socket said:
I've always wondered why people go heavy on PCT - post cycle therapy - - post cycle therapy - - post cycle therapy - ?
The way I see it, lets start with Test.........
You use 1g test per week, and after a short time your body's test production sees a load of test in your body and shuts down production. OK agreed. So, bring out the H.C.G and lets force the body to produce it's own, even though it still beleives there is a huge surplus of Test floating around. Are you tricking it? or forcing it to do something it doesn't want to do?
What about this: At the end of your 12 week cycle, you begin to slowly drop the levels of test, and at some point, slowly, your body will see that there is a deficit of test at default levels, and gradually start producing again, naturally. you then slowly taper the use of test off until all is back to normal. No estrogen rebound, no use of H.C.G, and a few other bits to control the rebound effects. but will it work?
The same logic can be applied to any compound, such as nandrolones, etc?
Or am i missing something here?
Remember the no flaming rule, trenbolone heads!
Here is a response I gave on another board from a long-winded wright up about how tapering is the key to PCT. Enjoy.
-------------------------
Two things need to be understood.
1. Testicular sensitivity will degrade from both too much activity and insufficient activity. It is important to maintain the balance. Steroid use will cause insufficient activity and will cause the testes to become desensitized to the effects of lh - leutenizing hormone - . (about 90% reduction in sensitivity after 16 weeks of steroid use, despite what the author says) (1-6)
2. If an individual becomes desensitized, normal physiological levels of LH or FSH - follicle stimulating hormone - will not be enough to stimulate normal production again. A super-physiological dose would be required to “shock” the testes back into normal production. Puberty would be a good comparative example.The best PCT in the world involves duplicating the hormonal milieu of puberty (Very high LH/FSH, gh - growth hormone (somatropin) - , IGF-1, TGF, ect) Puberty does not happen with a trickle of LH and FSH – it is a complete gonadotropin/hormonal bombardment.
Now, there are quite a few things wrong in that article. [It would take hours to refute every wrong assumption] For simplicity sake, here is the sentence with the biggest problem that shows rudimentary hpta - hypothalamic-pituitary-testicular axis - knowledge on the authors behalf -
“Each week as you continue to taper down your dose of test, the amount of FSH/LH secreted in your pituitary will increase, and the amount of natural test will increase as well.”
Firstly, you don’t need to taper to bring back LH/FSH levels. They will automatically return to normal levels within weeks of cessation from anabolic androgenic steroids use and will come back even faster if you use anti-estrogens such as arimidex, letrozol, clomid, Nolvaldex - tamoxifen citrate - , ect. Regaining normal LH/FSH is not the problem with recovering from AAS. The problem lies in sensitivity, as in, the testicular response to LH/FSH
In the study referenced below, a group of men were administered steroids for 16 weeks. After the steroid use they were administered 4500iu of HCG - human chorionic gonadotropin - to test the response in T production. The result was that the hCG increased testosterone to only 1/3 of the pre-steroid values. This suggests that the leydigs where dramatically less responsive to hCG/LH stimulation because of the 16 week deprivation of LH.
[FYI, in a healthy individual a 4500iu hCG shot would more than double testosterone]
So, the problem with tapering is that *even if* LH began to trickle from the pituitary on a lesser steroid dose, it would be a fraction of what is normally produced, and would be far less than what would be required to “shock” the testes into T production.
The purpose of on cycle hCG [as the author managed to construe] is to keep the testes functioning normally during a cycle when a sufficient LH/FSH signal is absent. Again, this is about balance, and too much hCG can desensitize, but the right dose will prevent desensitization. I often suggest 200-250iu 2x a week as the ideal dose during a cycle.
What’s worse about this authors protocol is that guys are now extending their once 8 week cycle to a 14 week cycle in belief that they are actually recovering in those last 6 weeks on a lower dose of steroid. The fact is, they arnt producing an ounce of their own testosterone, and are only further decreasing their testicular sensitivity to LH. (thus making PCT even harder in the future)
BTW, Im willing to bet money that the author of that post was a guy named Ross. He has been to other forums that we sponsor, and has posted this same kind of theory. Here is a run in we had a few months back -
http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/s...ery-bridging-cruising-544152.html#post7255412
-Pp
1. Testicular responsiveness to human chorionic godadotrophin during transient hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism induced by androgenic/anabolic steroids in power athletes
Hannu et al.
J. Steroid Biochem. Vol. 25, No. 1 pp. 109-112 (1986)
2. Low-Dose Human Chorionic Gonadotropin Maintains Intratesticular Testosterone in Normal Men with Testosterone-Induced Gonadotropin Suppression
Andrea D. Coviello, et al
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., May 2005; 90: 2595 - 2602.
3. Luteinizing hormone on Leydig cell structure and function.
Mendis-Handagama SM
Histol Histopathol 12:869–882 (1997)
4. Leydig cell peroxisomes and sterol carrier protein-2 in luteinizing hormone-deprived rats
SM Mendis-Handagama, PA Watkins, SJ Gelber, and TJ Scallen
Endocrinology, Dec 1992; 131: 2839.
5. Effect of long term deprivation of luteinizing hormone on Leydig cell volume, Leydig cell number, and steroidogenic capacity of the rat testis.
Keeney DS, Mendis-Handagama SMLC, Zirkin BR, Ewing LL.
Endocrinology 1988; 123:2906–2915.
6.The Effects of Gonadotropin Suppression and Selective Replacement on Insulin-Like Factor 3 Secretion in Normal Adult Men
Katrine Bay, et al
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., Mar 2006; 91: 1108 - 1111.