First cycle - not much happened.

[anoxicblaze]

Well, I have just finished my first ever 12-week cycle. Really disappointed with the results.
I made very slight strength gains but they were consistent with the gains I would have expected to make over time anyway.
Muscle mass increase, same as above. Nothing major.
Few things to point out 1, Gear was tested and legit 2, I was on TRT before the cycle (so it was a blast) 3. I cruise at 100 Test E per week, blasted at 360. 4, I am 46 and been natural for 27 years. 5, I lift heavy weights 6, My diet was the same every day - loads of veg, chicken breast, avocados, celery, hummous, nuts.

Am I simply a bad responder and 360 was just nowehere near enough?
I have asked and nobody can see any difference at all in my size or shape.

Thoughts?

[AR's King Silabolin]

Well, I have just finished my first ever 12-week cycle. Really disappointed with the results.
I made very slight strength gains but they were consistent with the gains I would have expected to make over time anyway.
Muscle mass increase, same as above. Nothing major.
Few things to point out 1, Gear was tested and legit 2, I was on TRT before the cycle (so it was a blast) 3. I cruise at 100 Test E per week, blasted at 360. 4, I am 46 and been natural for 27 years. 5, I lift heavy weights 6, My diet was the same every day - loads of veg, chicken breast, avocados, celery, hummous, nuts.

Am I simply a bad responder and 360 was just nowehere near enough?
I have asked and nobody can see any difference at all in my size or shape.

Thoughts?

Did u keep e2 in check?
If not amounts of your extra test could convert to useless estrogen.

Sent fra min SM-N9005 via Tapatalk

[GearHeaded]

so you increased your testosterone by about 3x what your body was used to (ie, you increased your test by 260mg per week).
no wonder you didn't see much.

think about it. the average guy produces about 50mg of test per week naturally. a basic first cycle recommendation is 500mg of test per week. thats a 10x increase from what the guy was used to. and its these supra-physiological levels where AAS works its 'magic'.

heck, if your body was used to 100mg of test per week for years. And you wanted to do a cycle equivalent to what most other guys 'first cycles' are , ie., a 10 times increase. then you'd of needed to run 1000mg of test per week (that would be equal to a natural jumping on his first cycle of 500mg of test per week)
I'm just saying that to put it in perspective (I'm not recommending a gram of test). you didn't run near enough for a 'blast' from your normal TRT

[anoxicblaze]

I did. It was fine.

[anoxicblaze]

Mmmm. Well, on the plus side it was my first cycle so it is a starting point and I reacted quite well to it, blood test wise. How long would you wait until I try again on a much larger dose? 3 months?

[Test Monsterone]

I'm 32 and in the same situation as you, only I have no increase in strength and a slight increase in weight, with not much noticeable muscle gains. A few people have mentioned I look bigger and my own mom actually asked me if I'm taking steroids (lol), but I honestly don't see much when looking at myself. I guess when we see ourselves everyday, it's hard to see the changes.

If you're already big, and especially if you have fat, I think it makes it a lot harder to see the changes. I'm 255 lbs now at ~ 17% bf and the 7-8 lbs I put on is not noticeable for me. I am in week 9 of my cycle. '


BTW my estrogen was in the 40's with testosterone being 2000 ng/dl on the day before my next injection (so probably 2500 at peak), at 400mg/week. People on here say it should be more near 3000-3500 at 400 a week, so maybe my shit is underdosed or I'm not absorbing properly.




I think that to see major changes you need to be on at least 5-600 mg/week. Only the skinny guys who never reached their genetic potential naturally (like you and I) get big gains from 400 mg/week. And the bigger you are, the more you need. My next cycle I'm starting at 750 mg/week, like Couchlocked suggested in one of my other threads.

[anoxicblaze]

Did u keep e2 in check?
If not amounts of your extra test could convert to useless estrogen.

Sent fra min SM-N9005 via Tapatalk

I did. It was fine. Took Arimidex.

