I've had the same questions for a while -- what are the reasonable concerns of a "reasonable" supraphysiological (e.g. 300 mg/wk) regimen of ordinary testosterone?
There are precious few studies, so we're left looking at limited clinical data alongside a bunch of anecdotal evidence from stories of long-term bodybuilders with bad outcomes... evidence often polluted of course with lots of other substances such as HGH, tren, C17 orals, dehydrating agents, Xanax, alcohol, cocaine, painkillers, etc.
In William Llewellyn's Anabolics 10th Ed. he examines three studies that are most relevant. The first is our famous testosterone dose-response paper from 2001 that tracked up to 600 mg/wk for 20 wks (
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/281/6/E1172.full) The second tracks up to 600 mg/wk of nandrolone in HIV+ patients and the third looks at up to 100 mg/day of anadrol in 65-80 yr old men.
His conclusion:
Adding It All Up
One hundred and twenty-one men participated in these three studies, which involved the use of moderate to high doses of steroids of periods of three to five months. Although it may be shocking to most opponents of AAS use, an unbiased assessment of the metabolic changes and health risks did not reveal any significant short-term dangers. The main negative impact of steroid use in all three cases was a reduction in good (HDL) cholesterol values, which is a legitimate concern when it comes to assessing one's risk for developing cardiovascular disease. It is uncertain, however, if a short-lived increase in this particular risk factor relates to any tangible damage to one's health over the long-term. It is also unknown how much (if any) this may be offset by the other positive metabolic changes that were seen to accompany combined AAS use and exercise.
Logic would seem to suggest that the isolated use of steroids, under parameters similar to those used in these three studies, should entail relatively minimal risks to health. At the very least, it is extremely difficult to argue that an isolated cycle with a moderate drug dose is tantamount to playing Russian roulette with your body, as most media campaigns against the use of these drugs would seem to suggest. But make no mistake. These same study results consistently demonstrated pro-atherogenic changes in blood lipids with the doses necessary to physique or performance enhancement, and underline how it is that long-term AAS abuse can impair cardiovascular health.
His remarks have to do with short-term cycles but the relatively minor effects of large doses over 12-20 wks suggest it may be similarly minor for moderate doses over a longer term.
In addition to the cardiovascular impact, there is some data suggesting development of tendon rigidity (leading to increase risk of injury) but this data isn't strong and is confounded by the tendency for guys to hit the weights far harder during a cycle. The actual AAS direct effect on tendon composition may be insignificant. There's also some immunosuppressant evidence at higher doses but again it's not strong, is mixed with immunostimulant evidence, and no correlation with increased illness jumps out of the data.
In the end it seems wise to just track your own response to the gear. If you've got a ridiculously good BP, and other blood markers (RBC, HDL, LDL) are a-ok, you may have more margin of safety to work with than other dudes.
