Zyglamail said:
So lets discuss it here as well. Enlighten me please.
Sorry. Getting lazy these days....LOL Here you go:
Mr. Nobody:
the gels work by releasing minute amounts of test through the skin all day long. Its not enough to trigger the feedback loop but enough to roughly double your total test values.
Agel is too new to have a lot of pier reviewed studies availabe. However, I have talked with my doctor and he has explained to me that LH suppression is time and dose dependant (says in insert too), meaning that early morning treatment with low dose is not very suppressive. I also have the following statements from other patients/doctors experiments:
Since AndroGel only brings your testosterone levels up to a normal range, it is generally a safe and mild treatment option. Studies have shown minimal side effects and only mild shut down of natural testosterone production (1).
References
1. Swerdloff, RS, and Wang, C., et al., Long-term pharmacokinetics of transdermal testosterone gel in hypogonadal men., J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2000 Dec;85(12):4500-10.
The intend of agel in the recovery program is for libido purposes, and may delay overall recovery a bit. However, its not just about fast recovery but achieving homeostasis in a managable manner, without slipping into depression and muscle loss while you wait for endo test to come back. The same goes for morning dbol.
As everyone knows already, only time will recover you completely.
from Gotwood:
testo gel lowered LH but not too much
Got Wood? note : these men ranged from 22-65. Testo enanthate (inj) lowered LH too much - to subnormal values. Testo gel lowered LH to normal, but not beyond to a subnormal range. This is evidence that the testo gel may not lower the LH too much, thereby inhibiting recovery. however again these are hypogonadal men.
============================
J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1999 Oct;84(10):3469-78
Pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of a permeation-enhanced testosterone transdermal system in comparison with bi-weekly injections of testosterone enanthate for the treatment of hypogonadal men.
Dobs AS, Meikle AW, Arver S, Sanders SW, Caramelli KE, Mazer NA.
Johns Hopkins Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland 21287, USA.
[email protected]
The pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of the Androderm testosterone (T) transdermal system (TTD) and intramuscular T enanthate injections (i.m.) for the treatment of male hypogonadism were compared in a 24-week multicenter, randomized, parallel-group study. Sixty-six adult hypogonadal men (22-65 years of age) were withdrawn from prior i.m. treatment for 4-6 weeks and then randomly assigned to treatment with TTD (two 2.5-mg systems applied nightly) or i.m. (200 mg injected every 2 weeks); there were 33 patients per group. Twenty-six patients in the TTD group and 32 in the i.m. group completed the study. TTD treatment produced circadian variations in the levels of total T, bioavailable T, dihydrotestosterone, and estradiol within the normal physiological ranges. i.m. treatment produced supraphysiological levels of T, bioavailable T, and estradiol (but not dihydrotestosterone) for several days after each injection. Mean morning sex hormone levels were within the normal range in greater proportions of TTD patients (range, 77-100%) than i.m. patients (range, 19-84%). Both treatments normalized LH levels in approximately 50% of patients with primary hypogonadism; however, LH levels were suppressed to the subnormal range in 31% of i.m. patients vs. 0% of TTD patients. Both treatments maintained sexual function (assessed by questionnaire and Rigiscan) and mood (Beck Depression Inventory) at the prior treatment levels. Prostate-specific antigen levels, prostate volumes, and lipid and serum chemistry parameters were comparable in both treatment groups. Transient skin irritation from the patches was reported by 60% of the TTD patients, but caused only three patients (9%) to discontinue treatment. i.m. treatment produced local reactions in 33% of patients and was associated with significantly more abnormal hematocrit elevations (43.8% of patients) compared with TTD treatment (15.4% of patients). Gynecomastia resolved more frequently during TTD treatment (4 of 10 patients) than with i.m. treatment (1 of 9 patients). Although both treatments seem to be efficacious for replacing T in hypogonadal men, the more physiological sex hormone levels and profiles associated with TTD may offer possible advantages over i.m. in minimizing excessive stimulation of erythropoiesis, preventing/ameliorating gynecomastia, and not over-suppressing gonadotropins.
Fonz
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
