Blood test results bad after a year off

**jinos** · 09-07-2006, 10:02 AM

Hey bros,

What the hell is going on? Before I started any cycles, my test levels were
around 500. Last year I did a 10 week cycle(test/deca /dbol ) with proper pct.
I did my blood test 4 months after and my total test was 127. So I decided to lay off and go natural for a year. I still didn't feel the same (weak, tired, lazy,etc) so I got my bloodwork done last week and sad to say but total test was 230. My doc wants to put me on HRT. Free Test was about 2.25%. This really sucks after following everything. I'm 26 and been training for 6 years. I've only done 3 cycles(all the same pretty much) and now I don't know what to do. I don't want HRT. I've tried Tongkat, Test boosters, etc, and nothing works. I've lost more muscle than when I was natural. What should I do?

**The_Canibal** · 09-07-2006, 10:07 AM

that sux...your free test??what was the value

free test doesn't really mean that much ..free one does the trick

**vitor** · 09-07-2006, 10:16 AM

That "really" sucks...

If I where you I would go on HRT. Your gains and libido will come right back. Having natrually low testosterone levels is a lot worse than having to stick yourselves regulary with a needle IMHO.

**stupidhippo** · 09-07-2006, 10:27 AM

this does bring up a good point though.. I suspect this is more common than ppl think, bros here tend to say that with proper PCT and not crazy cycles its safe but IMO there is always a risk!

**jinos** · 09-07-2006, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by stupidhippo

this does bring up a good point though.. I suspect this is more common than ppl think, bros here tend to say that with proper PCT and not crazy cycles its safe but IMO there is always a risk!

I know, that's bullshit. It depends on your genetics. I talked to 2 pro builders at my gym who just got their pro card and they were pretty honest with what they take. A 6 week cycle can still do some damage. It's the risk you take. It just sucks because everyone tells me I looked alot better before I started. I'm only 5'6 so the bigger I got, the shorter I looked. My peak was at
198lb on cycle. Now I'm down to 165.

**daem** · 09-07-2006, 10:35 AM

Was last year the first time you ever had post-cycle bloodwork?

Whenever I talk to people that have experienced similar situations, they feel like it was a slow process that finally came around full-circle as opposed to something that snuck up after 1 cycle.

At this point, if you have exhausted your natural test boosting remedies with no success, it might be time for HRT.

Don't be depressed about that, because when you do finally get back to a normal level, you'll be happy you went that route.

Best of luck bro.

**jinos** · 09-07-2006, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by The_Canibal

that sux...your free test??what was the value

free test doesn't really mean that much ..free one does the trick

Testo, free and total LC/MS/MS: 230
% free testo: 2.25%
Testosterone Free: 51.8

**jinos** · 09-07-2006, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by daem

Was last year the first time you ever had post-cycle bloodwork?

Whenever I talk to people that have experienced similar situations, they feel like it was a slow process that finally came around full-circle as opposed to something that snuck up after 1 cycle.

At this point, if you have exhausted your natural test boosting remedies with no success, it might be time for HRT.

Don't be depressed about that, because when you do finally get back to a normal level, you'll be happy you went that route.

Best of luck bro.

My doc said HRT is for life. That's what scares me. I don't wanna depend on it. So how will HRT bring it back to normal? Once I'm off it, it'll go back down, right? I just wish it would go back and stay there.

**stupidhippo** · 09-07-2006, 02:14 PM

one thing I have been pondering is y not substitute with a small dose of T. enough to boost ur levels a lil higher with the endogenous test. I mean would it then be suppressive or not... I guess that depends on where the inhibition is coming from.. has anyone any info on this?

**daem** · 09-07-2006, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by stupidhippo

one thing I have been pondering is y not substitute with a small dose of T. enough to boost ur levels a lil higher with the endogenous test. I mean would it then be suppressive or not... I guess that depends on where the inhibition is coming from.. has anyone any info on this?

The reason why doctors say it is for life is because any synthetic administration is going to halt natural production.

Synthetic testosterone is suppressive in any dosage, which is why it is pointless to administer less than 250mg/WK since that is generally regarded as barely enough to replace natural production.

The presence of synthetic testosterone will signal the hypothalamus to stop being the catalyst for natural production, and in turn your testicles will shrink.

It might take longer for the suppression to occur with low dosages, but it is inevitable.

**stupidhippo** · 09-07-2006, 02:35 PM

are u sure that it is suppressive and what is ur reasoning behind it? cause I havent heard of anybody trying it to t deficient men.. Its logical that its suppressive to ppl with normal HPTA. even then if u would replace half ur normal test then I thinku would only be half suppressed. think about it a lil.. GnRH re4sponds to a certain level of hormones.. if that level aint met for some reason could a little boosting correct the situation? havent found any medical data to deny this.. ok havent looked all that much but still.. the time line is irrelevant once stable levels have been set.. I know for sure this works with thyroid hormones under similar control so y not T?

**neverenuff21** · 09-07-2006, 02:51 PM

interesting theory. anyone? im curious.

