Anabolic Steroids and Growth

[MrRippedZilla]

Considering some of the responses I received for my view, I cant help but feel slightly smug about this...thank god for Lyle's research skills

There was a similar study on steroid use during adolescence:

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/jc.2010-0435

A group of adolescent men were placed on the equivalent of sustanon 250mg for 1 1/2 years with a follow up done 21 years later.

Serum test levels were found to be significantly lowered in androgen treated men vs untreated:

"Leydig cell function was significantly affected by androgen treatment. In treated men, both serum testosterone and non-SHBG-bound testosterone levels were significantly reduced compared with untreated men. We hypothesize that the decreased T levels may be caused by reduced Leydig cell growth during puberty and suboptimal functioning of the Leydig cells in later life."

It also showed NO negative impact on fertility/sperm quality - something researchers used to use as a measure of whether or not you had recovered, no realising that you can be hypogonadal but still fertile.

Of course both these studies are not conclusive, for example mine could be explained by AAS-interference before the endorcrine system is fully developed during adolescence.
The exact mechanisms behind why recovery doesn't occur seems to be mostly in the "hypothesis" stage for now so hopefully, future research will shed more light on this issue.

[Druboutin]

Originally Posted by MrRippedZilla

My father is an endocrinologist also, but is very much in the minority in his field in that he believes in AAS-induced hypogonadism.
I've seen enough bloodwork, something factual enough for me to not argue with, to be convinced that recovery isn't as smooth as most say it is. And even if the damage isn't necessarily "permanent", who wants to spend years hypogonadal in the hope that 1 day everything will be fine?

To use a current example, I know someone who is currently 2 weeks post pct and is LOSING weight on 6,000 cals a day despite his maintenance only being around 4,000. And yes, cals/macros have been tracked meticulously - he's lost 4 pounds in 2 weeks since ending pct.
When he gets bloodwork done, I'm willing to bet that he hasn't recovered properly.

As for the gains issue, I used to be like you - believing that as long as you stay below your genetic limit, and recovery properly, you should keep the majority.
Since getting more involved in this world, my view has completely changed.
I am NOT saying that you will lose the gains immediately post pct, I'm saying that, despite the few adaptations that do remain, you will lose the gains as the years go on because your simply not in the same environment that created those results in the first place.

Otherwise why not simply do 1 cycle and be done?
Outside of the psychological temptation to cycle again, most guys realise that the "1 cycle for mega results and that's it for me" approach is not going to work.

Well, we're all delicate/different snowflakes...

I know I did 1 cycle, very moderate in terms of dose & duration, and came out ~12 lbs heavier all said and done by the time I got back down to the same BF% I was at pre-cycle. I also had bloodwork done 8 weeks after PCT and my test levels had recovered to their pathetic Total T 315 that they were before I ever touched AAS.

I just started my 2nd, and most likely final cycle. My original goal was to add a total of 20-25 lbs overall to my frame when it's in the 10% BF range (whether it took 2 or 3 cycles. ideally only 2) and then to maintain a healthy lifestyle and physique after that, holding my new "gains"..

So far, everything is going according to plan. Different people have different goals. I'm sure some will never be satisfied and it's a slippery slope for them to ever start. For me, I had a very specific goal in mind and it's well within reach.

My point is some people can do "1" or just a couple cycles and be done. It's not a commitment to a permanent lifestyle. Although once I'm older, I would personally be interested in jumping on a therapeutic dose for general wellness and having a doctor monitor me.

It can be done safely, responsibly and with no negative consequences, you just don't hear about it because the majority of times people only go out of their way to post horror stories. No one takes the time to tell people how great their life is; they only want to complain.

[MrRippedZilla]

Originally Posted by Druboutin

Well, we're all delicate/different snowflakes...

I know I did 1 cycle, very moderate in terms of dose & duration, and came out ~12 lbs heavier all said and done by the time I got back down to the same BF% I was at pre-cycle. I also had bloodwork done 8 weeks after PCT and my test levels had recovered to their pathetic Total T 315 that they were before I ever touched AAS.

I just started my 2nd, and most likely final cycle. My original goal was to add a total of 20-25 lbs overall to my frame when it's in the 10% BF range (whether it took 2 or 3 cycles. ideally only 2) and then to maintain a healthy lifestyle and physique after that, holding my new "gains"..

So far, everything is going according to plan. Different people have different goals. I'm sure some will never be satisfied and it's a slippery slope for them to ever start. For me, I had a very specific goal in mind and it's well within reach.

My point is some people can do "1" or just a couple cycles and be done. It's not a commitment to a permanent lifestyle. Although once I'm older, I would personally be interested in jumping on a therapeutic dose for general wellness and having a doctor monitor me.

It can be done safely, responsibly and with no negative consequences, you just don't hear about it because the majority of times people only go out of their way to post horror stories. No one takes the time to tell people how great their life is; they only want to complain.

Let me be clear that I am NOT against steroids, in fact I plan on being on them permanently in a few years once I'm dissatisfied with my progress.

The answer to whether you will keep the majority of your gains is a simple "it depends".
I'm sure we both know people who keep most of it, some of it, and close to none of it. From my POV, I'm not aware of anyone keeping the gains years down the line outside of those on TRT who rotate with blasting - maybe its dependent on the proper recovery factor we've been discussing? Since being on TRT makes recovery a non factor.

Is it possible to cycle responsibly with no negative consequences? Of course it is, no one is arguing that.
Is it a foregone gone conclusion that you will FULLY recover? IMO no - that is the issue being argued over here and its important to identify in future research WHY this lack of recovery occurs.

