I’m currently on trt of 200mg weekly of test e. My doc wants me to start deca (nandrolone) at 200mg a week also. I know there are therapeutic uses for deca but Also the dangers. The doctor said he would like me on it indefinitely. Is that recommended? Or should it be cycled, as in 16 weeks on 16 weeks off? I a lil weary about being on it forever. Thanks for the input.
Did your doctor say why? Has to be a valid reason.
Nandrolone can be used off label for joint pain and stiffness. If prescribed, there should be documentation of joint issues in the patient history. It is a synthetic drug. It can, and likely will, have a negative impact on your lipids, especially HDLs. It is not recommended indefinitely and should not be refilled without monitoring lipids. At some point, they will be effected, so it is a good to cycle it.
To me, it comes down to benefits vs risks. Some who have used it for joint issues report near miraculous results.
Definitely not a good idea to run year round. If you NEED, and I do mean NEED it, to function then that’s your gamble. I wouldn’t run it more than 1-2x per year and in shorter cycles ~12 weeks (no science behind that other than less is more and it should be effective at that length). I seriously doubt that’s the case.
These findings strongly support idea that nandrolone intake by sedentary rats and exercised rats induced heart abnormality mediated by oxidative stress, which was manifest in increased lipid peroxidation, Hcy, and 8-OHdG in heart tissue.
Thanks man, that was a great read! My doc is a little lost to all this. I asked him about neurotoxicity and nandrolone and he looked at me dumbfounded. I personally didn’t think it would be wise to run it all year long. I guess I’ll just run it in cycles and stick up on the rest of the pharma grade nandrolone and use it for a blast in the years to come
I’ve said many times that I’m no saint when it comes to experimenting with AAS. I’m not saying you shouldn’t do what makes you happy. But… its definitely not something to run indefinitely. I would be concerned mostly about the cardiac damage done from consistent use. I would bet hands down your life would end very prematurely.
Well when you think about it 16 weeks is 30% of the year already in one cycle. If you run it twice per year then you are already running it the majority of the year. @unreal24278 may have some insight on the dosing versus risk. HIV patients for example only use 100-150mg every two weeks. So is 200mg/wk really that low?
Good point, I would only run it 1x per year though. Now do all AAS have cardiac damage associated with them. Like EQ? I have acquired a ton of that from a buddy who’s wife was gonna kick him out because of his usage problem.
It’s dependent on the individual… but no, the progressive docs giving HIV+ patients deca prescribed considerably higher dosages
Within the book “built to survive” if I recall (read it a while ago), the dosages prescribed/reccomended was 2-400mg weekly, not to say 100mg isn’t effective, it’s dependent on the severity of the disease (progression). Trials using 100-150mg e2w were quite conservative, if I recall correctly the amount of LBM accrued over 16 wks was about 1.5 kg… not much
There are trials that exist regarding hiv/nandrolone decanoate with dosages approaching 600mg weekly
Other drugs trialed/used for hiv/aids are
Oxandrolone: 20-80mg daily
Oxymetholone: 50-150mg daily
Nandrolone: 50-600mg weekly
In terms of cardiac damage I’d garner just about all c17aa orals induce far more cardiac damage when used comparative to deca. The problem with deca vs other AAS is we simply have more data (pertaining solely to rodent studies) comparative to other AAS.
Do I think it’s harsher on cardiac parameters/functioning comparative to test? Probably… but it’s not tren, winny, dbol etc
No data exists regarding long term effects, however there are individuals who have been using low dosages of the stuff for 30+ years (there’s one MD in particuar I know… not personally though… of who still uses the stuff in low dosages after decades of using supraphysiologic dosages of the compound)
The one study indicating the compound is 11x more harmful compared to test regarding vasculature/inducing apoptosis in endothelial cell culture (in vitro)… the thing is though, differences between what occurs in a microbiological vs macrobiological context is fairly significant. In vitro antioxidants, elimination pathways etc don’t exist, not to mention the concentration of nandrolone required to induce said cellular damage was enormous (11 micromolar, equiv to 11,000 nmol, granted blood concentration can differ from concentrations achieved in differing tissues, still I’d garner the amount that’d need to be taken would be astronomical.
