Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Training & Nutrition Learn how to develop a training schedule that's good for you. What should you eat and drink on your ride? Learn everything you need to know about training and nutrition here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-21-14, 10:25 PM   #1
CanadianBiker32
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
CanadianBiker32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Canada
Bikes: Maxim, Rocky Mountain, Argon 18, Cervelo S2 Team
Posts: 679
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
How Bad To your Health Is Doping

Now I am not posting this as to promote doping or anyone from using performance enhancing methods to get better results.

But a question that could be a good debate. Doping. With the problems from Lance Armstrong and other athletes. Such as type of doping Lance did and other high end athletes. With the great benefits one gets from using these methods. Is it in the end a bad thing for your overall health?

Long term, what type of problems that are known to be from people/athletes using all these performance enhancing things.

Or is it ok for your health? just not approved and only consider cheating? I like to find some links that tell the bad things from this type of methods. Thanks
CanadianBiker32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-14, 11:24 PM   #2
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Posts: 11,076
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
there are many different drugs which have been used. The original was amphetamines. They can, like kill you. That's what Merckx used, but he was careful. Then there was a period where people used combinations of heroin and cocaine. Killed the pain and gave energy. Neither of those are good for you. Modern day, it's been EPO. That increases the number of red blood cells. Before they could detect it, they knew riders were using it, so they put a limit on the number of red blood cells at a hematocrit of 50, because over that they can clog capillaries and yes, kill you. So riders who used EPO were under a doctor's care. Oh, and then there's testosterone and steriods for muscle building and recovery. There's a lot of controversy over the use of testosterone. People on this forum use it regularly. Steroids definitely screw up your body, though. Not good.

There are many other legal PEDs. Caffeine is the most common. Works good.
Carbonfiberboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-14, 02:51 AM   #3
amazinmets73
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 170
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
How can I get my hands on some testerone?
amazinmets73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-14, 06:38 AM   #4
BigAura
 
BigAura's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chapin, SC
Bikes: surly LHT, paris sport fixed, trek 5000, fuji ss
Posts: 2,343
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by amazinmets73 View Post
How can I get my hands on some testerone?
Get a affidavit from your wife and talk to your doctor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
Caffeine is the most common. Works good.
Definitely my drug of choice and you can get it everywhere.
BigAura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-14, 09:09 AM   #5
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Posts: 11,076
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by amazinmets73 View Post
How can I get my hands on some testerone?
Seriously, it's currently the hot legal drug among older athletes or would-be athletes. It's not legal under UCI rules, however! There are special "men's clinics" that specialize in prescribing it, because all males' natural testosterone levels drop as we age. Downside is that long-term health effects are not known. However, it's been strongly linked to prostate cancer, which can kill you. In fact, most men will die of it if they live long enough.
Carbonfiberboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-14, 07:13 PM   #6
reef58
Senior Member
 
reef58's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wilmington, NC
Bikes: Serotta Nove
Posts: 1,634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
Seriously, it's currently the hot legal drug among older athletes or would-be athletes. It's not legal under UCI rules, however! There are special "men's clinics" that specialize in prescribing it, because all males' natural testosterone levels drop as we age. Downside is that long-term health effects are not known. However, it's been strongly linked to prostate cancer, which can kill you. In fact, most men will die of it if they live long enough.
You have a peer reviewed source for this?
reef58 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-14, 07:31 PM   #7
Weatherby
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Bikes: Too many
Posts: 548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
Seriously, it's currently the hot legal drug among older athletes or would-be athletes. It's not legal under UCI rules, however! There are special "men's clinics" that specialize in prescribing it, because all males' natural testosterone levels drop as we age. Downside is that long-term health effects are not known. However, it's been strongly linked to prostate cancer, which can kill you. In fact, most men will die of it if they live long enough.
You have it reversed. Low T = elevated risk for prostate cancer.
Weatherby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-14, 02:42 AM   #8
amazinmets73
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 170
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I'm not married and do not have health insurance. How much is testerone going to set me back?
amazinmets73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-14, 04:23 AM   #9
02Giant 
Home School Valedictorian
 