[AR's King Silabolin]

so you increased your testosterone by about 3x what your body was used to (ie, you increased your test by 260mg per week).
no wonder you didn't see much.

think about it. the average guy produces about 50mg of test per week naturally. a basic first cycle recommendation is 500mg of test per week. thats a 10x increase from what the guy was used to. and its these supra-physiological levels where AAS works its 'magic'.

heck, if your body was used to 100mg of test per week for years. And you wanted to do a cycle equivalent to what most other guys 'first cycles' are , ie., a 10 times increase. then you'd of needed to run 1000mg of test per week (that would be equal to a natural jumping on his first cycle of 500mg of test per week)
I'm just saying that to put it in perspective (I'm not recommending a gram of test). you didn't run near enough for a 'blast' from your normal TRT

Little argue. I do not agree. 1 gs for him does not equal 500 for a nontrt guy.

Good testlevel is 700. A little rule is to multiply mg with 7. Thats acetatester.
Natty i guess acts as suspension. But stil. 50 grams hardly would give 700 ng/dl.

I would say 500 mg test a week for him would be almost the same as for a trtguy cause trt is supposed to tax the ARs like the natty production.

Just thinking loud..peace



Sent fra min SM-N9005 via Tapatalk

[Windex]

What do you mean by the gear was tested and legit ? Typically a test kit is going to give you a positive/negative result on the hormone being tested but not give you the potency. That means a lab could underdose gear just above the threshold for a positive score and the user would be none the wiser.

Are you on TRT administered through a Doctor / Anti-Aging clinic or is it self-administered? If the gear is coming from the pharmacy, did you use that for the extra 260mg or did you make up the difference buying pharma/UGL from a lab ?

Also you said your diet was the same - do you mean the diet was the same as during TRT or that you increased your calories and kept the diet consistent during your blast ?

[GearHeaded]

Little argue. I do not agree. 1 gs for him does not equal 500 for a nontrt guy.

Good testlevel is 700. A little rule is to multiply mg with 7. Thats acetatester.
Natty i guess acts as suspension. But stil. 50 grams hardly would give 700 ng/dl.

I agree with you that 50mg would hardly give 700 ng/dl , IF we were talking exogenous test. but my reference of 50mg was to 'naturals' and endogenous test production (not exo test).. the average male naturally produces 4 to 7 mg of test per day. So a natural test production of 50mg per week is on the very high end of the scale, these are the guys that naturally produce high levels of test and are probably in the 700+ ng/dl range naturally.
but why would 50mg of test give you such high ng/dl total test ? because its ENDOGENOUS test, which is 100% bio-available . 50mg of 'natty test' production is very high . where as say 100mg of test cyp per week, your only getting at the most 65mg of test from that.
so the OP, injecting 100mg of exo test per week is putting himself about where a good natty endogenous test would be.

I guess the point is, the OP is used to having decent levels of test being on TRT for so long. so when he runs a cycle he is going to need to run a high enough amount, especially considering someone who is natty and who's body is only used to much less test would still run a cycle of about 500mg of test per week as a first cycle.. OP really should be at least 500 minimum imo .

personally though.. I'd be running 'other' compounds as my TRT blast cycles , not just simply upping the test dosage (your body is already used to exogenous test , upping it a bit won't do a whole lot).

[AR's King Silabolin]

Dont think its 100% bioavaiable man.
Its said that we only can use less than 5% of the roids we inject. Stil, 100 mg could give you 600 ng/dl.
And 50 mg like 300 ng/dl. Yet, bioavaiability is just 5%. At most.
If natty test was 100% effective at the ARs, that should give 20 x more rigth?
In other words 6000 ng/dl.

Something smells fishy in your argues today GH.

