T Nation

First Cycle 500mg Test/Wk - Myth?


#1

My question is pretty simple. Where does this come from? Why 500, why not 400 or 300mg test/week?

Concidering articles like this (see below), I don't see a valid reason for jumping to 500mg on a first cycle, except maybe the "first cycle = best cycle" argument, but in that case, ppl advocate 700-800mg/week.

Now, if the idea is to play it on the safe side, 500mg makes as much sense as limiting your protein intake, it's around, ppl will tell you that protein will kill your kidneys, but their is just no evidence to prove it.

quote:

Testosterone dose-response relationships in healthy young men.

Bhasin S, Woodhouse L, Casaburi R, Singh AB, Bhasin D, Berman N, Chen X, Yarasheski KE, Magliano L, Dzekov C, Dzekov J, Bross R, Phillips J, Sinha-Hikim I, Shen R, Storer TW.

Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Molecular Medicine, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, Los Angeles, CA 90059, USA. SBHASIN@UCLA.EDU

Testosterone increases muscle mass and strength and regulates other physiological processes, but we do not know whether testosterone effects are dose dependent and whether dose requirements for maintaining various androgen-dependent processes are similar. To determine the effects of graded doses of testosterone on body composition, muscle size, strength, power, sexual and cognitive functions, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), plasma lipids, hemoglobin, and insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) levels, 61 eugonadal men, 18-35 yr, were randomized to one of five groups to receive monthly injections of a long-acting gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist, to suppress endogenous testosterone secretion, and weekly injections of 25, 50, 125, 300, or 600 mg of testosterone enanthate for 20 wk. Energy and protein intakes were standardized. The administration of the GnRH agonist plus graded doses of testosterone resulted in mean nadir testosterone concentrations of 253, 306, 542, 1,345, and 2,370 ng/dl at the 25-, 50-, 125-, 300-, and 600-mg doses, respectively. Fat-free mass increased dose dependently in men receiving 125, 300, or 600 mg of testosterone weekly (change +3.4, 5.2, and 7.9 kg, respectively). The changes in fat-free mass were highly dependent on testosterone dose (P = 0.0001) and correlated with log testosterone concentrations (r = 0.73, P = 0.0001). Changes in leg press strength, leg power, thigh and quadriceps muscle volumes, hemoglobin, and IGF-I were positively correlated with testosterone concentrations, whereas changes in fat mass and plasma high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol were negatively correlated. Sexual function, visual-spatial cognition and mood, and PSA levels did not change significantly at any dose. We conclude that changes in circulating testosterone concentrations, induced by GnRH agonist and testosterone administration, are associated with testosterone dose- and concentration-dependent changes in fat-free mass, muscle size, strength and power, fat mass, hemoglobin, HDL cholesterol, and IGF-I levels, in conformity with a single linear dose-response relationship. However, different androgen-dependent processes have different testosterone dose-response relationships.


#2

Why the exact figure?

Because people tend to deal in round numbers. Don’t believe me? Well, how many people asking about cycles ask about doing, say, 7 or 9 weeks? Nobody.

Because Sustanon has been so popular, 500 mg/week as a round figure. 2 mL per week. Concentrations of 200 mg/mL are also popular but 400 and 600 don’t feel as round to people.

As to your question, why not 400 or 300: 300 is not round relative to concentrations available, 400 mg while round relative to 200 mg/mL is a quite odd amount relative to 250 mg/mL, while 500 mg obviously is round to 250 mg/mL and is also readily suited to the 250 mg/mL concentration (people don’t have that much trouble with the idea of 2.5 mL.) And 400 mg/week does give noticeably less results.

Does any of this mean there is something magic about 500 mg/mL? No.


#3

Like Bill says–No magic number.

The thing is a weekly does of 250mg (basically 1mL of Test-e, sustanon, etc) will shut down natural test production and only give you slightly more testosterone than you could have naturally produced. I think doubling it is just a natural starting point.


#4

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Why the exact figure?

Because people tend to deal in round numbers. Don’t believe me? Well, how many people asking about cycles ask about doing, say, 7 or 9 weeks? Nobody.

Because Sustanon has been so popular, 500 mg/week as a round figure. 2 mL per week. Concentrations of 200 mg/mL are also popular but 400 and 600 don’t feel as round to people.