FYI all of this worry over recovery, keeping gains, etc can be avoided by actually staying on the drugs - something I plan on doing.

[Druboutin]

Originally Posted by MrRippedZilla

Let me be clear that I am NOT against steroids, in fact I plan on being on them permanently in a few years once I'm dissatisfied with my progress.

The answer to whether you will keep the majority of your gains is a simple "it depends".
I'm sure we both know people who keep most of it, some of it, and close to none of it. From my POV, I'm not aware of anyone keeping the gains years down the line outside of those on TRT who rotate with blasting - maybe its dependent on the proper recovery factor we've been discussing? Since being on TRT makes recovery a non factor.

Is it possible to cycle responsibly with no negative consequences? Of course it is, no one is arguing that.
Is it a foregone gone conclusion that you will FULLY recover? IMO no - that is the issue being argued over here and its important to identify in future research WHY this lack of recovery occurs.

FYI all of this worry over recovery, keeping gains, etc can be avoided by actually staying on the drugs - something I plan on doing.

Something I'll do as well.. Actually no reason for me not to be at this time, with my natural levels barely hovering over the arbitrary line they set as "within range"

And agreed with most of everything else that you said. As far as keeping gains, I still tend to think it's dictated by the trainee.

In my case, I dropped that initial water weight and top end strength within the first few weeks. After cutting off the fat I gained, I had netted 12-13 lbs of LBM and my strength was significantly higher than it was pre-cycle. Strength was probably 65-85% of my peak "on cycle" strength depending on bodypart (legs/back toward the upper end, chest toward the lower end, arm/shoulders in between)

Now those gains remained 5 months after completing the cycle.. I see no reason that they'd magically disappear as more time passed unless I quit training. As long as I continue to train and eat sufficiently, I believe that is now "my" muscle, not some artificially inflated size/strength.

I also believe the % you can retain will continue to diminish as you approach your limit. This is when people start to stretch out the duration and pump up the dose. The slippery slope.

However, in theory, I don't see why someone couldn't use gear to get near their limit, and then continue to train/eat sufficiently to stay in that range.

On the recovery aspect, I suppose everyone is different. Some are fine, some may take longer, some may never fully get back to where they were -- who knows.. I'm not educated enough on that part of it to give a legitimate response. I just know it's not automatic that damage will be done, and I've seen a quick recovery to normal, crappy levels in myself & training partner.

[lostmyoldaccount]

Just to confirm, anabolics have no effect on leptin and you still run into the same issues when dieting, correct?

But you can be more wreckless I suppose and get away with bigger deficits, less training, etc. and not face (as much?) muscle loss.

[squat]

Originally Posted by lostmyoldaccount

Just to confirm, anabolics have no effect on leptin and you still run into the same issues when dieting, correct?

But you can be more wreckless I suppose and get away with bigger deficits, less training, etc. and not face (as much?) muscle loss.

Steroids make it harder to do math, so if you're a student, think again. If you're not a student, stop thinking and do meth.

[JaKob]

Be interesting to see details pertaining to compounds used and pct.

If the argument is that a hypogonadal state can be induced for an extended period of time regardless of pct protocol then that detail matters.

[JaKob]

Originally Posted by MrRippedZilla

Considering some of the responses I received for my view, I cant help but feel slightly smug about this...thank god for Lyle's research skills

There was a similar study on steroid use during adolescence:

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/jc.2010-0435

A group of adolescent men were placed on the equivalent of sustanon 250mg for 1 1/2 years with a follow up done 21 years later.

Serum test levels were found to be significantly lowered in androgen treated men vs untreated:

"Leydig cell function was significantly affected by androgen treatment. In treated men, both serum testosterone and non-SHBG-bound testosterone levels were significantly reduced compared with untreated men. We hypothesize that the decreased T levels may be caused by reduced Leydig cell growth during puberty and suboptimal functioning of the Leydig cells in later life."

It also showed NO negative impact on fertility/sperm quality - something researchers used to use as a measure of whether or not you had recovered, no realising that you can be hypogonadal but still fertile.

Of course both these studies are not conclusive, for example mine could be explained by AAS-interference before the endorcrine system is fully developed during adolescence.
The exact mechanisms behind why recovery doesn't occur seems to be mostly in the "hypothesis" stage for now so hopefully, future research will shed more light on this issue.

High dose androgen administration to boys, mean age 14 yrs old....

Yeah that makes it pretty dissimilar to the study lyle posted. The scope of it's usefulness starts and stops with adolescent boys.

[MrRippedZilla]

Originally Posted by JaKob

Be interesting to see details pertaining to compounds used and pct.

If the argument is that a hypogonadal state can be induced for an extended period of time regardless of pct protocol then that detail matters.

Yea...no, that isn't the argument.
Research already showed that you could remain in a hypogonadal state for an extended period of time (years).

The study Lyle posted questions whether recovery will happen at all - regardless of time.

Originally Posted by JaKob

High dose androgen administration to boys, mean age 14 yrs old....

Yeah that makes it pretty dissimilar to the study lyle posted. The scope of it's usefulness starts and stops with adolescent boys.

Considering both studies showed a lack of full recovery regardless of age, and the mechanisms behind WHY this happens is unknown in both adults & adolescence - I don't think researchers would agree with you.

Your assuming that age alone dictates that the mechanisms behind the lack of recovery will be different. Since we don't know the mechanisms, your assumption is wrong.