TRT 'no excuses' culture: what bloodwork actually tells you

What did @calxshreds actually say?

At week 25 of a self-reported cycle combining 300mg testosterone, 200mg of what sounds like primobolan, human growth hormone at an unspecified dose, and 25mg of anavar as a pre-workout, this creator pulled up bloodwork and called most of it "beautiful," "perfect," or "incredible." The specific markers they flagged as good included HbA1c, ALT, ALP, cholesterol ratio, creatinine at 80, eGFR at 124, prolactin, thyroid function, bilirubin, and prostate markers. They acknowledged HDL "could be a little bit better" and noted SHBG was lower, which they said is expected. Estrogen at 182 was flagged as "a little bit lower."

To be direct: this is a person on a fairly aggressive multi-compound cycle telling their audience that their labs look fine. That framing deserves scrutiny.

Does the science back this up?

Some of it does, some of it doesn't, and a lot depends on what unit system they're using. The claim that you can run supraphysiologic androgens for 25 weeks and maintain broadly normal labs is not impossible, but it is not representative of typical outcomes.

HDL suppression is one of the most consistent findings in anabolic steroid research. A 2004 study by Hartgens and Kuipers in Sports Medicine documented significant HDL reductions with oral 17-alpha alkylated androgens like anavar, sometimes exceeding 50%. Anavar specifically is well-documented for dropping HDL even at moderate doses. The creator's admission that HDL "could be a little bit better" after 24 weeks of anavar is an understatement. Research by Palatini et al. (1996, International Journal of Sports Medicine) found that anabolic steroid users had significantly altered lipid profiles even when total cholesterol appeared normal, which is exactly the scenario here.

eGFR at 124 sounds reassuring, but creatinine-based eGFR calculations are unreliable in individuals with high muscle mass. Eknoyan et al. noted this limitation in nephrology literature going back decades. High muscle mass inflates creatinine production, making standard eGFR formulas less accurate.

What did they get wrong (or right)?

Credit where it is due: acknowledging that SHBG drops on cycle is accurate. Supraphysiologic androgens suppress SHBG, increasing free androgen levels, and this is well-established pharmacology. Noting it rather than ignoring it shows some awareness.

The estrogen reading of 182 needs more context. If that is in pmol/L, it falls within a broad male reference range. If it is in pg/mL, 182 is elevated for most male reference ranges. The creator did not clarify units, which matters.

Calling HbA1c "beautiful" while using HGH is a flag. Growth hormone is well-known to cause insulin resistance. A study by Møller and Jørgensen (2009, Endocrine Reviews) detailed how supraphysiologic GH impairs glucose metabolism. A single HbA1c snapshot does not capture acute insulin resistance or postprandial glucose spikes that GH commonly causes. The "beautiful" label is too confident given the pharmacology involved.

LDL described as "incredible" with no number given, and HDL quietly acknowledged as suboptimal, is the kind of selective emphasis that misleads viewers into thinking the full cardiovascular picture is positive when it may not be.

What should you actually know?

Normal-looking bloodwork on a single panel during an active cycle does not mean no harm is occurring. Cardiovascular remodeling, left ventricular hypertrophy, and arterial stiffness from long-term androgen use are not captured by standard blood chemistry panels. A 2017 study by Baggish et al. in Circulation found that long-term anabolic steroid users had significantly reduced left ventricular systolic function and coronary artery disease compared to non-users, regardless of how their blood panels looked.

The stack described here, testosterone, primobolan, HGH, and anavar, represents compounded exogenous hormones and peptide hormones used outside any supervised medical protocol. This is not TRT. TRT is a medically supervised intervention for diagnosed hypogonadism. What is described in this video is performance-enhancing drug use. Those are different things with different risk profiles, and conflating them under the hashtag TRT does a disservice to people researching legitimate hormone therapy.

If you are considering TRT for a diagnosed condition, your starting point should be a licensed provider reviewing your labs in full, not a TikTok bloodwork reveal.

The bottom line

Some individual markers in this video are interpreted reasonably. But the overall framing, that a 25-week multi-compound cycle produces broadly safe bloodwork, oversimplifies a complex risk picture. Cardiovascular risk from androgenic compounds accumulates over time and does not always show up in a metabolic panel. Viewers should not take this video as evidence that aggressive polypharmacy is low-risk because some labs look normal.