Sent fra min SM-N9005 via Tapatalk

[GearHeaded]

. Stil, 100 mg could give you 600 ng/dl.
And 50 mg like 300 ng/dl.

why would 50mg of natty test only give you 300 ng/dl .. I understand the math your using. but what I'm using is anecdotal evidence.

heres the evidence --
- biologically speaking a man produces on average 4-7 mg of natty test per day (4 is low average, 7 is the high end)
- medically speaking a man has an average 'normal' total test range of around 250 ng/dl - 950 ng/dl (250 low avg, 950 the high end)
NOW -- anecdotal evidence . IF the 7 mg per day is the HIGH average/normal of all men , that equates to 49mg of test per week. SO these men that are the high average of MG production per day, would also be the same men that are on the high average medically speaking. and they are the ones that are averaging the upper ranges of ng/dl averages (700-900).

make sense ? if your saying that 50mg a week of natty test can only produce 300 ng/dl of total test (and its a biological fact that 50mg per week is the high range for a mans natty production) , then where the heck do these natural ranges of 700-900+ ng/dl come from ?
you would have to argue that men produce way more on average then 7mg of test per day.

simple logic..
- a man with high natural test levels produces 7mg per day of test, ie, 50mg per week.
- a man with high natural test levels shows an average of 700-950 ng/dl of total test on blood work
THEREFORE - logic says a natty test production of 50mg per week will produce upward of 700+ ng/dl total test

my logic is not fishy brother
however, maybe my 'facts' are wrong . perhaps the numbers are a man produces 20mg per day of test, not 4-7. I'm basing my argument on the facts I have obtained.

[Obs]

Dont think its 100% bioavaiable man.
Its said that we only can use less than 5% of the roids we inject. Stil, 100 mg could give you 600 ng/dl.
And 50 mg like 300 ng/dl. Yet, bioavaiability is just 5%. At most.
If natty test was 100% effective at the ARs, that should give 20 x more rigth?
In other words 6000 ng/dl.

Something smells fishy in your argues today GH.

Sent fra min SM-N9005 via Tapatalk

Who said 5% is "all that we use?"

Remove the ester weight and you obtain bioavalability. Pharmacokinetics...

[GearHeaded]

heres an example of why endogenous production of a hormone trumps endogenous production on a mg per mg basis.

- Bob decides to get on HGH. he spends a couple grand and runs 5iu for 6 months and has great results
- his neighbor Joe decides to do the same exact thing and also buys the HGH from the same source and takes the same dosage the same way.

but , Joe does not get any results. why not? the HGH was exactly the same and so was everything else in regards to dosing and timing.

well what likely happened is that Joe's body will only use endogenous HGH. when the exogenous HGH was introduced into the body, Joe having an underlying autoimmune response genetic condition, built up anti-bodies to the exo HGH. these anti-bodies found and destroyed or rendered useless the HGH he was taking. only the naturally produced HGH would work in Joes body.
Bob on the other hand had no such issue.

this is why there is so much argument as to wither different HGH sources or real or fake, or some guys get results and some guys don't get shit.. its because plenty of guys will only respond to natural HGH (thats why peptides work great for them).

similar thing can happen with any exogenous hormone introduced into the body..

but the point is that naturally occurring endogenous hormones are going to be way more powerful and "bio-avaialbe'' to be used by the body, and less likely to have anti bodies attack and destroy it like an outside invader.

thats why 50mg of naturally produced test can yield 700-900+ ng/dl of total test ,, where as 200mg of a UGL exogenous test cyp may not yield that much (and it may not be under dosed). we have the ester issues with the test cyp that need to be broken down properly by enzymes into the body in order to enter the blood stream, and we have anti bodies to worry about. even with a 14 day active life, that 200mg test cyp ultimately may not even get us 50mg of test to be utilized by the body.
the natty test doesn't have enzymes that are needed to break it down, anti bodies to kill it off, absorption rates, migration from the depot site of injection, possible encapsulation keeping it form entering the blood stream , etc etc..

[Obs]

heres an example of why endogenous production of a hormone trumps endogenous production on a mg per mg basis.

