Am I to overweight to run a cycle? Pics and Stats inside.

[Metalject]

Sorry. But the fact that you compared a TRT dose to a cycle, renders any information about cycling that you've acquired useless.

I was not comparing TRT doses to supraphysiological doses, but regardless of the dose this doesn't change the specific nature of whatever hormone may be in question.

Yes, I agree large amounts of excess body fat will make issues surrounding aromatization far more difficult to control. Further, severely overweight people often already suffer from improper lipid panels and jumping on gear could make this worse...especially in large doses. What's worse, the effects of AI's often used to control the side effects of steroids will significantly increase the risk of improper lipid values.

Moreover, this guy asked a specific question in relation to his current body fat level, which while on the high side compared to many guys who have been training and eating properly for years is still well within the range that would be considered healthy or rather not obese by any medical standard.

Interesting/Useful Data:

2001, American Journal of Endocrinology:
61 men - 18-35yrs old - all varying greatly in muscularity and body fat:
Split into five groups and given testosterone enanthate for 20wks
Group 1: 25mg/wk
Group 2: 50mg/wk
Group 3: 125mg/wk
Group 4: 300mg/wk
Group 5: 600mg/wk
Brief Summary: of the 61 men the only notable negative effect associated with anabolic steroid use was a slight reduction in HDL levels. Only those in group five (600mg) were reported to experience drops in HDL below normal but only slightly. All groups were found to experience increases in strength, LBM and decreases in BF...group 5 most notably.

This is not the only study similar to this one with similar findings. The NEJM 1996 study mirrors this one fairly well with a total of 20 men receiving 600mg/wk...10 of which did not exercise with a broader age group of 19-49yrs of age.

None of this is to say estrogenic effects cannot be increasingly problematic with high levels of body fat. That was not my point in my original post. My point was often message boards exasperate this idea far beyond what any data supports. Most men will benefit from testosterone use even if their BF is not at a low level...this is not including those in an obese category, which was also never implied.

Last interesting note...in both studies mentioned, the American Journal of Endocrinology and New England Journal of Medicine, none were given any type of anti-estrogen, no AI's or SERM's. This is not to say such tools can't be useful, simply a note of interest.

[kmms]

I was not comparing TRT doses to supraphysiological doses, but regardless of the dose this doesn't change the specific nature of whatever hormone may be in question.

Yes, I agree large amounts of excess body fat will make issues surrounding aromatization far more difficult to control. Further, severely overweight people often already suffer from improper lipid panels and jumping on gear could make this worse...especially in large doses. What's worse, the effects of AI's often used to control the side effects of steroids will significantly increase the risk of improper lipid values.

Moreover, this guy asked a specific question in relation to his current body fat level, which while on the high side compared to many guys who have been training and eating properly for years is still well within the range that would be considered healthy or rather not obese by any medical standard.

Interesting/Useful Data:

2001, American Journal of Endocrinology:
61 men - 18-35yrs old - all varying greatly in muscularity and body fat:
Split into five groups and given testosterone enanthate for 20wks
Group 1: 25mg/wk
Group 2: 50mg/wk
Group 3: 125mg/wk
Group 4: 300mg/wk
Group 5: 600mg/wk
Brief Summary: of the 61 men the only notable negative effect associated with anabolic steroid use was a slight reduction in HDL levels. Only those in group five (600mg) were reported to experience drops in HDL below normal but only slightly. All groups were found to experience increases in strength, LBM and decreases in BF...group 5 most notably.

This is not the only study similar to this one with similar findings. The NEJM 1996 study mirrors this one fairly well with a total of 20 men receiving 600mg/wk...10 of which did not exercise with a broader age group of 19-49yrs of age.

None of this is to say estrogenic effects cannot be increasingly problematic with high levels of body fat. That was not my point in my original post. My point was often message boards exasperate this idea far beyond what any data supports. Most men will benefit from testosterone use even if their BF is not at a low level...this is not including those in an obese category, which was also never implied.

Last interesting note...in both studies mentioned, the American Journal of Endocrinology and New England Journal of Medicine, none were given any type of anti-estrogen, no AI's or SERM's. This is not to say such tools can't be useful, simply a note of interest.

i haven't read through either study but i do find the information to be interesting and thought provoking. i'm now 9 days into a test e 500 (250x2) dbol 25mg cycle and while i've got arimidex, clomid and tamoxifene on hand i'm going to be looking for clear indications to introduce the adex as it's my first cycle, or my blood work at 2 weeks if lacking any sides. my bf% i've had to estimate at 15% and with none of the common estrogen related sides apparent yet i'd prefer not to add an AI unless labs indicate i need it. in the next month or so my pharmacist says she'll have exemestane and from what i've read i think i'd prefer using that to arimidex if using an AI is warranted, all things considered. not intending to hijack the thread.