Is this too long a cycle?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey, I'm a 45 yr old male who competed in the 80's and early 90's. Then I took many yrs off and just last year I began gearing again. This January I began a combo bulk up but yet try to keep fat off phase. I want to hit another contest in early September. So since Jan 1, I've been running:
*400 mg. cyp/week
*600 mg Decca/week
*700 mg EQ/week
So here I am at the 3 month mark, and am scratching my balls (yes I have very little shrinkage) wondering, hell I don't want to take too long off here in April and lose size, but I need to reduce my bodyfat down by Sept. I really LOVE the above cycle, had great gains and have lost BF too. Can I still run same after a breif time off? For PCT I will be running HCG and Clomid. I'm still tinkering w/the notion of reducing above dosages for 3 or 4 weeks, then kicking them back in. (I remember Lance Dreher, formal Mr U telling me he never went off, just reduced mg's for a short time, then back on).

Would it really do me grave danger to stay on for extended time? IIRC, back in the 80's my Dr, had me on for months at a time, he didn't seem worried. My tits back then were a bit sore, but not bitchin, have no hair loss and my nuts have little shrinkage. Does this mean that I may one of the lucky ones who doesn't adversly react to longer cycles? Really appreciate feedback and thanks!!

i don't think genetics will greatly affect how you react to extended periods of shutdown. they will affect your reaction to the individual sides, but not "sides over time", if that makes sense.

at your age you should primarily be worried about BPH(benign prostate hyperplasia) and high blood pressure. to be perfectly honest you'll enter andropause soon or are in andropause already, so i wouldn't worry as much about the shutdown. particularly with your history and the length of this cycle you may find it hard to come back. i'd consider HRT for good at this point.

regarding steroids and your cholesterol, this is something i used to warn about until i came across a lot of information. gratuitously reposting old info of mine from another board:

"i was trying to decide along with my training partner last night whether to take some time off and the standard questions came to my mind. apart from the general feeling it's good to give your body a break, i was particularly curious how the medical community feels about it.

"Natural testosterone and its esters, even when applied in supraphysiological doses, rarely produce side-effects."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10332571

given that i do everything i can to prevent the other sides, particularly hcg for the balls, the effects on cholesterol levels is what worries me most.

but in that review, what i was really shocked about is that the dangers of what it does to your lipid profile were only mentioned in passing. in fact, it turns out there is no correlation between high testosterone levels, even supraphysiological, and coronary artery disease. however, low levels are a risk factor! in most animal experiences, exogenous testosterone is beneficial to prevention of coronary artery disease. there's been at least 8 studies looking at the epidemiological data...

http://edrv.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/2/183
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15687329
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15669538

"Men with coronary artery disease had lower total testosterone levels (17.01+/-6.42 vs. 19.37+/-6.58 nmol/l; p < 0.05), testosterone/estradiol ratio (228.5+/-88.5 vs. 289.8+/-120.1; p < 0.05) and free androgen index (FAI) (59.49+/-14.79 vs. 83.03+/-25.81; p < 0.0001), and higher levels of estrone (49.5+/-27.7 vs. 36.6+/-12.7 pg/ml) than men in the control group. Moreover, men with coronary artery disease were more insulin-resistant than controls and had an atherogenic lipid profile."

which blows my mind.

there's still cardiovascular risk due to the changes to the actual tissue of your heart muscle and the thickening of your left ventricular walls, but this is also induced by exercise and high blood pressure; if you keep the latter in particular under control its long-term effects will be greatly reduced, and apparently isn't enough to increase cardiovascular risk in varying physiological concentrations of testosterone.

here's a study in real live self-administering bodybuilders what they consider comical dosages that finds no risk factor increase beyond HDL dropping, which one of the above studies believes is may be explained through reverse-cholesterol transport, i.e. actually removing plaque from veins.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11730823
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/100/6/576

wow. it's hard for me to believe all this."

good luck bro, stay safe and healthy.