02Giant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Iowa
Bikes: 13 Orbea Orca Bronze
Posts: 1,275
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Talk to your doctor.
02Giant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-14, 08:35 AM   #10
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Posts: 11,076
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by reef58 View Post
You have a peer reviewed source for this?
Prostate Cancer Prevention (PDQ) - National Cancer Institute
Quote:
Prostate cancer incidence escalates dramatically with increasing age. Although it is a very unusual disease in men younger than 50 years, rates increase exponentially thereafter. The registration rate by age cohort in England and Wales increased from eight per thousand population in men aged 50 to 56 years to 68 per thousand in men aged 60 to 64 years; 260 per thousand in men aged 70 to 74 years, and peaked at 406 per thousand in men aged 75 to 79 years.[1] In this same population, the death rate per thousand in 1992 in cohorts of men aged 50 to 54 years, 60 to 64 years, and 70 to 74 years was 4, 37, and 166, respectively.[1] At all ages, incidence of prostate cancer in blacks exceeds those of whites.[2]
While these studies topped out at 79 years, men do live longer than that, and the prostate cancer rate continues to rise with age. It's a bit of a joke in the medical community. We all hope to live long enough to die of prostate cancer.
Carbonfiberboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-14, 08:41 AM   #11
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Posts: 11,076
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weatherby View Post
You have it reversed. Low T = elevated risk for prostate cancer.
Prostate Cancer Prevention (PDQ) - National Cancer Institute
Quote:
Other evidence suggesting that the degree of cumulative exposure of the prostate to androgens is related to an increased risk of prostate cancer includes the following:
  • Neither BPH nor prostate cancer have been reported in men castrated prior to puberty.[9]
  • Androgen deprivation in almost all forms leads to involution of the prostate, a fall in PSA levels, apoptosis of prostate cancer and epithelial cells, and a clinical response in prostate cancer patients.[10,11]
  • The results of two large-scale chemoprevention trials using 5AR inhibitors (finasteride and dutasteride) demonstrate that intraprostatic androgens modulate prostate cancer risk. In both studies, reductions in overall prostate cancer risk were identified although with increased risk of high-grade disease.[12,13]
However,
Quote:
This lack of association affirms that risk stratification cannot be made on serum hormone concentrations.
You pays your money and lays down your bet. I'm betting that nature has it right.
Carbonfiberboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-14, 12:25 PM   #12
reef58
Senior Member
 
reef58's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wilmington, NC
Bikes: Serotta Nove
Posts: 1,634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
Prostate Cancer Prevention (PDQ) - National Cancer Institute

While these studies topped out at 79 years, men do live longer than that, and the prostate cancer rate continues to rise with age. It's a bit of a joke in the medical community. We all hope to live long enough to die of prostate cancer.
So in other words no. Unless I misunderstood you. Most men will not die of prostate cancer, but further I read your statement to insinuate that men were dying from taking TRT, or testosterone, which caused the prostate cancer.
reef58 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-14, 01:00 PM   #13
achoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 4,700
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
Seriously, it's currently the hot legal drug among older athletes or would-be athletes. It's not legal under UCI rules, however! There are special "men's clinics" that specialize in prescribing it, because all males' natural testosterone levels drop as we age. Downside is that long-term health effects are not known. However, it's been strongly linked to prostate cancer, which can kill you. In fact, most men will die of it if they live long enough.
Everyone dies of something, if they live long enough.
achoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-14, 03:41 PM   #14
hamster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Escondido, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 2,240
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
Prostate Cancer Prevention (PDQ) - National Cancer Institute

While these studies topped out at 79 years, men do live longer than that, and the prostate cancer rate continues to rise with age. It's a bit of a joke in the medical community. We all hope to live long enough to die of prostate cancer.
It's a somewhat misleading quote, because it makes a basic mistake: confusing incidence with prevalence (registration rate).

Prostate cancer has low incidence but high prevalence, because it's not particularly aggressive, it is usually discovered early enough to treat, and, once it's discovered and if it's found to be aggressive, prostate can be surgically removed without major side effects. There are lots of people living with it or after it. For prostate cancer, National Cancer Institute reported 5-year survival of 100.0% (literally) for 65-74 year old patients diagnosed in most years between 1998 and 2006. The only site that comes even close is melanoma (5-year survival 90-92%).

Contrast with, say, cancers of liver and pancreas, which are much less common (an average 70 year old male has a 10 times higher chance of being diagnosed within a year with prostate cancer, than with either liver or pancreatic cancers combined), but actually kill as many if not more men, because they are very deadly, with 5-year survival rates in high single digits. In fact, it's not totally clear to me why CDC reports any deaths in the US from prostate cancer at all. (The most recent complete data point I could find was from 2006, with 28k deaths of all ages.)

It does not really look like either the incidence continues to grow or the survival significantly worsens past 80.
hamster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-14, 04:00 PM   #15
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Posts: 11,076
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by reef58 View Post
So in other words no. Unless I misunderstood you. Most men will not die of prostate cancer, but further I read your statement to insinuate that men were dying from taking TRT, or testosterone, which caused the prostate cancer.
No, I said that "most men will die of it if they live long enough," which the link I gave above substantiates. The deaths in the various age cohorts are additive, and I for one plan to outlive the age of the oldest cohort.

