The Tren/Progesterone/Prolactin Thread

Alright. I have never had this explained to me, but I KNOW that I have experienced gyno as a direct result of either a too high dosage or a too long usage of tren. Massive amounts of letrozole did nothing but destroy my libido, while the gyno continued to progress pretty well unchecked. To the degree that I now have more fatty tissue there than I had before, along with a hard, pea-sized lump that was never there to begin with.

Okay, with the introductory explanation of my motivation in posting this out of the way. Now I will paste the conversation DH and I started having on another thread. I would just like to hear a definitive answer (don’t worry, I’m not holding my breath) on the relationship of tren to progesterone and prolactin.

[quote]Dynamo Hum wrote:
According to BR, these prolactin/progesterone sides can only result from non-legit tren. In other words, it is a result of other compounds that find their way into what is sold as “Tren”.

Cortes, in your case can you vouche for the Tren Ace you used being 100% bonified?

Also confusing is this from

“Ironically, even though Tren is an excellent contest prep drug, it lowers your thyroid level(23), and this raises prolactin. I recommend taking T3 (25mcgs/day) along with your Tren to avoid elevating your prolactin too high via this route.”

  1. Res Vet Sci. 1981 Jan;30(1):7-13. [/quote]

Well, being that I brewed it myself, and the powder I got came from a very trustworthy source (and believe me when I say I have a good handle on the integrity of my sources) and the end product came with ALL of the sides typically associated with tren (see: massive increases in strength and incredible nutrient partitioning/body recomposition when not even dieting, bed-soaking night sweats, insomnia, irritability/aggression, and, more indicative than anything else, an immediate, nearly crippling drop in cardiovascular endurance. If it wasn’t tren, then I want to know just what the hell it was that I was taking!

So if it is not the tren causing the progesterone/prolactin problems then what the hell was giving me nearly incurable gyno???

I got the same exact shit…running letro/adex until my joints hurt and my sex drive crashed did nothing…I wish I would have had caber then because I could have seen if prolactin was indeed the issue.

I have experienced two totally different type of gyno isses…one from test where I got an itchy sensitive chest that started looking puffy (I ran some nolva and then adex and problem was gone) and one from test/tren where even with high dose AI I got small round painful little lumps under the nipples (development of the glands vs female pattern weight gain)…

I obviously don’t have the evidence to back it up but my thinking is that this was the difference between estrogen induced gyno and prolactin/progesterone induced gyno.

I already had fairly well formed glands from pubertal gyno which may be a factor in why prolatin alone could give me issues…I don’t know.

I would be very interested to hear from someone more knowledgeable on the subject though because I have only speculation at best…

Here is a good explanation I’ve found for Trenbolone’s progestin and prolactin effects.

"Trenbolone is a PgR ligand with mixed agonist/antagonist activity. Perhaps more importantly it also highly suppresses natural progesterone as well as alters its metabolism. Antagonist action at the PgR can be just as much an issue as agonist action. And of course agonist action does not mean that it has the same modulatory effects on ER as progesterone. Nor does it mean that it has the same transcriptional effects as progesterone.

Its not entirely clear whether trenbolone always raises prolactin, in some cases it certainly appears to. It’s more consistent effects may be as an allosteric modulator of PRL-R activation and/or expression. However, what can be said with certainty is that prolactin suppression is effective in the treatment of issues that stem from trenbolone, including both libido and gynecomastia."

“Basically just because something is a PgR agonist or a PgR antagonist does not mean that its activity will be the same or opposite of progesterone. Also because these compounds are a bit “slutty”, you can be sure that they will be binding to other sites, especially when other hormones are suppressed or when ratios are different. Progesterone is actually a very widely acting hormone and it has numerous active neurosteroid metabolites. Trenbolone metabolites likely have some similar actions (or at least metabolic pathways).”

[quote]Dopa wrote:
However, what can be said with certainty is that prolactin suppression is effective in the treatment of issues that stem from trenbolone, including both libido and gynecomastia."

meaning that prolactin suppression during cycle would “suppress” such sides?
I’m currently doing test/tren cycle (500/300 mg/w),besides adex for e, I’m also using >100mg vit B6 for prolactin ctrl. Do you guys think it’s enough?

[quote]m1c0 wrote:
meaning that prolactin suppression during cycle would “suppress” such sides?
I’m currently doing test/tren cycle (500/300 mg/w),besides adex for e, I’m also using >100mg vit B6 for prolactin ctrl. Do you guys think it’s enough?

Correct. Vitamin B6 is much too mild. You’re better off with Cabergoline or Pramipexole.

Good stuff guys.

Dopa, can you cite the source of your info?

Edit: Cortes’ and Furious’ Tren experiences alone are enough to warrant runing caber/bromo (or at the very least to have some on hand) alongside a stack including Tren even in the absence of a legitimate study.