- Bob decides to get on HGH. he spends a couple grand and runs 5iu for 6 months and has great results
- his neighbor Joe decides to do the same exact thing and also buys the HGH from the same source and takes the same dosage the same way.

but , Joe does not get any results. why not? the HGH was exactly the same and so was everything else in regards to dosing and timing.

well what likely happened is that Joe's body will only use endogenous HGH. when the exogenous HGH was introduced into the body, Joe having an underlying autoimmune response genetic condition, built up anti-bodies to the exo HGH. these anti-bodies found and destroyed or rendered useless the HGH he was taking. only the naturally produced HGH would work in Joes body.
Bob on the other hand had no such issue.

this is why there is so much argument as to wither different HGH sources or real or fake, or some guys get results and some guys don't get shit.. its because plenty of guys will only respond to natural HGH (thats why peptides work great for them).

similar thing can happen with any exogenous hormone introduced into the body..

but the point is that naturally occurring endogenous hormones are going to be way more powerful and "bio-avaialbe'' to be used by the body, and less likely to have anti bodies attack and destroy it like an outside invader.

thats why 50mg of naturally produced test can yield 700-900+ ng/dl of total test ,, where as 200mg of a UGL exogenous test cyp may not yield that much (and it may not be under dosed). we have the ester issues with the test cyp that need to be broken down properly by enzymes into the body in order to enter the blood stream, and we have anti bodies to worry about. even with a 14 day active life, that 200mg test cyp ultimately may not even get us 50mg of test to be utilized by the body.
the natty test doesn't have enzymes that are needed to break it down, anti bodies to kill it off, absorption rates, migration from the depot site of injection, possible encapsulation keeping it form entering the blood stream , etc etc..

I hear you but test suspension for example... 100% bioavailable, test c 77% bioavailable, test undecanoate 66%

Just because it is attached to an ester and time released does not mean it is non-bioavailable right?

[GearHeaded]

I hear you but test suspension for example... 100% bioavailable, test c 77% bioavailable, test undecanoate 66%

Just because it is attached to an ester and time released does not mean it is non-bioavailable right?

on 'paper' this is all true and very accurate. just like 'on paper' , 5iu of PURE pharma grade hgh is 100% bio-available. . but just because thats true, does not mean its going to be true once entering a persons body.
your body could dispatch anti-bodies and dispose of 99% of that HGH you just shot. whereas someone else it may actually be 100% bioavailable and all utilized by the body..
same with any exogenous hormone really . also why some guys blow up on 500mg of test, and other guys don't respond at all or may need 3x that amount.. I know of a guy who can't run test (he can it just does nothing at all for him no matter the dosage) so he runs other compounds he does respond to (like winny and var)

once the hormone enters the body, theres a lot that can happen rendering it not so 'bio-available' .
but endogenous hormones not so much.

[Obs]

on 'paper' this is all true and very accurate. just like 'on paper' , 5iu of PURE pharma grade hgh is 100% bio-available. . but just because thats true, does not mean its going to be true once entering a persons body.
your body could dispatch anti-bodies and dispose of 99% of that HGH you just shot. whereas someone else it may actually be 100% bioavailable and all utilized by the body..
same with any exogenous hormone really . also why some guys blow up on 500mg of test, and other guys don't respond at all or may need 3x that amount.. I know of a guy who can't run test (he can it just does nothing at all for him no matter the dosage) so he runs other compounds he does respond to (like winny and var)

once the hormone enters the body, theres a lot that can happen rendering it not so 'bio-available' .
but endogenous hormones not so much.

I see what you are saying but 5% used? Uhhh... No.

If that were true you would need 500 mg of test cyp to be equal to 25 mg of natural test.


I take that back. After ester weight removal of test c you would be shooting 500 to equal 19.25mg of natty test. Its not possible.

[GearHeaded]

I see what you are saying but 5% used? Uhhh... No.

If that were true you would need 500 mg of test cyp to be equal to 25 mg of natural test.


