-
Originally Posted by
Pcushion
Proviron is a great drug but it does not produce aesthetic benefit. It’s bound 98% by serum proteins therefore there is very little left to do anything. It’s glorious at lowering SHBG levels and increasing free test. Is also extremely harsh on lipid values. It’s my second favorite hormone to use. Tren and mast will produce an effect like no other on the body. As for fakes it’s best to find a source where that is guaranteed not to happen.
I've been well aware of the existence with the hyper links you've provided and thank you for that, however they're hardly even tangle evidence to support anything worth mention due to the differences in testing subjects (1 being a rat and an other being patients that were diagnosed with androgen deficiencies).. There's simply to many factors, especially on rodents due to the fact that it's merely an investigation to raise awareness for potentials in hopes to launch to forward on human subjects with research and development.
Per your comment about about Proviron "being extremely harsh on lipids". In the one study you provided it contradicts your statement. The values hardly budged, the researchers even stress No or small changes..Not entirely "extremely harsh" after all.
(read chart below that I highlighted and the underlined conclusion)
Originally Posted by
Pcushion
You really cannot compare the two. It’s like comparing apples to astronauts. Both are derived from DHT, one injectable the other oral. Proviron is extremely effective at lowering SHBG levels and combats estrogen in some, it’s also known to increase sex drive and it’s suppressive of the HPG and should not be used during PCT or without testosterone. It produces little to no aesthetic effect on the body. It’s also very harsh on lipid values.
Masteron is know as a hardening agent and used pre competition. It’s known to lower estrogen as well. It lowers SHBG to to an extent but all steroids do. Proviron by design just does do better than most. If taken with a lean physique masteron will provide a very hard and chiseled look. It’s an aesthetic drug.
Your statement that Proviron is suppressive again fails to provide anything tangible or any real substance that should be placed into great consideration with hindering someones PCT or even LH levels for that matter.
The subject below was NOT on testosterone, unlike the other test subjects.. Here you can clearly see his LH dropped "0.33" and this is coming from an individual that "already" had a predisposition with androgen deficiencies condition.
If you call that suppressive than I'm certain you believe in mystical dragons too. The Endocrine Society didn't even bat an eye to it, they simply said the subject "had a slight decrease"..However they never said it was from the drug, this is just their results a year later on a MALE that already had a predisposition with andro's and to boot - he didn't even have an "Exogenous" resource like the other test subjects had.. Therefore his condition could have been deteriorating regardless, thus a good reason why they may have scrapped the Masterolone test subject in the end. It failed to provide any real concrete evidence..
Look at the rest of the test subjects, almost all completely tanked "0" with "significant suppression of LH and FSH" , that is what defines the nature of a drug that is suppressive in nature..Landslide!
So come on man, don't give me that suppressive nonsense or "extremely harsh on lipid values" crap..
Originally Posted by
Pcushion
Scrap the rat study, scrap the study with subjects that mostly all had a andro predisposition..
In my OP I posted studies that can support what I see and recognize as bonafide, one of the studies is on "normal males"
ABSTRACT
Mesterolone (1α-methyl-5α-dihydrotestosterone) has been given to 10 normal men, age 24–27 years, and the effect on the plasma levels of ICSH, FSH and testosterone has been studied.No effect on the plasma levels of ICSH and FSH could be detected. After 4 weeks on 75 mg mesterolone per day a significant (P < 0.01) drop in the mean value for plasma testosterone level was observed, 5.2 to 4.0 ng/ml. After another 4 weeks on 150 mg mesterolone per day a further decrease to 3.5 ng/ml was found.During mesterolone administration the protein binding of testosterone in plasma was significantly reduced, and it appeared that the level of free (non-protein bound) testosterone in diluted plasma remained unchanged, 0.37 and 0.41 ng/ml, before and after mesterolone administration respectively.The results suggest that mesterolone given in doses of 75 and 150 mg/day to normal men does not suppress the pituitary ICSH production or the testicular testosterone production
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GORDON, R.D., THOMAS, M.J., POYNTING, J.M. and STOCKS, A.E. (1975), Effect of Mesterolone on Plasma L.H., F.S.H. and Testosterone. Andrologia, 7: 287–296. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0272.1975.tb00942.x
Summary
It has been claimed that orally administered mesterolone, unlike l7a-methyl testo- sterone, does not suppress endogenous gonadotrophins and testesterone. To investi- gate this, both drugs were administered, in turn, to four normal men and plasma te- stosterone, L.H. and F.S.H. were measured serially. Mesterolone administration was associated in all four subjects with significant and similar falls in plasma testosterone, but significant suppression of gonadotrophins took place in only two of them. Any changes which occured were apparent by the end of the first week of therapy. Administration of half the dose of 17a-methyl testosterone to the same four subjects caused significant suppression of testosterone in each and suppression of one or both gonadotrophins in each.