Then there's also this other paper which I remembered and finally found a link to the full paper:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/...ticle/540617_3

The authors postulate that the reason the paper I previously linked finds confusing evidence of a relationship between T levels and prostate cancer is that the graph of T vs. cancer is U-shaped. IOW the lowest cancer risk is found at normal T levels. Of course as one ages, normal T levels drop. So in the OP's thread, looking for a link between PEDs and health issues, I conclude that supplementing T to get increased performance is probably not a good idea in the long run.

The web is full of sites claiming the opposite. However all of the owners of these sites which I've seen stand to make money off TRT. If you can find unequivocal study evidence that higher than normal T equals lower cancer risk, I'd love to see it. Heck, we'd all love to see it.
Carbonfiberboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-14, 04:10 PM   #16
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Posts: 11,076
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamster View Post
It's a somewhat misleading quote, because it makes a basic mistake: confusing incidence with prevalence (registration rate).

Prostate cancer has low incidence but high prevalence, because it's not particularly aggressive, it is usually discovered early enough to treat, and, once it's discovered and if it's found to be aggressive, prostate can be surgically removed without major side effects. There are lots of people living with it or after it. For prostate cancer, National Cancer Institute reported 5-year survival of 100.0% (literally) for 65-74 year old patients diagnosed in most years between 1998 and 2006. The only site that comes even close is melanoma (5-year survival 90-92%).

Contrast with, say, cancers of liver and pancreas, which are much less common (an average 70 year old male has a 10 times higher chance of being diagnosed within a year with prostate cancer, than with either liver or pancreatic cancers combined), but actually kill as many if not more men, because they are very deadly, with 5-year survival rates in high single digits. In fact, it's not totally clear to me why CDC reports any deaths in the US from prostate cancer at all. (The most recent complete data point I could find was from 2006, with 28k deaths of all ages.)

It does not really look like either the incidence continues to grow or the survival significantly worsens past 80.
I just checked the ACS and you are correct. Based on what happened to friends of mine who developed prostate cancer and on doctors' advice, I believed that prostate cancer, left untreated, eventually resulted in death. The combination of the recent advice for doctors to no longer administer PSA tests and the unreliability of DREs assumes that leaving prostate cancer untreated will not substantially shorten lifespan. For most overweight, out of shape Americans. That seemed a logical dilemma to me.
Carbonfiberboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-14, 06:57 PM   #17
hamster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Escondido, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 2,240
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Actually I was only part correct. Prostate cancer has high incidence AND long survival, and those multiplied together give extremely high prevalence / registration rate. National Cancer Institute says that 2.7 million men in the U.S. have prostate cancer, compared to 32,000 with liver cancer and 21,000 with pancreatic cancer.

It may be more accurate to say "all men will get prostate cancer if they live long enough".
hamster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-14, 08:17 PM   #18
Weatherby
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Bikes: Too many
Posts: 548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by amazinmets73 View Post
I'm not married and do not have health insurance. How much is testerone going to set me back?
Probably thousands a year like all drugs. It is confusing from the search I just performed since there many different ways to take it and different prices that people quote and it is not clear if they are talking about their co-pay. I don't think you can get testosterone prescribed unless you have a medical condition.
Weatherby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-14, 08:17 PM   #19
Dudelsack 
A might bewildered...
 
Dudelsack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Loovul
Bikes: Bacchetta Giro ATT 26; Lemond Buenos Aires
Posts: 6,345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by amazinmets73 View Post
I'm not married and do not have health insurance. How much is testerone going to set me back?
Androgel is very expensive. If you're young and want to have a family some day, I would not use it.

Ive gone from flat out low to high normal T. My cycling has improved but I've also been power training this winter. I'm also over 60 and get PSAs checked pretty often.

Would I do it over knowing what I know now? Frankly, I'm not sure.

If you want to be a better cyclist, get a coach and a power meter and skip the pharmacotherapy.
__________________
Signature line for rent.
Dudelsack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-14, 08:28 PM   #20
Weatherby
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Bikes: Too many
Posts: 548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Harvard Docs say T don't cause prostate C

Harvard Gazette: Study of testosterone replacement therapy not linked to prostate cancer, heart disease risk

Quote:
In spite of the theoretical increase in prostate cancer risk following TRT, there is currently no evidence that testosterone administration can initiate or promote a de novo or pre-existing prostatic malignancy in hypogonadal men
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/540617_8

Quote:
One in six American men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer over their lifetime.
Quote:
Contrary to traditional teaching, high endogenous serum testosterone does not increase the risk of developing PCa, and low serum testosterone does not protect against PCa.


