. Expression of type 1 in the prostate is enhanced during the development of prostate cancer, whereas the expression of type 2 is decreased or unchanged.5,6 Unlike finasteride, dutasteride inhibits both isoforms of 5α-reductase. 7 In this trial, we examined the effect of dutasteride on the incidence of prostate cancer detected on biopsy among men at increased risk for the disease



So the main question could now be, to produce a "healthier" 5AR inhibitor or for "HRT therapy" patients to switch to a different androgen.




*Note Had a funny thought while buying groceries and when I came home I double checked to see if the theory would be supported. I like finding arguments for my own theories, which is often why I present them to see if I can get something insightful. Jimmy had a good post!

[Sgt. Hartman]

Myth, myth, myth.

Please provide support for the mechanism of action for any of the things you are describing. Unless you can't because there is no such thing..

Are you really trying to say that androgens (especially the strongest androgenic compounds like tren ) don't negatively effect lipoproteins?

[Capebuffalo]

Sworder. I am curious. You seem to have a lot of cut and paste knowledge. Do you have any practical experience? Would you mind telling me how many cycles you have done and what compounds you have actually used? And the results and sides you experienced. You never have given any personal experiences in any of your post I have read. Please and thank you.