However all AAS (like deca for instance) impair antioxidant enzyme balances, induce a net vasoconstrictive effect etc. There are numerous mechanisms behind AAS induced cardiac toxicity
Hypertension stemming from RAAS modification + systemic vascular resistance
increased sensitivity to release of catecholamines + beta adrenergic receptor upregulation (this seems to effect some far more than others)
dyslipidemia + pro oxidive effect
direct myocardial injury (once again due to the notion of macro vs microbiology this is hotly debated), and aside from a few small scale studies regarding the cardiac dimensions of prior/current AAS users we don’t have an accurate conclusion… Some studies state the impact on cardiac dimensinos/function is minimal/doesn’t exist
diabetic induced cardiac alterations
Whereas others state the dysfunction induced is serious, potentially life threatening
Interestingly, in this case the left ventricular hypertrophy observed is very significant… but the mean BP of all subjects is within hypertensive ranges… thus the question begs is the cardiac alterations induced by sympathetic nervous system upregulation, direct myocardial injury or prolonged hypertension
And even in the studies in which cardiac dysfunction appears to be subclinical, certain subjects appear to have cardiac dimensions/functinoal measurements that meet the criteria for the diagnosis of CHF, in a cohort of 100 men, if 2-3 have CHF from AAS, those odds aren’t fantastic…
However these studies don’t typically account for lifestyle factors, other drugs that may or may not have been taken, whether individuals are lying about their doses etc… This is why I get so frustrated when yolotards come on here casually blasting two grams of tren per week etc… they’re killing themselves, and have no idea and/or are in denial. I’m dropping my total weekly dose to 250mg weekly next week (from 270).
Problem is, in once study (can’t post it on here as it’s a payed study to access) individuals were monitored while they underwent cycles, some were pretty fat cycles… no echocardiographic changes could be detected in up to 20 weeks of prolonged usage… you’d think something would occur during that timeframe no?
Furthermore, there was recently a rodent study in which nandrolone failed to replicate the cardiac alterations induced within other studies, many of these rodent studies aren’t particularly large enough to come to a definite consensus… BUT, given the amount we have, it’s fair to assume a strong correlation exists (but this can be observed with test, eq, deca, dbol, winny…) the only compounds not shown to induce cardiac enlargement in rodents are
DON’T take that as tren being safe, we have profoundly differing elimination/antioxidation enzymes, and doses of test equiv to LESS than that of physiology (5mg/kg) appears to induce cardiomyopathy/significant fibrosis. Tren is ABSOLUTELY the most harmful thing one can take in terms of injectable preparations of AAS (and probably beats most orals too in terms of cardiac toxicity)
Deca isn’t safe, there are potentially profound neurological, cardiovascular etc consequences involved… As is the case with most other AAS… like all the effect is likely dose dependent
No, the studies using 2-400mg didn’t experience any SAE’s because of the incredibly short durations of the trials… don’t think that means it’s safe… there are trials using 600mg test for 20 wks with no observable sides… doesn’t account for potential changes in cardiac morphology (on a cellular level or measurable as these variables weren’t accounted for in any studies)
One study compares the effect of 200mg test wkly for 4 wks vs same dose of deca… interestingly the TESTOSTERONE appeared to induce a non significant alteration in cardiac structure, while the deca didn’t have any measurable effect
Yes, I’d say it’s probably more dangerous to use AAS in high dosages than to regularly smoke tobacco tbh, tobacco statistically takes 10 years off one’s lifespan… anabolic steroids CAN take 30-40 off according to anecdotal reports and perhaps the preliminary findings from some of these studies
I don’t know for sure, but I’d suspect not. Most trials are fairly short term and cardiac issues are often because of either arthersclosis or thickening of the heart muscle which takes years to manifest. Theres the possibility, I think, of some neuro damage, but again it takes a long time to show up.
I don’t think there are any long term studies like we’d want. I’d love to see 5-10 year study on nandrolone with doses given up to symtom resolution with a few hundred guys for joint pain. But the cost of that study would be sizeable.
It is not required. However, if anyone, DEA, FDA, State Board, or even a malpractice attorney, had an issue of some kind with his practice, a legitimate reason for prescribing what he does would help his cause.
The drug dealer with an MD describes many, but some push the envelope more than others. Hopefully, he can and will, look out for your health as he also takes care of the other needs.