As to your question, why not 400 or 300: 300 is not round relative to concentrations available, 400 mg while round relative to 200 mg/mL is a quite odd amount relative to 250 mg/mL, while 500 mg obviously is round to 250 mg/mL and is also readily suited to the 250 mg/mL concentration (people don’t have that much trouble with the idea of 2.5 mL.) And 400 mg/week does give noticeably less results.

Does any of this mean there is something magic about 500 mg/mL? No.

[/quote]

That’s what I thought about “round figures”. But, do you feel that alone justifies everyone going on 500mg, when you can easily preload syringes? Would you then say that 300mg, which roughly translates into doubling once natural test level is more advisable?

Actually, what I am getting at, is that this 500mg/week dose is responsible in part of the “more is better” mentality, and rarely, if ever, will you read a positive comment regarding lower doses, it’s always “500mg will make you happy”, which quite francly has no base, concidering 90% of the users are your average gym goer, which I am part of, and only 10% are actual bodybuilders who may need to venture into more complexe doses, and cycles.

In a sense, I feel like ppl try to cover their lack of intensity, training, and nutrition wise, by juicing some more, which is hurting the sport way more, than the occasinal steroid abuse reported in the media.


#5

[quote]BigJawnMize wrote:
Like Bill says–No magic number.

The thing is a weekly does of 250mg (basically 1mL of Test-e, sustanon, etc) will shut down natural test production and only give you slightly more testosterone than you could have naturally produced. I think doubling it is just a natural starting point. [/quote]

I would say 300mg would double it, with circulating level of test around 1400ngtest/dl, concidering your average healthy male has roughly 700ng/dl (if even that). But, I am not sure ppl even need to double their dose to see noticeable gains. With a cycle of 125mg/week ppl experienced 3.4kg of LBM increase wich equals roughly 8lbs (see study).


#6

Well, make sure to recommend doing a half-assed job in the gym as well, since I’m sure some study will show “noticeable” results from that for a person new to training.


#7

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, make sure to recommend doing a half-assed job in the gym as well, since I’m sure some study will show “noticeable” results from that for a person new to training.[/quote]

Sure, 125 is low, it was just an illustrative point; natural trained athletes don’t have test levels significantly higher than normal healthy young males. 700ngtest/dl is not uncommon, well trained or not, but quite high, most trained healthy young males test aroung 500-550, so you give him 300mg, test will shoot up to 1400, give him 600 and you get 2400ng/dl. And, seeing that hypertrophy is directly correleted to circulating test level, I don’t see where the problem is.

An individual receiving testosteron for X week without training will see a noticable increase in fat free mass, vs. natural lifters, exercise will just further increase LBM gains.


#8

I don’t see where your problem is with using more efficacious amounts than the 300 mg/week or other low figures you’ve tossed around.

But to each his own.


#9

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I don’t see where your problem is with using more efficacious amounts.[/quote]

I have no problem with using more, but more test equals more side effects, wouldn!t you agree.

(Concidering McGwire gained roughly 75lbs on cycles like 400mgtest/week, 100mg EQ, and 50mg winstrol).

Well, I am not trying to get into an argument, it’s just that I am 6’2 230lbs, and a single digit BF, (BB small, but most ppl would be okay with that) and I can get away with pretty simple test stacks, then I see all those posts with ppl towering at 1g/week, with tren, deca, slin, and some. Most ppl don’t need that much. And, encourage unhealthy use.


#10

No, I wouldn’t agree, because in many cases there are no detectable side effects. You can’t be less than none.

And in those cases where we may say side effects are not in fact zero, being half as much as “completely unimportant” is not a worthwhile benefit relative to getting less results.

I have no idea what you are talking about with Mark McGwire. (Literal statement.) What, you mean that from the weight he was at as a major league ballplayer at some point in the past, he added 75 lb LBM? Did he ever specify what he took other than blaming it all on androstenedione? I really don’t know what you are talking about so perhaps you could be more specific in where this comes from.

I’ve known guys that were 6’2 and 230 lb (approximately speaking on both values) with single digit bodyfat who not only never used steroids at all, but didn’t weight train at all other than what they were required to do back when on the HS football team. Or in one case at the time also fooled around in the gym with the machines on no regular schedule and very little work. Does that prove that everyone can be that while doing so little towards it? No, and neither does your self-report indicate anything about optimal dosages.


