I’ll answer your post when I have more time. I’m currently on vacation and it would be a shame to miss the beaches in Sardinia to post here. I’ll get to you next weekend.
There is enough risk for healthy people, what about a guy with kidney stones already?
Maybe increasing the test dose to something like 500-600 for a blast is the least risky thing you can do, but still risky in my humble opinion. I would never even consider it if I were you
i hear you. sardinia is supposed to be super. i heard the food is amazing and the vistas astonishing. i am in greece now (test ena is sold otc here). athens is not like sardinia. santorini, now that’s a beautiful island. turkey has the best food in the balkans and the best and most plentiful archeological sites. i didn’t know USA citizens were allowed to travel to the EU. i guess you are not from the US.
i appreciate that you care enough to drop your opinion. but we have already gone over this. we, especially the other posters, have put in great effort to explain the risks and instead of just blindly declaring “don’t do it!”. i was called a jerk by a few good members of this website because i asked for opinions to be supported by details. sooo, you are late to calling me an asshole and late with your opinion. feel free to contribute if you have some info that we are lacking. if you read the thread then you know i am formulation a users guide for people who already have kidney stones but not kidney damage. still have some black spaces to fill in on that.
Dudee, where did you see me calling you asshole?
Im not judging you, just from my perspective the risk is not worth the reward
Ive seen they have given you good data down, so I dont have some additional data do add there
i was joking, saying don’t call me **** because we already covered that base. im not very good with humor sometimes.
Did you decide how you are going to proceed with that?
i am still drawing out my summary and conclusion. i am still asking questions. i will probably have my summary finished within a few days.
for now, i am on a cycle that might be 12 or 16 weeks: 375mg of test enanthate (per 7 days); 400mg primo (per 7 days). i am also taking: vit k2, bpc 157, omega 3, vit d3, multi vit, beef liver aminos, and eating very carefully with low sodium, 1/2 protein shake per half day; and not a huge intake of animal protein. generally speaking, i think a longer and more gentle cycle (lower doses) is the way to go for me and for people like me. my blood pressure is 120-125/70-80. everything is ok right now. i am just starting my second week of the cycle. i feel great, honestly. but the first week is always the best for me. i want to see how i feel in week 3, or week 8, etc.
if i get 5 pounds of muscle growth on this cycle i would be very happy with that. 10 pounds would be amazing but that’s probably unlikely. i am not sure.
Sounds like relatively very safest cycle, are you sure in the genuinity of the primo?
Here it is almost impossible to get real one unless you have some very very close “salesman”
I sent my primo to a lab to be tested. I will pridsnoy always do this in the future. Money well spent
Not to mention, @vonko1988 has never been on a cycle in his life and the fact he is even commenting in the pharma section is ridiculous in itself.
We all know the dude has no idea what he’s talking about. Though following him around the forum and starting arguments really isn’t going to help anyone when it ends in you both 20 comments deep arguing back and forth. Unfortunately part of a public forum is having to differentiate between the people that have no clue what their talking about and the ones that do.
Nothing against you, I know your only trying to make sure people here get sound advice but we all know where this is going.
Yes, agreed. I think I’ve left enough evidence for people to ensure he’s a quack. Mission accomplished.
I think there are plenty of people who haven’t run a cycle that have better / more knowledge on running a cycle than many who have cycled. I think experience does count for something, but an argument should be evaluated on it’s merit, and not on who argued it.
While I think Vonko has a lot of learning to do, makes too many unjustified leaps of logic, and has some poor assumptions, that discrediting him is not the best path forward. It would be better to try to clearly explain why his arguments are not supported, or put it on him to prove his arguments. I think that is fair, and seems a bit more honest than to discredit him on his past arguments (this comes off as bullying to someone not familiar to you or Vonko IMO). I think it should be left at the argument. Most people should be able to tell who is justified in their argument and who is not, without any attacks being made.
It is an open forum, so you will do what you please I suppose.
He made a statement in another thread. I explained why he was wrong, at length, but he claimed BS. So I provided 5 studies in the medical literature to support my claim. I said I could provide more upon request. He claimed they were all BS. I asked him no less than 6 times to provide evidence to support his own claim. He refused each time and instead deflected and tried to discredit my claim by simply stating “everyone knows this”. Then Chris Colucci banned him for a week.
Been there. Done that. Doesn’t work with him.
There’s no better experience than having done something yourself.
It seems that anavar is relatively harmless to the kidneys. does anyone care to chime in on this? i cannot find any anecdotal info regarding kdiney problems arising from the use of oxandralone.
as stated in this research report:
Our patients were closely monitored for adverse events for up to 1 year after discontinuation of oxandrolone. Thereafter, patients were assessed during annual follow-up visits. No signs of virilization were noted. Three female patients who had perineal burns developed clitoral hood edema, which resolved within 3 months. Chi-Square analyses revealed that oxandrolone did not affect acute and long-term psychosocial outcomes, including the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder, general anxiety, and depression between groups. Monitoring of liver and renal function included measures of serum creatinine, BUN, total protein, liver enzymes, total bilirubin, liver size, and liver weight (Table 3) (Figure 7). Alanine aminotransaminase and gamma glutamyl transpeptidase were elevated during the acute period in the control and oxandrolone groups, returning to normal levels 3 to 6 months post burn. However, levels of constitutive proteins were significantly increased in the oxandrolone group, indicating that liver function was not affected. The control group showed significantly higher levels of serum creatinine, total bilirubin, and BUN during the acute period than the oxandrolone group. Although these values were statistically significant, some fell within normal ranges. Alkaline phosphatase and total protein tended to increase with time in both groups and were not different between the groups. The rest of the parameters did not differ between the groups at any of the time points. There was no significant advancement in bone age versus chronological age over the post burn observation period, and no difference between oxandrolone-treated patients (0.93±0.16) and controls (0.94±0.24) was detected.
Now I got the time to get back to you. I’ll try to answer all the questions to the best of my ability as there’s so much context I’ll have to provide.
DHA is one ingredient of the omega3 supplements you’re taking, it’s a polyunsaturated fatty acid stemming from fish. The other compound in fish oil is EPA. It is speculated that these two lower cardiovascular risk through a variety of mechanisms. What’s important is that it seems DHA is converted to EPA in the body while this does only happen the other way round if you give extreme doses of EPA.
Now it gets complicated. I stated DHA lowers LDL. That was not right. I had it wrong in my memory. Here’s how it actually is:
DHA has been found to have a greater effect at reducing TGs compared with EPA and this may be why DHA has been more consistently found to increase LDL particle size. In one study, despite DHA increasing LDL-C by 8% (p=0.019), there was a highly significant increase in LDL particle size (+0.25 nm, p=0.002) and a significant increase in large HDL2 (p=0.004), effects which are considered beneficial.
Here’s a good conclusion on the two:
The beneficial effects of eicosapentaenoic acid on blood lipids
- Reduces triglycerides.
- Increases very low density lipoprotein (LDL) size.
- May reduce small-dense LDL.
The beneficial effects of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) on blood lipids
- Reduces trigyceride levels.
- Increases very low-density lipoprotein (LDL) size.
- Reduces small-dense LDL.
- Increases large buoyant LDL.
- Increases high-density lipoprotein 2.
Benefits of docosahexaenoic acid versus eicosapentaenoic acid
- Greater triglyceride lowering.
- Greater increase in large buoyant low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and greater reduction in small-dense LDL.
- Greater rise in high density lipoprotein.
So DHA lowers Triglycerides (positive), it increases LDL and it increases HDL but (!) it does that through increasing particle size.
So it has beneficial effects on cardiovascular parameters. Why I wrote that DHA monitgerapy would be good is because I once read a study where this was the finding, but that seems outdated. So I’ll correct myself. It is beneficial to supplement with a combination of both, but the question is, for what?
Here’s a review paper that looks at all primary outcomes (these are outcomes like myocardial infarction etc. after a specific amount of time).
It’s a very nice review. The problem is that results for primary outcomes are very mixed. For cardiovascular health like blood pressure, myocardial infarction, artherosclerosis there seems to be a small positive effect. But as I said, some studies found nothing. That is most likely the case because the studies weren’t good:
Potential explanations for the discrepant results include underpowered studies with small samples and low event rates, participants with high background fish/seafood intakes, suboptimal EPA and DHA dosage, supplementation duration, age at study enrollment, length of follow-up, and concurrent standard of care for CVD treatment.
Especially the “underpowered” is often the case. So the studies weren’t likely to find something in the first place.
Now to your situation.
We already established that blood pressure plays an important role for the kidneys because they
- Regulate it
- Get compromised by it through artherosclerosis
Here a paper on point 2:
Experimental studies of omega-3 in atherosclerosis:
Dietary supplementation with omega-3-rich fish oil in atherosclerosis-prone mice leads to increased incorporation of DHA and EPA in the aorta and the heart, whereas the AA content is decreased. Despite somewhat variable results, the main conclusion, which emerges from the majority of the studies, is a beneficial effect of dietary omega-3 fatty acids on murine atherosclerosis.
Then unreal pointed out that inflammatory markers play a role on which these supplements have an effect:
The generation of 5-LO metabolites from EPA can hence be anticipated to act as an endogenous inhibitor of inflammation in atherosclerosis
The effect on the kidneys seems to positive as well:
In sum, omega-3 fatty acid supplementation is associated with a significantly reduced risk of end-stage renal disease and delays the progression of this disease.
So you see, I had to roll back a few things and I tried to give you some insight, not because omega 3s are that interesting but because these papers give you a starting point for example for inflammation.
My take is this now: take the fish oil. It helps with inflammation and artherosclerosis which are both bad for the kidneys.
I thought that it excluded those because I only read about the penis and the lung artery but I guess it is in significant concentrations in the kidney.
In diabetes, glomerular cGMP production is decreased, PDE5 activity is increased
I guess you could take it at a low dose like 5 mg per day to minimize side effects but I wouldn’t bet on it making a difference, but there’s just not enough evidence out there to suggest either way.
For omega see above.
There’s some good points in the literature about mechanisms of vitamin Ks (ROS lowering and others) but I don’t see the evidence for cardiovascular health
The authors of the next paper make the point that vitamin K2 is good for patients with chronic kidney disease (which you put yourself at risk of but you currently don’t have it, if I understood correctly).
So I guess you can take it. I may prevent some tissue calcification in the kidney but the evidence is not good enough for me to give a recommendation. You probably aren’t deficient but you also don’t damage yourself by taking it.
My conclusion still is, that these supplements in sum are good for you (tadalafil maybe not so, depends on side effects) but probably won’t prevent the damage you are doing. So don’t think you will get away because of the supplements. If you get away there’s most likely other reasons for it.