As Dr. Phil (ugh…) would say: “Do you want to be right or do you want to prevent gyno”.

Another quote that fits: “How’s that working for you?”

This does not happen with actual trenbolone.

One knows it is actual trenbolone when made from Finaplix. Or if having formal chemical analysis of any other source. Lacking either of these there is no knowing.

Sorry about your “trusted source.”

As for the pharmacological claims you posted: they are assertions with so far as I know absolutely zero basis from the scientific literature.

Trenbolone is very expensive raw material (though apparently Hoechst Roussel, makers of Finaplix, can do it economically enough) thus yielding great profit temptation in cutting or replacing entirely with other steroids, and these problems attributed to trenbolone did not occur till people started buying powders from “trusted sources” or preparations from UG labs.

THAT is the cause.

Another thing you could look at is that trenbolone alone is a poor cycle. Sounds like your results alone indicate that what you had was either not straight trenbolone or was not trenbolone at all.

As for why you ran an AI with a non-aromatizing steroid (supposedly) and natural T production shut down and therefore almost no potential source for estrogen in the blood, I cannot say. This whole thing was error from the beginning in more than one regard.

I’m sorry about your misfortune, gyno is awful, but you haven’t, IMO, attributed the cause correctly.

Bill, I am curious if you would hazard a guess as to what these unscrupulous powder vendors are cutting with the tren that causes the reactions that Cortes & Furious had?

Could be any of very many things, in those cases where an AI is not used. Some are gyno prone with even quite small amounts of testosterone. For example I’ve seen that happen at as low as 250 mg/week.

So let’s say if someone is using 50 mg/day of material, which is 350 mg/week, and the stuff was 2/3 testosterone, some would get gyno from this.

With an AI, that would not happen though.

Perhaps, as theorized, it is progestagenic gyno. NPP might be the culprit. Now if someone had previously used Deca at say 400 mg/week with no problem and this material delivered horrible problems at a total of 350 mg/week, then that would rule that out.

These days, due to demand from “prohormone” sellers and would-be sellers of prohormones, the Chinese factories have turned all kinds of previously-never-tried substances. In many or most instances the order of events has not been a customer specifying a given material, but the Chinese finding that they can make a given thing of an androgen-type structure cheaply, and then offering it. Then, on the basis of nothing more than that, one or more companies in the US will decide to sell it.

Or not – some of these things perhaps never get a taker.

For this reason there’s just no telling what sort of excess, undesired stuff a given Chinese manufacturer might have in the back room that costs NOTHING to use because it already exists, or is really cheap to manufacture and for some reason is picked over testosterone as a material to cut with or substitute.

And by the way, if the vendor is not the Chinese manufacturer, the vendor may NOT be unscrupulous, just misinformed himself.

Great response Bill. Thanks…

Oh, and on the lower-TG3-leads-to-more-prolactin-leads-to-gyno theory, who has ever gotten gyno from a period of low thyroid levels?

Imaginative, but baseless.

Besides this it is not as if thyroid goes into the toilet with trenbolone anyway. In fact I don’t know that it drops in man at all: I doubt it. (If it did, then how do diets go so well with it?)

I also don’t know that the veterinary evidence proves anything even in cattle. Was the measurement free T3? Quite likely not. If it were total T3, this can drop from estrogen dropping, while free T3 actually increases.

Anyway, that proposed gyno-causing mechanism doesn’t follow, IMO.

Yeah, I found that strange too. They cited a study, but I guess a lot of the info on is quite outdated…

I would expect the reference only backs up a claim of trenbolone acetate administration lowering T3 (by some measure, don’t know if this includes free T3) in cattle.

That is a fact.

It’s all too tempting to take a literature reference citation after a given statement as meaning there is proof for the statement, but in popular literature, and it seems particularly in the nutritional supplement and steroid-writing fields, that all too often is not the case. Quite often only a small part of the statement is backed up, or would be backed up except there is a misapplication, or even in many cases with regard to nutritional supplements one often sees references given in advertisements that aren’t even tangentially related to the claim. But people see the reference and assume, Oh, it must be true.

But I digress on that point :slight_smile:

I hear you…

[quote]Dynamo Hum wrote:
Good stuff guys.

Dopa, can you cite the source of your info?

Edit: Cortes’ and Furious’ Tren experiences alone are enough to warrant runing caber/bromo (or at the very least to have some on hand) alongside a stack including Tren even in the absence of a legitimate study.

As Dr. Phil (ugh…) would say: “Do you want to be right or do you want to prevent gyno”.

Another quote that fits: “How’s that working for you?”


My source is from another board that didn’t want his responses and name posted here. The last time this discussion came up I was conferring with him and that’s the explanation he gave me.

If anyone really wants to know the source I’m sure you can google some of the content and you will find it. I’m trying to respect his wishes. He didn’t want his name being used in some petty internet argument.