I take that back. After ester weight removal of test c you would be shooting 500 to equal 19.25mg of natty test. Its not possible.

ok, well I think we are all confusing each other with our MATH . I suck at math. I don't think I was really even trying to use math to make my point and I seen Sil use the number 5% , and your using the number 5% now . and I don't have a clue what the fuck is with the number 5% and what the heck it means .. is it some sort of Rich Piana secret code that I'm not getting here

[Obs]

Bear in mind maybe this is true in my case because I just cut my rip mix with 300mg monster test E.
Double dosing today because I skipped an injection being sick.... 300x 4 1200 mg at once... Wowzers. (Stole wowzers from geman)

[Obs]

ok, well I think we are all confusing each other with our MATH . I suck at math. I don't think I was really even trying to use math to make my point and I seen Sil use the number 5% , and your using the number 5% now . and I don't have a clue what the fuck is with the number 5% and what the heck it means .. is it some sort of Rich Piana secret code that I'm not getting here

Idk... Sil said 5% I was just arguing.
I am gonna pretend he is right though. Looks like I better start a gram a day regiment just to be on the safe side.

[GearHeaded]

heres my point without the math

biological evidence -- men with HIGH natural test levels produce about 7mg of test per day on average .
medical evidence (ie, blood work) -- men with HIGH natural test levels have 700-900 ng/dl of total test on average .

OK . now you guys do the math. how much natural test in MG's per week does it take to have fairly high blood levels of test ?

[GearHeaded]

Idk... Sil said 5% I was just arguing.
I am gonna pretend he is right though. Looks like I better start a gram a day regiment just to be on the safe side.

thats what I recommend (per week at least). actually Dave Palumbo recommends that as well . he says every cycle should have at least one gram or more of test per week. come on Sil, you agree a lot with Dave

but per day, thats probably a safe bet just in case. think I'll go with Obs on this one

[Obs]

heres my point without the math

biological evidence -- men with HIGH natural test levels produce about 7mg of test per day on average .
medical evidence (ie, blood work) -- men with HIGH natural test levels have 700-900 ng/dl of total test on average .

OK . now you guys do the math. how much natural test in MG's per week does it take to have fairly high blood levels of test ?

Idk but I like picking on sil.
He shut down his natural production for 2.75mg of test per day at 500mg per week. That should put him in the low 200's.

I dont go off paper or books or math. I shoot a gram of shit and grow.

[Obs]

thats what I recommend (per week at least). actually Dave Palumbo recommends that as well . he says every cycle should have at least one gram or more of test per week. come on Sil, you agree a lot with Dave

but per day, thats probably a safe bet just in case. think I'll go with Obs on this one

We cant be fucking around man... I am suddenly trying to afford 10ml of test per day. Shit! I gotta sell some guns or something!

Anybody need a kidney! O- negative!?

[GearHeaded]

one thing I think we are all forgetting here , is the 'accumulation' factor .
50mg of natty test is not just a 'one shot' thing.. natty test is being produced every day, day after day. your total ng/dl of test is not built off of a 'single dose' of 50mg of test you got the day your balls dropped.

[Obs]

one thing I think we are all forgetting here , is the 'accumulation' factor .
50mg of natty test is not just a 'one shot' thing.. natty test is being produced every day, day after day. your total ng/dl of test is not built off of a 'single dose' of 50mg of test you got the day your balls dropped.

So if we factor in the shutdown... Sil is a woman?

Omg... That is him in the avatar! Hes been posting old pics!

[GearHeaded]

So if we factor in the shutdown... Sil is a woman?

Omg... That is him in the avatar! Hes been posting old pics!

wait are you joking, or do you mean thats really not dr. Sil in the avi

[The Deadlifting Dog]

My diet was the same every day - loads of veg, chicken breast, avocados, celery, hummous, nuts.

this is why you didn't gain weight.
you need to eat more to grow.

[balance]

this is why you didn't gain weight.
you need to eat more to grow.

And not hummus...

I completely agree here. I even said said similar on test monsters thread (who posted here with similar results). AFAIK Test is not magic in that muscles grow without extra calories. Even if your gear is bunk and your are eating a 500 calorie surplus daily you should be gaining weight that should be noticeable after 12 weeks.

I will say though I’m usually surprised when I hear no strength gains, even in a slight calorie deficit it seams as though these astetically speaking non responders should be making noticeable strength gains.

