Thread: when does RBC go back to normal?

There is no single answer, everyones body is different, people run different drugs, people respond differently, people use different doses - etc

LOL I wonder if this is one occasion when the tamoxifen induced hemolysis is a benefit.

Under normal conditions, red blood cells (RBCs) have a lifespan of about 120 days, so I would expect that you would need at least several months, if not longer, to see a return to more natural RBC concentration. Of course, its a condition of vascular volume. If that, ahh, chemically enhanced volume falls, it might marginally offset the rate of return to natural values.

Note that under conditions of heavy training, and when antioxidants are in short supply, its not uncommon to see the opposite case in trained athletes.

So trouble, are you stating that it's possible that after say a cycle of equipoise, which is known to increase one's red blood count that it could marginally leave a person with a slightly higher RBC even off cycle?

If you were under the impression that everything steroids did to you was something you recouperate from in a couple weeks you are very misinformed.

EQ is not the only good steroid for increasing RBC either.

Mudge, what are some other ones? EQ is usually the one that first comes to mind. If I remember reading right, I think Dbol actually does the opposite somewhat.

Dbol is good for raising RBC but anadrol is better, which is why dbol was wiped off the US market in the early 1980s. Almost 1.5 years ago when I was getting my blood tested, my blood was so thick that my cholesterol reading could not be performed, after two attempts.

This was thanks to my love for anadrol. Ahh, mammories.

Testosterone will do it too, if you are really paranoid about it then dont use steroids period, because you will increase RBC.

Originally Posted by luke69duke69

So trouble, are you stating that it's possible that after say a cycle of equipoise, which is known to increase one's red blood count that it could marginally leave a person with a slightly higher RBC even off cycle?

Did I say that? Nope.

I merely answered your question. Various growth promoting compounds active andogen receptors on osteoblasts, which are one of the stem cells pools for myoctyes and the precusor cells for RBC. Their number increases under the influence of growth inducing hormones, and that results in a slow but stead increase over time in the total number of RBC in circulation - as long as the catalyst for excessive RBC maturation is present.

Take that inducer away, and the number naturally falls back to previous levels. If you start back up again on another cycle, the trend reverse itself and more undifferntiated (stem) cells are sucked up into the cycle once again under the influence of tissue growth induction.

Now, here the thing. You only so many of these cell (and each cell has only so many divisions) in the stem cell pool. Pull too many into action, for a long period of time, and there may be consequences down the road in the number that can be activated in later years without...ah...genetic fuckups. The cells have to replicate to replace themselves...and there are only so many replications that can occur before ongoing gene replication processes that can screwup, do.

Those fuckups, they're killer in later years, because the redundant systems that normally clean them up (supress and kill off fast dividing cells) also begin to falter with age.

Always know your tradeoffs.

To clarify her last point, these killer fuck-ups = cancer.

Originally Posted by Trouble

Did I say that? Nope.

I merely answered your question. Various growth promoting compounds active andogen receptors on osteoblasts, which are one of the stem cells pools for myoctyes and the precusor cells for RBC. Their number increases under the influence of growth inducing hormones, and that results in a slow but stead increase over time in the total number of RBC in circulation - as long as the catalyst for excessive RBC maturation is present.

Take that inducer away, and the number naturally falls back to previous levels. If you start back up again on another cycle, the trend reverse itself and more undifferntiated (stem) cells are sucked up into the cycle once again under the influence of tissue growth induction.

Now, here the thing. You only so many of these cell (and each cell has only so many divisions) in the stem cell pool. Pull too many into action, for a long period of time, and there may be consequences down the road in the number that can be activated in later years without...ah...genetic fuckups. The cells have to replicate to replace themselves...and there are only so many replications that can occur before ongoing gene replication processes that can screwup, do.

Those fuckups, they're killer in later years, because the redundant systems that normally clean them up (supress and kill off fast dividing cells) also begin to falter with age.

Always know your tradeoffs.

shit, just how dangerous is this then?

anything we can do to minimise these adverse effects, and avoid the "killer fuck-ups" in later life? thats pretty scary stuff, in other words by using these drugs we may just be chopping the years off until we experience the problems that are destined for us?

Originally Posted by Pirate!

To clarify her last point, these killer fuck-ups = cancer.

bro, are you being serious? what implications could this mean for someone if they have a recent history of cancer in their family? (lung cancer, if it matters)

I'm not making any claims. I was just saying that what she was discribing is cancer.

okay bro, we'll see what she has to say on it