Most seasoned users can tell the difference between Nandrolone and Trenbolone. It’s effect on mood, aggression, and body composition are quite dissimilar.

The Trenbolone induced gyno I have heard about from other guys, have been from both pellets and powders. AI’s didn’t help but using a dopamine agonist did. There’s quite a large consensus about this on many of the other veteran boards. This may have been debated 5-10 years ago, but not now.

Consensus doesn’t necessarily mean something is right, but it does provide a lot of anecdotal evidence.

You can argue till you’re blue in the face but what it comes down to is; Suppressing prolactin while on legitimate Trenbolone abates sexual dysfunction and gyno.

If anyone wants to dispute this then produce some journal articles supporting your viewpoint.

Interesting – your position is that it takes a journal article to prove a point.

So provide us with a journal article showing any such effect in man.

Or provide us with a journal article actually backing up a single part of the claimed pharmacology.

I don’t believe the claimed pharmacological explanations because they make no sense and are contradictory to published evidence.

I don’t believe the anecdoatal reports because in a time frame exceeding 12 years, I have worked with hundreds of individuals using trenbolone from Finaplix and not one suffered this. The only ones suffering it were those others that insisted on using powders or prepared solutions.

That doesn’t absolutely prove it can’t ever happen with actual trenbolone but does show to me that those claiming it is frequent must be wrong.

Oh, and back to your interesting requirement of others that they have literature evidence to prove their point – though you are asking them to prove a negative, that something never does happen – while you yourself need no literature evidence to prove your point, though you are asserting a positive, that something does happen:

In fact I can give you veterinary literature evidence of trenbolone not increasing prolactin.

But let me guess: you’re still right that trenbolone itself – as opposed to whatever crap people in question are taking – increases prolactin, because “bro knowledge” says so, and there’s a consensus on bro-boards, therefore it increases prolactin.

Why is your standard for others different than for yourself? Why not hold yourself to the same standard, that you ought to have literature evidence of trenbolone increasing prolactin since after all it is a claim you are making?

Lastly, no, there never will be a journal article stating that trenbolone (or Primobolan or Masteron or anything else) does not cause gyno in man. What you are insisting on simply will not, by the nature of things, happen.

Though on the other hand, if a steroid does cause gyno in man it’s quite possible for that to appear in the literature.

If you want to claim that some small percentage of users taking genuine trenbolone and no compound along with it that could cause gyno, get gyno, on basis of “bro knowledge” I cannot say it cannot be some small percentage experience this. I can say it cannot be an at-all large percentage due to the very many first-hand knowledge cases on exactly this matter.

I can also say that the claimed mechanisms are contradicted by the literature. Veterinary literature finds it not a progestin, not increasing prolactin. Anyone claiming the opposite – saying that the literature supports the progestin or prolactin claims – is not right.

I wasn’t running tren solo, I was taking it with test p and masteron.

I have no evidence that what I was on was in fact tren because it didn’t come from Fina pellets to my knowledge (it was UGL Tren Ace…likely from China)…it is entirely possible it was NPP or something else entirely…I don’t know.

There also could have been an issue with my AI…I certainly had all the symptoms of low estrogen when I was running it though (no water retention/very dry looking, sore joints, low libido)…

These symptoms led me to believe that my AI was fine and the issue was not estrogen but something else. Again I have no evidence though because what I was running was not name brand pharmaceutical Anastrozole.

If I had caber at the time and could run that and the issues went away then I would know that prolactin was the issue (still wouldn’t prove it was tren and not NPP)…I didn’t have it so there is really no way of knowing now.

Good information all around. The bottom line is the majority of AAS users are not all that sophisticated and the chances of the Tren they procure containing NPP is very real. So it would be good rule of thumb to always have a dopamine agonist on hand.

I hold myself to the same standards. You haven’t provided any references yourself.

I’ve seen the two studies showing Trenbolone doesn’t increase prolactin in lambs and sheep. I concede that. I dug that up a few weeks ago trying to find evidence either way.

What’s more likely? The majority of trenbolone being tainted/substituted with another substance that increases prolactin, or guys legitimately getting prolactin induced gyno from Trenbolone itself?

I’m not married to the idea that Trenbolone is a progestin and increases prolactin. It’s not really an argument I’m trying to “win”.

If there was enough evidence supporting Trenbolone doesn’t cause prolactin induced gyno in humans then I’d gladly change my mind. The way I see it, there is far more evidence supporting it than against it.

Almost daily I read case reports about someone getting gyno from tren while keeping their estrogen low. I don’t think there’s a conspiracy going on here.

In the case of a substance that does not have many human studies, then unfortunately we have to weigh anecdotal evidence a little heavier. I normally don’t like choosing anecdotal evidence over published studies, but we don’t have much to work with here.

Please provide the veterinary literature finding Trenbolone is not a progestin. I’d like to see it. I’m not saying that condescendly either. I’m honestly interested. My mind is still open.