Quote:
The long-held belief that PCa risk is related to high serum androgen concentrations can no longer be supported.
A New Era of Testosterone and Prostate Cancer: From Physiology to Clinical Implications - European Urology
Weatherby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-14, 12:33 AM   #21
hamster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Escondido, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 2,240
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dudelsack View Post
Androgel is very expensive. If you're young and want to have a family some day, I would not use it.
Androgel (topical testosterone cream) is considered weaksauce/borderline useless by all serious guys who really abuse the stuff. (In case this has been lost on any readers, testosterone is a specific, most common kind of the family known as "anabolic steroids".) For maximum effectiveness you're supposed to go intramuscular. I'm not sure where most of them get it (many probably have local face-to-face suppliers), but it took me about 30 min with Google to find a few online suppliers with positive referrals/reviews where I could buy enough injectable T for a "cycle" (10 weeks @ 500 mg/week) for about $200 shipped.

That said, there are some large caveats. One is that testosterone is Schedule III controlled substance in the US. (Valium is IV and crystal meth is II.) You do NOT want to have this stuff in your possession without a valid prescription. I'm not sure if prescription for Androgel could be stretched enough to keep you out of jail if you're caught with 5000 mg of injectable testosterone. Trying to get it across the border in person (say, from Mexico) is not recommended for the same reason, though it may be attempted if you cover yourself with prescriptions from both sides of the border, declare it at the border and be willing to surrender it. A reputable online supplier is probably the safest route, here your worst risk is that the shipment is seized by customs. It's rare but it happens.

More importantly, I don't really see a large benefit of anabolic steroids in cycling. They help with sprint power and development of muscle mass. Building muscle mass is, if anything, counterproductive for us since it hurts climbing abilities. It does not look like it's going to do much for your VO2. Older guys might like it if it helps prevent or reverse age-related muscle loss. I'm thinking purely theoretically here, never actually tried it.
hamster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-14, 04:58 AM   #22
bmontgomery87
Senior Member
 
bmontgomery87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Roanoke, Va
Bikes: 2013 leader 721. 2015 leader 725. 2012 fuji feather
Posts: 1,003
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
^^The main benefit of testosterone in cycling would be the enhanced recovery + improved strength.
bmontgomery87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-14, 11:59 AM   #23
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Posts: 11,076
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Yes, T's supposed to be good for muscular recovery. Patches have been used effectively by Tour pros, although it's then possible to have one's lion taken away. Being an old fart, I listen to a radio station that plays old rock when I ride rollers. They have an ad about every 1/2 hour for a men's clinic where you can get scripts for T.
Carbonfiberboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-14, 06:01 PM   #24
wolfchild
Senior Member
 
wolfchild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mississauga/Toronto, Ontario canada
Bikes: I have 3 singlespeed/fixed gear bikes
Posts: 4,019
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Doping is cheating. I would never do it. I have no respect for people who dope to increase their performance during competitive events.
I can understand if you're an old guy with low libido, then sure go to a doctor and get some testestorone to improve your love life...But younger guys who dope to increase their athletic performance ?? ..are just a bunch of ******bags. If somebody is not genetically gifted to be a good athlete then they have no business being in sports. Don't use drugs to make yourself into something you're not.

Last edited by wolfchild; 04-24-14 at 06:06 PM.
wolfchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-14, 09:38 PM   #25
hamster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Escondido, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 2,240
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
Yes, T's supposed to be good for muscular recovery. Patches have been used effectively by Tour pros, although it's then possible to have one's lion taken away. Being an old fart, I listen to a radio station that plays old rock when I ride rollers. They have an ad about every 1/2 hour for a men's clinic where you can get scripts for T.
I think there are two distinct use cases here.

One is when the person has low endogenous T. This is older guys with ED targeted by men's clinic ads and also Tour pros (multiday stage races probably mess with T levels). Here topical or oral supplements can work to get you back to the level of a healthy, rested 20 year old.

The other is in otherwise healthy young guys with high endogenous T. They don't have much use for patches and creams because topical supplements are inefficient, expensive, limited in the amount of testosterone they can deliver, and because exogenous T suppresses their own production, partly cancelling the effect. They need to get high doses so that they exceed normal blood concentrations even if their own production is completely shut down.

With patches we're talking about dosages of 20-50 mg/week for $200+/month. One tenth of the dosage used by bodybuilders, for 2-3 times the price (cheaper if you have insurance, but still pretty outrageous). Gel is in the same neighborhood price- and dosage-wise, it seems.
hamster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:13 PM.