In longer term studies in patients (5-30 months) involving serial measurements at intervals of one to two months, there was evidence of significant suppression of L.H. and F.S.H. by 17a-methyl testosterone, but not by mesterolone, which was clinically a less effective androgen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WANG, C., BURGER, H.G., de KRETSER, D.M., DULMANIS, A., HUDSON, B., KEOGH, E.J. and SUTHERS, M.B. (1974), Effect of Mesterolone on Serum FSH, LH and Plasma Testosterone in Normal Men. Andrologia, 6: 111–117. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0272.1974.tb01604.x
Summary
To determine whether the claim that mesterolone, an orally active androgen, does not cause suppression of gonadotrophin secretion, two groups of five normal men were treated with 100 and 200 mg. daily respectively for 7 days. Serial measurements of serum FSH, LH and plasma testosterone were made on samples taken at 15 minute intervals over 2 hr both before and during treatment. Modest falls in FSH, LH and testosterone levels were observed in both groups, the percentage suppression being 21% and 18% for FSH, 19% and 15% for LH and 9% and 8% for testosterone at the lower and higher dosage levels respectively.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
200mg is a far greater dose than I would deploy during PCT (50mgs is ideal). From these studies and other articles we see have read, it's clear that there is almost minimal/no influence on the HTPA, any effect would be absolute minimal and negated by other appropriate compounds used during that period (HCG, Aromasin, Nolvadex and HGH)...
----
-
I love PROVIRON!! I just Do!
Max
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
----
-
[QUOTE=Vision;1027436]I've been well aware of the existence with the hyper links you've provided and thank you for that, however they're hardly even tangle evidence to support anything worth mention due to the differences in testing subjects (1 being a rat and an other being patients that were diagnosed with androgen deficiencies).. There's simply to many factors, especially on rodents due to the fact that it's merely an investigation to raise awareness for potentials in hopes to launch to forward on human subjects with research and development.
Per your comment about about Proviron "being extremely harsh on lipids". In the one study you provided it contradicts your statement. The values hardly budged, the researchers even stress No or small changes..Not entirely "extremely harsh" after all.
(read chart below that I highlighted and the underlined conclusion)
Your statement that Proviron is suppressive again fails to provide anything tangible or any real substance that should be placed into great consideration with hindering someones PCT or even LH levels for that matter.
The subject below was NOT on testosterone, unlike the other test subjects.. Here you can clearly see his LH dropped "0.33" and this is coming from an individual that "already" had a predisposition with androgen deficiencies condition.
If you call that suppressive than I'm certain you believe in mystical dragons too. The Endocrine Society didn't even bat an eye to it, they simply said the subject "had a slight decrease"..However they never said it was from the drug, this is just their results a year later on a MALE that already had a predisposition with andro's and to boot - he didn't even have an "Exogenous" resource like the other test subjects had.. Therefore his condition could have been deteriorating regardless, thus a good reason why they may have scrapped the Masterolone test subject in the end. It failed to provide any real concrete evidence..
Look at the rest of the test subjects, almost all completely tanked "0" with "significant suppression of LH and FSH" , that is what defines the nature of a drug that is suppressive in nature..Landslide!
So come on man, don't give me that suppressive nonsense or "extremely harsh on lipid values" crap..
Scrap the rat study, scrap the study with subjects that mostly all had a andro predisposition..
