What did @extraleonardo actually say?
The creator laid out a beginner testosterone-only cycle framework using weight-based dosing: "3 to 5 milligrams of test per kilo of body weight per week," which he calculated to roughly 300-400mg weekly for an average guy. He also suggested that if bloodwork looks clean at week 6, bumping to "4 to 6 milligrams per kilo" is still reasonable. He flagged estrogen management as the key variable to watch and added that guys with naturally high testosterone, around 900 ng/dL or above, might start closer to the higher end of that range. The framing was harm-reduction adjacent, not a blanket blast-everything approach. He used the phrase "clown cycle" to describe irresponsible high-dose use, which at least signals some awareness of risk.
To be clear: this is advice about supraphysiologic testosterone use in a bodybuilding context, not TRT. Those are very different things clinically, and conflating them does real damage to how people think about hormone health.
Does the science back this up?
Partially. The dose ranges he describes are within what research has actually studied, but that does not make them safe or medically endorsed. The landmark Bhasin et al. (2001, New England Journal of Medicine) dose-response trial used 25mg to 600mg of testosterone enanthate weekly in healthy men and found that lean mass and strength gains were dose-dependent, but so were adverse effects including hematocrit elevation and HDL suppression. The 300-600mg range he describes sits squarely in territory where side effects become clinically meaningful.
His weight-based dosing formula sounds precise, but it is not derived from peer-reviewed pharmacokinetic research for supraphysiologic use. It is gym-floor math dressed up as protocol. The 6-week bloodwork checkpoint is legitimate in principle. Rahnema et al. (2014, Fertility and Sterility) documented that exogenous testosterone suppresses the HPG axis rapidly, often within weeks, which is exactly why early monitoring matters.
What did they get wrong (or right)?
He got the harm-reduction instinct right. Telling beginners to find "your sweet spot" rather than chasing maximum dose is better advice than most of what circulates in these communities. The estrogen management point is also grounded in real physiology. Testosterone aromatizes to estradiol, and elevated estradiol can cause gynecomastia, water retention, and mood instability, per Finkelstein et al. (2013, New England Journal of Medicine).
What he got wrong, or at least glossed over: his claim that someone with a natural testosterone of 900 ng/dL or higher should "start close up to the 5 to 6 milligram per kilo dose" has zero clinical rationale. Baseline endogenous testosterone does not meaningfully predict how someone will respond to supraphysiologic exogenous doses. That logic sounds intuitive but it is not supported by pharmacokinetic data. He also skipped entirely over cardiovascular risk, which is not a footnote. Baggish et al. (2017, Circulation) found structural cardiac changes in long-term anabolic steroid users, including decreased left ventricular function. That deserved at least a sentence.
What should you actually know?
The doses described in this video are not TRT. Therapeutic testosterone replacement, used to treat diagnosed hypogonadism, typically involves 50-200mg per week, titrated to bring levels into the normal physiological range, roughly 400-900 ng/dL. What the creator is describing, 300-600mg weekly, would push most men to testosterone levels several times the upper limit of normal. That is anabolic steroid use, and the risk profile is different.
Key risks that were not mentioned include suppression of natural testosterone production, which can be long-lasting or permanent in some cases (Rahnema et al., 2014), polycythemia (dangerously elevated red blood cell count), liver stress with oral androgens, and psychological effects including aggression and dependency. The "bloods will be clean by week 6" framing is also optimistic. Some markers, particularly hematocrit and lipid panels, can shift in ways that are not immediately visible on basic panels.
If you are experiencing symptoms of low testosterone, the appropriate step is a blood panel through a licensed provider, not a TikTok dosing framework.
Bottom line: is this advice useful or dangerous?
It sits in an uncomfortable middle. The harm-reduction framing and emphasis on bloodwork monitoring are genuinely better than the alternative advice flooding these platforms. But presenting supraphysiologic steroid cycles as a structured, beginner-friendly protocol, with specific milligram-per-kilo formulas, normalizes a practice that carries real, documented cardiovascular and endocrine risks. The disclaimer that this is "not medical advice" does not neutralize the practical effect of giving people a specific dosing roadmap. Viewers should understand that "educational" framing does not make the underlying risks disappear.