Either way this is an interesting topic with regards to exogenous vs endogenous availability. Makes you wonder where the tippping point is on average for truly shutting down endogenous production, as it appears according to fuzzy math here that you would likely have to double endogenous production to get close to shut down and the exogenous amount that would just barely achieve this would likely yield lower than natural level serum levels.

[GearHeaded]

My diet was the same every day - loads of veg, chicken breast, avocados, celery, hummous, nuts.

I don't see any good sources of Carbs here. going to be real hard to grow without Carbs, which is really the most anabolic food source you can consume.

[Testlolblast]

Well, I have just finished my first ever 12-week cycle. Really disappointed with the results.
I made very slight strength gains but they were consistent with the gains I would have expected to make over time anyway.
Muscle mass increase, same as above. Nothing major.
Few things to point out 1, Gear was tested and legit 2, I was on TRT before the cycle (so it was a blast) 3. I cruise at 100 Test E per week, blasted at 360. 4, I am 46 and been natural for 27 years. 5, I lift heavy weights 6, My diet was the same every day - loads of veg, chicken breast, avocados, celery, hummous, nuts.

Am I simply a bad responder and 360 was just nowehere near enough?
I have asked and nobody can see any difference at all in my size or shape.

Thoughts?

In my opinion the dose was not high enough as used in standart steroid cycle. Dunno much about a blast technique.
My first cycle was 200mg x 2 week for 8 weeks and I felt energy and motivation indeed although the gains were fairly unnoticeable (at the first two weeks at least). I would advise to try 250mg x 2 week next time and then consider the adjusment of the dose.

[GearHeaded]

Mmmm. Well, on the plus side it was my first cycle so it is a starting point and I reacted quite well to it, blood test wise. How long would you wait until I try again on a much larger dose? 3 months?

well your on TRT. all you really did , imo, was up your dosage of TRT a little bit. I doubt you even reached supra-physiological levels, and where therefore not really even on a cycle per se.
I wouldn't wait 3 months.. I'd wait maybe 3 weeks

[The Deadlifting Dog]

I doubt you even reached supra-physiological levels

340mg of test a week will absolutely get him supra-physiological levels

I disagree with you here.

Many on this forum test in at 3500-4000 on 500mg of test.
340mg of test should get him around 2500.

[HoldMyBeer]

I'm going to guess it was 2 things
1. 360mg isn't that much
But mostly
2. Your diet wasn't on point
"loads of veg, chicken breast, avocados, celery, hummous, nuts."
Isn't very reassuring that your macros were in order or that you were in a calorie surplus. Protein and carbs are essential to muscle growth, and there was 0 mention of carbs, and I doubt you were eating enough protein either.
I could be wrong, but that would be my guess

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

[GearHeaded]

340mg of test a week will absolutely get him supra-physiological levels

I disagree with you here.

Many on this forum test in at 3500-4000 on 500mg of test.
340mg of test should get him around 2500.

well technically anything over 'normal' range could be considered supra-physiological levels.. so if he was at 1200 , then he is technically there.
so yes I'll admit I was wrong in those regards.
however when I made that statement I was thinking in the 10x normal range (as my very first response is this thread indicated) as MY definition and what I like to see as truly supra-physiological . plenty of guys may not grow to well at only 2000 ng/dl of test (even if you call it supra physiological)

why wouldn't they? because testosterone levels in relation to muscle growth is NOT linear. meaning that as your test levels go up, does not mean that anabolism or muscle growth goes up with that in linear fashion.. you could increase your test levels significantly and not get any muscle growth out of that.
lets say you have normal natty test levels of 900 ng/dl . now lets say you take a quote "supra-physiological'' exogenous source of Test that now puts you above normal range and your now at 1300 ng/dl . well just because your technically at supra physiological levels does not mean your going to grow from that. you may get zero growth from that increase, again because muscle growth does not go up in linear fashion along with test levels.
NOW what would be "supra physiological" in real practice (not just technical terms and definitions) is if this guy that had natty test levels was able to take a cycle and increase those levels 10 fold (10x), that would put him at 9000 ng/dl . this is REAL supra physiological levels for this individual , imo, and here is where he grows. here is where your forced the levels up high enough that test levels are now way past the 'linear progression' that I just talked about.