In my OP I posted studies that can support what I see and recognize as bonafide, one of the studies is on "normal males"
ABSTRACT
Mesterolone (1α-methyl-5α-dihydrotestosterone) has been given to 10 normal men, age 24–27 years, and the effect on the plasma levels of ICSH, FSH and testosterone has been studied.No effect on the plasma levels of ICSH and FSH could be detected. After 4 weeks on 75 mg mesterolone per day a significant (P < 0.01) drop in the mean value for plasma testosterone level was observed, 5.2 to 4.0 ng/ml. After another 4 weeks on 150 mg mesterolone per day a further decrease to 3.5 ng/ml was found.During mesterolone administration the protein binding of testosterone in plasma was significantly reduced, and it appeared that the level of free (non-protein bound) testosterone in diluted plasma remained unchanged, 0.37 and 0.41 ng/ml, before and after mesterolone administration respectively.The results suggest that mesterolone given in doses of 75 and 150 mg/day to normal men does not suppress the pituitary ICSH production or the testicular testosterone production
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GORDON, R.D., THOMAS, M.J., POYNTING, J.M. and STOCKS, A.E. (1975), Effect of Mesterolone on Plasma L.H., F.S.H. and Testosterone. Andrologia, 7: 287–296. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0272.1975.tb00942.x
Summary
It has been claimed that orally administered mesterolone, unlike l7a-methyl testo- sterone, does not suppress endogenous gonadotrophins and testesterone. To investi- gate this, both drugs were administered, in turn, to four normal men and plasma te- stosterone, L.H. and F.S.H. were measured serially. Mesterolone administration was associated in all four subjects with significant and similar falls in plasma testosterone, but significant suppression of gonadotrophins took place in only two of them. Any changes which occured were apparent by the end of the first week of therapy. Administration of half the dose of 17a-methyl testosterone to the same four subjects caused significant suppression of testosterone in each and suppression of one or both gonadotrophins in each.
In longer term studies in patients (5-30 months) involving serial measurements at intervals of one to two months, there was evidence of significant suppression of L.H. and F.S.H. by 17a-methyl testosterone, but not by mesterolone, which was clinically a less effective androgen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WANG, C., BURGER, H.G., de KRETSER, D.M., DULMANIS, A., HUDSON, B., KEOGH, E.J. and SUTHERS, M.B. (1974), Effect of Mesterolone on Serum FSH, LH and Plasma Testosterone in Normal Men. Andrologia, 6: 111–117. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0272.1974.tb01604.x
Summary
To determine whether the claim that mesterolone, an orally active androgen, does not cause suppression of gonadotrophin secretion, two groups of five normal men were treated with 100 and 200 mg. daily respectively for 7 days. Serial measurements of serum FSH, LH and plasma testosterone were made on samples taken at 15 minute intervals over 2 hr both before and during treatment. Modest falls in FSH, LH and testosterone levels were observed in both groups, the percentage suppression being 21% and 18% for FSH, 19% and 15% for LH and 9% and 8% for testosterone at the lower and higher dosage levels respectively.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
200mg is a far greater dose than I would deploy during PCT (50mgs is ideal). From these studies and other articles we see have read, it's clear that there is almost minimal/no influence on the HTPA, any effect would be absolute minimal and negated by other appropriate compounds used during that period (HCG, Aromasin, Nolvadex and HGH)...[/QUOTE
“The paradoxical reduction in TT (p .012), with no change in cFT, reflects a significant reduction in SHBG due to the suppression of endogenous testosterone synthesis by this form of treatment, as indicated by the slight decrease in LH and FSH.” I am not going to split hairs with you. Did fsh go up? Did LH go up? Did total test go up. The answer is no. By all means post your 7 months of legible “lab work” and show me your healthy LH and FSH levels please include lipids too.
Last edited by Pcushion; 07-28-2019 at 06:00 PM.
----
-
Originally Posted by
maxmuscle1
I love PROVIRON!! I just Do!
Max
Me too buddy! For me it just brightens my day.
I am a part time Proctologist and full time Gynecologist 
-
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
----
-
Next question is...
Will long term use, even low doses of Proviron (even Mast), lead to prostate issues or even cancer. I understand that BPH and cancer has a lot to do with estrogen and DHT. So just curious.
I am a part time Proctologist and full time Gynecologist
----
-
Originally Posted by
thebear
Next question is...
Will long term use, even low doses of Proviron (even Mast), lead to prostate issues or even cancer. I understand that BPH and cancer has a lot to do with estrogen and DHT. So just curious.
I am a part time Proctologist and full time Gynecologist
I have a study that you may be interested in Reading I will send it over to you brother in private messaging..
It may not entirely answer your question directly, however you can see the suggestions by the study when it pertains to older males and the effects on the prostate..
-
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 2 Likes, 0 Dislikes
----
-
Lets talk more about this topic... whos down?
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
----
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks