First Test Cicle @ 500mg

[sepsin]

In another forum, I mentioned that for a first cycle it is recommended to start test @ 300mg to gauge aromatization, and only then up the dose slowly to 500mg (according to MPMD advice).

But another (supposed “high knowledge”) user mentioned this



what do you guys think of this?

especially the line “99% of people don’t need AI on daily pins @ 500mgs”

he’s talking abt test P, btw

 

[BALLISTIC]

MPMD is click bate. Hell they all are, in social media platforms.

This forum has all the information you will ever need, just modify the way you search. Each topic can be searched in different wording to produce different results.

I also disagree with the image text. Everyone is INDIVIDUAL... but I personally don't believe in titrating. Some do. Some believe in front loading, some don't. BLANKET STATEMENT ABOUT AI. Again this guy is stupid also.

 

[prher]

he’s right. you shouldn’t bother titrating.

user above didn’t seem to understand what he wrote either. he never said you won’t need ai, as he said “you should have the correct ancillaries” before you start, and that you most likely won’t need it if you pin daily at that dose which is also true.

BLANKET STATEMENT ABOUT AI.

where is the blanket statement? even if you read it literally it isn’t a blanket statement since 99% doesn’t include everyone.

someone saying 99% means "almost everyone”, which someone uses in order to make a grand point and convince others of their argument.

 

[trenisbest]

i agree with the fact you shouldn’t be starting below 500mg and that if you pin frequent enough and aren’t high bf the likelihood of needing ai is low at 500mgs

don’t agree about mpmd, he says some good stuff but i disagree w his first cycle protocol

 

[sepsin]

he’s right. you shouldn’t bother titrating.

user above didn’t seem to understand what he wrote either. he never said you won’t need ai, as he said “you should have the correct ancillaries” before you start, and that you most likely won’t need it if you pin daily at that dose which is also true.


where is the blanket statement? even if you read it literally it isn’t a blanket statement since 99% doesn’t include everyone.

someone saying 99% means "almost everyone”, which someone uses in order to make a grand point and convince others of their argument.

damnn, I used to think that even if you pin ED test P, 500mg is already a high dose that would require an AI in most cases.

but thanks for clarification.

 

[prher]

damnn, I used to think that even if you pin ED test P, 500mg is already a high dose that would require an AI in most cases.

but thanks for clarification.

again, it may or may not require ai for you. no one is giving you a definitive answer. if you pin less frequently the likelihood you need one goes up. if you are fat the likelihood goes up. etc. assuming you are of a low bf (which is when you should start a cycle) and pin frequently you SHOULD (not will) be fine.

 

[Elektrobot]

damnn, I used to think that even if you pin ED test P, 500mg is already a high dose that would require an AI in most cases.

but thanks for clarification.

How did you manage to not read the forum rules and ettiquite and post your new member introduction?

Go do that. Tell us about your goas there.

Re; AI

The only way to know is bloodwork dude

Without that you are just guessing. And guessing is worthless.

Make decisions based on facts.

Do your bloodwork before you start

Address anything that's out of line

Then because prop reaches saturation in 2-3 weeks, check again 30 days after starting.

 

[sepsin]

again, it may or may not require ai for you. no one is giving you a definitive answer. if you pin less frequently the likelihood you need one goes up. if you are fat the likelihood goes up. etc. assuming you are of a low bf (which is when you should start a cycle) and pin frequently you SHOULD (not will) be fine.

yeah I’m actually a bit underweight and my bf% is around 11-12%.

My total natural test is 849ng/dl, not sure if this matters (I haven’t tested my free T yet, but I will before hopping on).

but yea, I don’t think I’ll be a big aromatizer.

This might sound stupid, but my brother who is like 16-18% bf (similar DNA) doesn’t have any gyno even at that bf%.

 

[sepsin]

How did you manage to not read the forum rules and ettiquite and post your new member introduction?

Go do that. Tell us about your goas there.

Re; AI

The only way to know is bloodwork dude

Without that you are just guessing. And guessing is worthless.

Make decisions based on facts.

Do your bloodwork before you start

Address anything that's out of line

Then because prop reaches saturation in 2-3 weeks, check again 30 days after starting.

I will do that as soon as I get home.

Thanks for the answer in regards to AI, btw

 

[trenisbest]

Then because prop reaches saturation in 2-3 weeks,

props half life is 0.8 days mate


2-3 days is incorrect

 

[Elektrobot]

but yea, I don’t think I’ll be a big aromatizer.

Dude, I'm lean af and on just 15mg test cyp every day my estradiol is 95

There is literally no way to guess or make an accurate assumption about it

Get all your baseline stuff checked. If your SHBG is high, that's going to mess things up.

 

[sepsin]

props half life is 0.8 days mate
View attachment 368004

2-3 days is incorrect

yeah I always used to hear that you could do bloodwork after 1 week (5 half lifes).

 

[Elektrobot]

props half life is 0.8 days mate

half life is not saturation

 

[trenisbest]

half life is not saturation

0.8x5 =4 days to saturated

 

[sepsin]

0.8x5 =4 days to saturated

yeah, isn’t this the logic @Elektrobot?

like why would I need to wait 2-3 weeks for bloodwork?

 

[Elektrobot]

yeah I always used to hear that you could do bloodwork after 1 week (5 half lifes).

That's making a big assumption that everything else is going to change just as fast ... which it won't.

estradiol, dht, shbg.... your total test won't be accurate until those things have rebalanced on your new dose.

 

[sepsin]

That's making a big assumption that everything else is going to change just as fast ... which it won't.

estradiol, dht, shbg.... your total test won't be accurate until those things have rebalanced on your new dose.

ohh I see.

So 2-3 weeks minimum before bloodwork on Test P, alright.

 

[Elektrobot]

yeah, isn’t this the logic @Elektrobot?

like why would I need to wait 2-3 weeks for bloodwork?

There is a difference between the on paper calculation for a single compound vs the real life task of rebalancing hormones.

There is more to be concerned with than just the test prop.

The changes don't happen in just days. It takes time.

 

[AIRBORNE DADDY]

damnn, I used to think that even if you pin ED test P, 500mg is already a high dose that would require an AI in most cases.

but thanks for clarification.

I agree bf has alot to do with it.... I've never been under 25% after turning 45 and now I'm 54... I've always needed an ai at 500mg or 200mg....Test prop was my first love, bought 2 30ml vials for 450 bucks off a bouncer at a titty bar.

 

[BALLISTIC]

he’s right. you shouldn’t bother titrating.

user above didn’t seem to understand what he wrote either. he never said you won’t need ai, as he said “you should have the correct ancillaries” before you start, and that you most likely won’t need it if you pin daily at that dose which is also true.

I understood fully, my brain questions ignorant speech, or in this case text.

where is the blanket statement? even if you read it literally it isn’t a blanket statement since 99% doesn’t include everyone.

someone saying 99% means "almost everyone”, which someone uses in order to make a grand point and convince others of their argument.

This is exactly why it is a blanket statement regardless of how it’s being defended. Saying “99% don’t need AI” is still a blanket claim because...

There is no datasetand there is no quantified population of AAS users worldwide, no controlled trials at 500 mg/week with daily pinning, and no data that can support a 99/1 split. Without measurable population data, any percentage claim is rhetorical, not factual. “99%” is not evidence it’s persuasion language. Saying 99% is not meant to be precise; it’s meant to imply near universality. That’s the textbook definition of a blanket statement...

“Almost everyone behaves this way, therefore you should too.”

Individual estrogen response is highly variable in aromatase activity differs widely due to genetics (polymorphisms), body fat, injection frequency helps stability but does not eliminate conversion, liver clearance, and SHBG differences.


You can have two people pinning daily at 500 mg with completely different E2 outcomes. That alone invalidates any “99%” claim. Again blanket. “Correct ancillaries” is vague and contradictory if the argument is...

“Have ancillaries ready”, but also “99% won’t need AI" then the AI is simultaneously unnecessary for almost everyone, necessary enough to prepare for however.

That contradiction exists because the claim isn’t evidence-based it’s ideology... and a demon in conversation. Daily pinning, estrogen immunity is also false to a large degree, is flat out wrong. Daily injections reduce peaks and troughs, not total aromatization. Estrogen production is still dose dependent. Frequency smooths levels it does not negate conversion