Do people use too much gear than necessary?

[jankoch]

You are probably right, thanks for explaining.

 

[malfeasance]

You are probably right, thanks for explaining.

Or you are right - I am no expert in this by any means.

I tend to think there may be more water retention in 600 than 300, too.

But I also think 5 months of 600mg of testosterone has to have some effects. That's why we would not want our wives taking it. She might be able to kick our ass after those 20 weeks are up.

 

[Chips7]

I can look at the graph and see strength is not much higher in 600 than 300, just as you say, but, again, no strength training, so not surprising. Strength requires neural adaptation, which requires strength training. But power was up significantly.

No surprise that untrained men are more powerful than women. That's why they do not get to box each other. And the reason is testosterone. Men have it, and women don't. That is why high school boys can defeat professional women in soccer and the Venus sisters get swept back to back by a man rated number 350 in tennis, and now they do not claim that they could compete with the top 100 men. Testosterone equals power. 20 weeks of testosterone at 600mg a week increased it quite noticeably.

Sexual desire, not statistically significant - statistical significance is important to determining whether the difference you are seeing is simply due to chance or coincidence. It is math. It helps determine the validity of the result. A value that is within the realm of chance or coincidence is not statistically significant.

As for dexa not being exact, that range of error is going to get plugged into the math when they calculate for significance.

I get your critiques, but I am not so sure that they undermine the value of this study. Note that they also did water weighing and not just Dexa. They compared the water weighing and DEXA in an attempt to evaluate water retention, so the part you quote above is only a portion of what they did to rule out water retention.

So the young men on 600 mg weekly for 20 weeks were bigger and more powerful than the young men on 300 mg a week for 20 weeks. You can chalk it all up to water retention if you want, but I do not think that adequately explains it, and the researchers appeared to be well aware of the issue and did at least two things to control the results so that water retention is not what was being measured.

With which marker do you determine that the 600mg group are more powerful than the 300mg group?

the only marker that I see that can differentiate this is the strength on the leg press, but there is little difference at this marker.

apart from if you base it on the free fat mass index, but I don't see how this index means being more powerful.

if you can enlighten me.

 

[malfeasance]

Please see post # 90, in which I described exactly how they measured that, including the equipment used, and, of course, the study itself, to which I provided a link so that you can read it for yourself and not take my word for it (nor should you).

Leg press strength does not measure power. That is the whole point. That measures maximum strength.

 

[eery]

regarding female vs male ive heard people theorize something about womens androgen receptors being different/more sensitive


its genetics, they want to brag about their "mentality" and "discipline", acting like they are getting twice the results just by eating stuff that doesn't taste good. plenty of guys train hard, eat enough and dont stay out partying every weekend.

i can vouch for this.