**daem** · 09-07-2006, 02:58 PM

http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi...e2=tf_ipsecsha

I am looking for more studies that have been done, but here is one that shows gonadotrophin levels were found to be at the minimum detectability during administration after week 4.

There are countless articles out there proving that ynthetic administration will choke natural production every time.

I know that Warrior is the master of scientific proof for many things, and that he should have more to support suppression at any dosage.

**stupidhippo** · 09-07-2006, 03:01 PM

that dose is suppressive for sure cause of the dose... and it was not done to T deficient men..

**stupidhippo** · 09-07-2006, 03:04 PM

and I remind that exogenous T is suppressive to some degree probably always in normal men.. but we are talking bou T deficient men here.. completely different scenario.

**daem** · 09-07-2006, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by stupidhippo

that dose is suppressive for sure cause of the dose... and it was not done to T deficient men..

I don't think you understand the study.

Cyproterone Acetate was administered at 25mg/ED, but what you probably don't know is that it is an anti-androgen! Cyproterone acetate suppresses production of estrogen due to its antigonadotrophic effect.

The Enanthate was administered at 100mg/EW, which is lower than anyone seeking HRT would be given regardless of their baseline test numbers.

I doubt we are going to find 50mg/EW of enanthate without really looking, but this is still a good find.

Males given 100mg of Enanthate/WK were suppressed and then resumed normal function after administration ceased.

I'd challenge you to find a study showing that Synthetic Testosterone did NOT suppress natural levels. That study will never exist because we all know what synthetic administration does!

**daem** · 09-07-2006, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by stupidhippo

and I remind that exogenous T is suppressive to some degree probably always in normal men.. but we are talking bou T deficient men here.. completely different scenario.

I am not going to look any more because your argument is based on conjecture and no facts. Find something that can substantiate your claim that Testosterone deficient men will be affected DIFFERENTLY than normal men and I'll revisit this for you.

**stupidhippo** · 09-07-2006, 03:13 PM

Heh.. u saying I dont understnad the study is pretty ignorant.. FYI they used ot give HRT dose of 250 mg every 3-4 weeks s.. these days they give more to achieve a higher baseline and more often to keep it stable. THATS WHAT IM SAYING CAUSE THERE ARE NO STUDIES DONE ON T DEFICEINT MEN. Its a whole different scenario, all exogenous test is suppressive if u have a normal HPTA, im not denying that. Its u who is not understanding whats going on here..

**stupidhippo** · 09-07-2006, 03:16 PM

its a theory (im not sayng it is that way for sure), my reasoning:

-it works with the thyroid hormone which has a pretty similar feedback system.
- if u admininster 10 mg's of test E per week u will be only slightly suppressed.. its all about the homeostasis and in T deficient men it can be altered for various reasons so with low dose test administration maybe higher baseline value could be achieved.

there hasnt been much clinical interest so its hard to find concrete evidence. Ill start looking now..

**daem** · 09-07-2006, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by stupidhippo

Its u who is not understanding whats going on here..

You just said at 4:01pm "that dose is suppressive for sure cause of the dose... and it was not done to T deficient men.."

You used circular logic to support why suppression occurred..."the dose is suppressive because of the dose"...come on now.

I'm not ignorant by any means, and never said you were either.

In your very last post, you said "if u admininster 10 mg's of test E per week u will be only slightly suppressed.. its all about the homeostasis and in T deficient men it can be altered for various reasons so with low dose test administration maybe higher baseline value could be achieved."

Why is 10mg the magic # you referenced here? Where does 10mg come in to play as factually NOT suppressing?

I appreciate you ardently defending your "idea" of possibly getting to a higher baseline, but there isn't anything but hopes and dreams behind it.

**stupidhippo** · 09-07-2006, 03:40 PM

Im saying that suppession occurs with that dose for sure (100mg/week) because that amount is enough to completely suppress natural production because of the feedback system, otherwise there would too much test floating around.. its basic physiology. but if the dosage would be smaller (I just said 10 cause it was definetly low enough) so that the exogenous test would be enough only to partially suppress natural production. Hence: not all exogenous test is 100% suppressive - its dose dependant. It is the same with thyroid hormones, corticosteroids, it is very logical. Now this would be pointless for normal males cause there woudlnt be any benefit since the baseline would reman the same. But for people who are test deficient I could see this of being a possible benefit for someone (depending on ethiology & pathogenesis). It can be possibe with a person with low test to be administered small amount of exogenous test to lift baseline values cause the added test together with natural still wouldnt cause supression in hypothalamus. Its a theory but has lots of solid reasoning behing and havent seen any evidence to say it wouldnt work. Hell it works with similar cases and is widely used but since TRT is fairlly new concept to ppl with only low test there hasnt been any medical interest to study this (as far as I know)

there is alot more than hopes and dreams behind it.. all depends on the pathogenesis

**stupidhippo** · 09-07-2006, 03:50 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum

here is a link that supports a littlebit what Im saying.. its the best I have found so far BUT I havent bumped into any that would prove Im wrong either. This is a lil off the topic but it proves to u hopefully that its not as clear-cut as u seem to think..