I’m currently on 200mg test and 200mg deca. Going on week 3 and I feel fine. I too have experienced some knee/shoulder/back pains… I think the deca is working but then again I have not been chasing heavy numbers for powerlifting as I have in the past. May not specifically contribute to your questions as this is my first time using deca and I don’t know about long-term use…welp see ya later.
Depends on the individual, there is the notion that “test is natural, so it’s safe” unfortunately test has a similar effect regarding dopaminergic dysregulatin in high dosages. The difference is
deca depletes dopamine/alters receptor density
test downregulates dopamine receptors and alters dopamine receptors.
The truth is, the majority get away with using deca (neurologically)… obviously it’s dose/duration dependent… a SELECT few have SERIOUS neurological issues (paranoia, jealousy, ED, extreme mood swings etc)
I can link data in which 600mg deca (without test) for 12 weeks is tolerated very well in the majority of men using.
The result of the aforementioned alterations regarding neurotransmission/dopaminergic expression is/should theoretically be
deca makes some feel bad while on
Test can make you feel shitty when you lower the dose if receptors are downregulated
The cardiac effects (regarding potential enlargement, proarrythmiac effect) from high dose test is really no different from synthetic AAS. As a matter of fact, since sympathetic nervous system dominance, blood pressure etc may play a large role in relation to the sheer amount of damage induced, I’d stipulate testosterone may induce these issues at an accelerated rate compared to say… methenolone (though with atherosclerosis progression test is probs the least harmful). I can link you a study (posted yesterday) 3.8 years on avg, dose 675mg weekly or something… no average subjects all had what I’d define as "mild left ventricular enlargement (about 2x larger than the avg man), abnormal cardiac dimensions… cardiac function remained preserved but I’ll explain why this is concerning
Concentric LVH interferes with the hearts natural pacemaker (electrical conduction, hence why LVH can be diagnosed sometimes via EKG), electrical interference can induce lethal arrhythmia regardless of preserved cardiac function… Now, whether the same ideology pertains to athletes heart is unknown, however it does appear athletes are at a greatly increased risk of atrial fibrillation later on in life.
Granted there are other studies that come to the conclusion "this doesn’t induce significant cardiac alterations/electrical conduction and cardiac output/functiono remains entirely preserved… so the data is a little bit ehhhh… the study was a little bit flawed considering that (probably AAS mediated though) ALL AAS users were hypertensive
I used NPP for 6 weeks and def had impact on my dopamine/mood as well as sexual function. I felt great for 4-5 weeks but after that it all went downhill. It’s not for me. Also, yes my joints felt better but every single issue I had came back just as bad about 2 weeks after the cycle. I really don’t see a place for it in TRT, although I know many disagree. Like @blshaw I’m no angel. I’ve cycled a lot of different AAS but indefinite use, I can’t get my head around it.
Well think of it like this. There are two circles of thought that revolve around AAS use disregarding TRT. There’s the PED crowd that cycles on/off large dosages (say 5-100x+ male physiology in androgen equivalent)
Then there’s the anti aging/quality of life enhancement
Who is to say it’s healthier to cycle say 2x yearly (each cycle totalling 10 wks
50mg var (wks 1-5)
vs say… 125mg test 125mg deca/eq/mast/whatever year round
As for TRT… NO, nandrolone is NOT a TRT drug… sure, it was used (supposedly) as HRT frequently in the 60s, 70s and 80s… but they don’t prescribe it for this purpose anymore because… well… it didn’t work very well. For certain patients with ailments and perhaps other options have been exhausted (as in my case… deca, living with constant pain that makes me incapable of being able to perform certain activities… long term opiate pain medication or repeated cortisone shots + still having pain and complications from said shots)… the answer is pretty clear for me, use the deca for 4-5 months, go off, see what happens. If pain recurs (which it probably will, but hey… you never know) then go back on… and off… and repeat that cycle until my untimely demise
However if a doc is offering some deca to aid in building muscle mass… just use more testosterone, despite testosterone itself carrying inherent risks when the dosages go high (a TT of 4000ng/dl + and FT 5x + ref range or whatever is not safe long term… I don’t care what anyone says)… it’s not quite as risky in comparison to nandrolone… or boldenone… perhaps drostanolone/methenolone are less risky, but mg/mg they put on less muscle mass (less potent) and they ARE harsher on HDL cholesterol, may elevate LDL etc