#11

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
No, I wouldn’t agree, because in many cases there are no detectable side effects. You can’t be less than none.

And in those cases where we may say side effects are not in fact zero, being half as much as “completely unimportant” is not a worthwhile benefit relative to getting less results.

I have no idea what you are talking about with Mark McGwire. (Literal statement.) What, you mean that from the weight he was at as a major league ballplayer at some point in the past, he added 75 lb LBM? Did he ever specify what he took other than blaming it all on androstenedione? I really don’t know what you are talking about so perhaps you could be more specific in where this comes from.

I’ve known guys that were 6’2 and 230 lb (approximately speaking on both values) with single digit bodyfat who not only never used steroids at all, but didn’t weight train at all other than what they were required to do back when on the HS football team. Or in one case did very little more than fool around in the gym with the machines on no regular schedule and very little work. Does that prove that everyone can be that while doing so little towards it? No, and neither does your self-report indicate anything about optimal dosages.[/quote]

I am not allowed to get any bigger, as my weight can not fluctuate more than 10lbs from my weigh in (felt like justifying why I am so small, note: It’s my ego talking …lol), so I am in it for the performance only. Regardless, I understand what you are saying, and I guess that I didn’t look at it this way.

Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me.

Much Respect,

Rek.


#12

I think your point is valid that if someone is wanting only noticeable results, but much less than what might be accomplished, or particularly if needing as you do to remain within some certain limit, then yes a low dose can be a reasonable solution to that situation. I was perhaps misunderstanding you in thinking that the suggested low figures were towards being a general recommendation for first-time cycles, in contrast to 500 mg/week (which itself is moderate.)

As a personal take though I’d rather see such a person use say 500 mg/week (or 600 if having 200 mg/mL testosterone) for a shorter time to obtain the desired limitation on results, than use 300 mg/week for a necessarily longer time for that same result.


#13

Back in the days when AI and SERM are not avaliable, it is stupid for a first-timer to use 500mg of test per week. Gyno risk is very high without support drugs. Now with more drugs avaliable, then it is preferable to run testosterone at a moderate dose, with the help of AI to control any oestrogen related issue. Testosterone is powerful drug with serious side effects.

It’s not like running ibuprofen 500mg per week for 10 weeks is it?! HPTA suprsssion is real, so is gyno, acne, bloat, and baldness. SO why would you use it for “marginal” gain, while still experiencing serious side effects? Ok, if you run 250mg a week, you probably don’t get much gyno, ance, or bloat. But your HPTA will be maximally supressed after 2 days with a single injections of 200mg testosterone. I’d rather use injectable atp/amino acid/vitamin instead.


#14

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, how many people asking about cycles ask about doing, say, 7 or 9 weeks? Nobody.

[/quote]

My last cycle was seven weeks!!!

OMG, I proved Bill Roberts wrong, I am a genius! lol = )


#15

[quote]mephistopheles wrote:
Back in the days when AI and SERM are not avaliable, it is stupid for a first-timer to use 500mg of test per week. [/quote]

This is a good point. OP, you seem to have changed your tune, as your first post seems, to me, to suggest that you are looking for an answer for ALL users, not just yourself, which this appears to have, however smoothly, morphed into.

The point is that sides can be controlled now, so there is no excuse for doing a less than at least moderate (read: half-assed) cycle for one’s first time. I able to run over 2 grams a weeks of AAS with nearly no sides to speak of (other than sleep related ones) because of proper acillary use. 500mg/w IS a moderate dose, and, especially if it is just test, an incredibly easy one on which to control sides. The beginning user would be best served getting the most out of shutting down HPTA function, which is going to happen at a dose of 300mg/w just as intensely as it will at 800mg/w.


#16

[quote]soontobeIFBB wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, how many people asking about cycles ask about doing, say, 7 or 9 weeks? Nobody.

My last cycle was seven weeks!!!

OMG, I proved Bill Roberts wrong, I am a genius! lol = )[/quote]

Clearly, you have freed your mind! :slight_smile:

Seriously, I’ve never had anyone ask me about 7 weeks (or 9.) Eight, six, ten: lots of times. But never 7 or 9.


#17

Or at least I don’t think I’ve ever been asked about 7 or 9. I suppose it could have happened a long while back prior to my noticing the phenomenon of some numbers being favored in this matter and others not. So I really shouldn’t say “never,” but certainly not in a very long time, if ever.