anyhow.. the OP only increased his test by 3x. from my definition above , this may not have been enough to reach "supra physiological" levels for him in a range high enough to build muscle and grow (however, technically and medically speaking if his levels went above normal range on a blood test, sure he was in 'supra physiological' ranges). An increase of 10x probably would have put him in that 'growth' range of PRACTICAL "supra physiological" levels.


a lot of these things are person dependent.. 2500 ng/dl on paper is considered to be in supra-physiological . but for someone who cruises on 500+ mg of test year round for years on end, that is NOT supra physiological for him. he won't grow off of that. he may need to pull a Dallas McCarver and get in the 60,000 ng/dl range to achieve his own supra physiological levels.

[--->>405<<---]

360 mg test only per week for 12 weeks...

IMO it sounds like your dosage was a bit low and your expectations might have been a bit high.

For me, 500 per week does the trick. I don't get a lot bigger, but I can lean out better on higher cals, i get really good pumps in the gym, strength goes up about 20% ish..

I remember reading somewhere on here a few yrs ago that gear is most effective visually on a cut. That's the only time I cycle.

12 weeks isn't a long time to gain muscle, esp at 360mg per week and your body is used to the drug anyways since you're on TRT.

Next time, try it when u cut and run 500mg and I bet u see a difference.

[GearHeaded]

340mg of test a week will absolutely get him supra-physiological levels

340mg of test should get him around 2500.

for most bodybuilders or AAS users that 'cruise/trt' ,, I don't consider 2500 ng/dl a supra physiological level of test. HOWEVER yes on paper, to a medical doctor reading a normal guys blood work, 2500 is definitely a supra physiological level.

for guys like Dallas McCarver for example, 2500 ng/dl is the opposite of supra physiological levels. he would shrink at that low of a level (assuming he was only running test). thats below normal for him.
I'm using him as an example mainly because his last blood work showed a total test level of 60,000 nd/dl.

but it doesn't have to be that extreme. any gym rat that runs 500mg of test as his normal TRT year round, 2500 ng/dl is probably below normal for him , let alone being supra-physiological.
my definition of being supra physiological, for a AAS user anyways, is to be 5-10x over what your normal range. so if your on TRT and walk around at 1000 ng/dl normally ,, then getting to 2000 ng/dl is far from being supra physiological (even though a doc would consider it that) you need to get to 5000-10,000.

this is why I said that the OP probably never achieved supra physiological levels (even though on 'paper' he likely did.. in practical real world terms he probably did not)

[GearHeaded]

this may be a reason why some popular 'gurus' in the industry recommend a MINIMUM of at least 1 gram of test as the base of any cycle.
As it may be hard for guys to get to 'real world' supra physiological levels of test with much less then a gram a week

[Old Duffer]

Good stuff here. This is why I came here!

Always learning, always looking for the next piece of the growth puzzle ��

[Test Monsterone]

I feel weaker on steroids. Not because I couldn't lift heavy (I was strong before, and am strong now), but because I can't breathe as well. I get red in the face and feel like I'm going to die after half the exercises I do. Today after 3 exercises on back my heart started skipping and I had to leave early, great! I've had this happen before, I have a slight mitral valve prolapse. So far this has been a very underwhelming experience. Nothing like what I was expecting. Such a shame. I don't even feel the confidence or the drive that some people talk about, I basically just am not depressed like I was before - I feel less mood swings. Still have anxiety, sometimes even more so. Some days I feel pretty good, but most days I'm the same.

I don't f*cking know anymore. I'll see what happens by the end of this cycle, but I'm going to drop to 150 mg/week and cruise and maybe then I'll slowly see the changes I have been looking for. I realize my diet will never be "on point," as I drive 2 hours each day to work and back, work 8 hours, get home at 6, train till 8 - then I just want to rest. Who has time to prep meals and all that crap? I'm not eating pizza and french fries with ranch, I'm just eating normal food with a little bit of everything. I thought the steroids would make me get more cut, nope!