Marble said:

i don't think genetics will greatly affect how you react to extended periods of shutdown. they will affect your reaction to the individual sides, but not "sides over time", if that makes sense.

at your age you should primarily be worried about BPH(benign prostate hyperplasia) and high blood pressure. to be perfectly honest you'll enter andropause soon or are in andropause already, so i wouldn't worry as much about the shutdown. particularly with your history and the length of this cycle you may find it hard to come back. i'd consider HRT for good at this point.

regarding steroids and your cholesterol, this is something i used to warn about until i came across a lot of information. gratuitously reposting old info of mine from another board:

"i was trying to decide along with my training partner last night whether to take some time off and the standard questions came to my mind. apart from the general feeling it's good to give your body a break, i was particularly curious how the medical community feels about it.

"Natural testosterone and its esters, even when applied in supraphysiological doses, rarely produce side-effects."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10332571

given that i do everything i can to prevent the other sides, particularly hcg for the balls, the effects on cholesterol levels is what worries me most.

but in that review, what i was really shocked about is that the dangers of what it does to your lipid profile were only mentioned in passing. in fact, it turns out there is no correlation between high testosterone levels, even supraphysiological, and coronary artery disease. however, low levels are a risk factor! in most animal experiences, exogenous testosterone is beneficial to prevention of coronary artery disease. there's been at least 8 studies looking at the epidemiological data...

http://edrv.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/2/183
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15687329
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15669538

"Men with coronary artery disease had lower total testosterone levels (17.01+/-6.42 vs. 19.37+/-6.58 nmol/l; p < 0.05), testosterone/estradiol ratio (228.5+/-88.5 vs. 289.8+/-120.1; p < 0.05) and free androgen index (FAI) (59.49+/-14.79 vs. 83.03+/-25.81; p < 0.0001), and higher levels of estrone (49.5+/-27.7 vs. 36.6+/-12.7 pg/ml) than men in the control group. Moreover, men with coronary artery disease were more insulin-resistant than controls and had an atherogenic lipid profile."

which blows my mind.

there's still cardiovascular risk due to the changes to the actual tissue of your heart muscle and the thickening of your left ventricular walls, but this is also induced by exercise and high blood pressure; if you keep the latter in particular under control its long-term effects will be greatly reduced, and apparently isn't enough to increase cardiovascular risk in varying physiological concentrations of testosterone.

here's a study in real live self-administering bodybuilders what they consider comical dosages that finds no risk factor increase beyond HDL dropping, which one of the above studies believes is may be explained through reverse-cholesterol transport, i.e. actually removing plaque from veins.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11730823
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/100/6/576

wow. it's hard for me to believe all this."

good luck bro, stay safe and healthy.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the input Marble! In short, if my cholesterol and BP are OK, this long a cycle (8 months) may be fine. Concerning andropause, I still had plautoed as far as building for size was concerned, but my sex drive was still thru the roof even at 45! I guess I really should spend the $200 (something like that) for a blood test. But thats for another thread, I have no idea what to ask for and so on. Thanks Bro

The Survivor said:

Thanks for the input Marble! In short, if my cholesterol and BP are OK, this long a cycle (8 months) may be fine. Concerning andropause, I still had plautoed as far as building for size was concerned, but my sex drive was still thru the roof even at 45! I guess I really should spend the $200 (something like that) for a blood test. But thats for another thread, I have no idea what to ask for and so on. Thanks Bro

Click to expand...

a blood test would be very prudent. my point with the excerpt is that the nasty effects of testosterone on your lipid profile seems to actually not matter and it doesn't constitute a risk factor. testosterone replacement actually decreases your chance of a coronary event for some reason.

sex drive is contingent on much more than just testosterone levels btw.

good luck man.

bump-anyone else have any feedback re a guy in mid-40's juicing for 8 months?

I think it could be done as long as HCG is run throughout to keep the boys around, although i am not in my 40's.

No strong orals, no sides, no ridiculus mgs. of cyp, go for it. Its not like you haven't already made up your mind. For advice, go get blood work to insure everythings still ticking. I don't think 40 has much to do with it.