Is test the most important hormone for athletic performance - bar none

[john11]

It has been in the media that a lot of athletes who used to be men, have had a sex change and classified themselves as women to get an edge over the competition, with naturally high test levels.
Seb coe stated today that he wants new measurers brought in to stop this:
" Seb Coe hit out at “second-rate sociologists” who question the sport’s gender eligibility rules. As an athlete with Differences of Sexual Development (DSD), and therefore possessing higher levels of naturally occurring testosterone than women who fit within the permitted range, double Olympic and triple world 800m champion Semenya is unable to compete over distances from 400m to one mile unless she takes hormone medication. Earlier in the day, World Athletics president Coe insisted the governing body’s controversial DSD rules were correct.
“We’ve always been guided by the science, and science is pretty clear: we know that testosterone is the key determinant in performance,” said coe.

As most athletes at the highest levels are like walking chemical factories. Do you think it's fair or unfair to pick on those who may have naturally higher test than others, as most of the others will be on test supplements of some nature or other anyway - along with all the rest of the drugs they take. And do you think that test is the key determinant as coe claimed. It's a strong claim, does it stand up? What do you think

 

[MR_Midas]

All this gender bullshit is killing the sport and that's a fact. Women's sport is dying as a concept
The fact that all professionals are on drugs is a fact.

 

[God&Gainz]

Im not saying shoot them all but....

 

[1tank1]

For athletic performance....Nandrolone will always be No.1 imo.

 

[canadian mutant]

For athletic performance....Nandrolone will always be No.1 imo.

Without test with your nandrolone you’ll be shut down as fuck and won’t be able to do shit, so technically test will always trump everything

 

[1tank1]

Without test with your nandrolone you’ll be shut down as fuck and won’t be able to do shit, so technically test will always trump everything

The question was about athletic perfomance though (not shutdown and recovery) and I ran a lot of cycles without test to achieve specific goals.

Saying someone won't be able to do shit without testosterone in a cycle is not true and don't forget that nandrolone is a derivative of testosterone anyway.

In sports and perfromance....Nandrolone has always been the preferred choice since the 1960s coz of it's strong anabolic and less androgenic effect than testosterone.

Testosterone is only preferred for bodybuilding. Combining the 2 is a winning combination for growth and strength and performance but athletes generally don't want to pack on loads of visible muscle size in most sports and that's why nandrolone has always been rated No.1 for athletic performance.

 

[Jurgen]

The question was about athletic perfomance though (not shutdown and recovery) and I ran a lot of cycles without test to achieve specific goals.

Saying someone won't be able to do shit without testosterone in a cycle is not true and don't forget that nandrolone is a derivative of testosterone anyway.

In sports and perfromance....Nandrolone has always been the preferred choice since the 1960s coz of it's strong anabolic and less androgenic effect than testosterone.

Testosterone is only preferred for bodybuilding. Combining the 2 is a winning combination for growth and strength and performance but athletes generally don't want to pack on loads of visible muscle size in most sports and that's why nandrolone has always been rated No.1 for athletic performance.

You’re backing this with data from 60+ years ago?
Look you need testosterone period. Even if it’s just 100mg or even hcg as a base so your testosterone and estrogen levels don’t tank.
Nandrolone was primarily favored back then for its lower conversion to estrogen. There’s many better options now that simply just weren’t available back then.

 

[1tank1]

You’re backing this with data from 60+ years ago?
Look you need testosterone period. Even if it’s just 100mg or even hcg as a base so your testosterone and estrogen levels don’t tank.
Nandrolone was primarily favored back then for its lower conversion to estrogen. There’s many better options now that simply just weren’t available back then.

I'm talking from real life experience in actually running certain cycles. No "data" to back up what I'm saying and I don't need to convince anyone that what I'm saying is true or need to win any arguments in this topic.

If you think something else is better than nandrolone or better than testosterone then go ahead and name that drug but the OP isn't asking for cycle advice is he. He simply wants opinions about which `singular" hormone members here think is best for athletic performance. Bringing up issues about estrogen and low test levels (both of which won't be known without bloods anyway) are not relevant to the question and won't necessarily affect athletic perfomance either.

Perhaps try actually running a high dose nandrolone cycle and compare that to a high test cycle instead of just citing scripture bro.....and then come back and give a review on the effect it had on your athletic perfomance.

 

[MR_Midas]

The question was about athletic perfomance though (not shutdown and recovery) and I ran a lot of cycles without test to achieve specific goals.

Saying someone won't be able to do shit without testosterone in a cycle is not true and don't forget that nandrolone is a derivative of testosterone anyway.

In sports and perfromance....Nandrolone has always been the preferred choice since the 1960s coz of it's strong anabolic and less androgenic effect than testosterone.

Testosterone is only preferred for bodybuilding. Combining the 2 is a winning combination for growth and strength and performance but athletes generally don't want to pack on loads of visible muscle size in most sports and that's why nandrolone has always been rated No.1 for athletic performance.

Perhaps I agree that nandrolone is a completely working option without testosterone and was actively used in 70-80, only many suffered from libido.

 

[Jurgen]

I'm talking from real life experience in actually running certain cycles. No "data" to back up what I'm saying and I don't need to convince anyone that what I'm saying is true or need to win any arguments in this topic.

If you think something else is better than nandrolone or better than testosterone then go ahead and name that drug but the OP isn't asking for cycle advice is he. He simply wants opinions about which `singular" hormone members here think is best for athletic performance. Bringing up issues about estrogen and low test levels (both of which won't be known without bloods anyway) are not relevant to the question and won't necessarily affect athletic perfomance either.

Perhaps try actually running a high dose nandrolone cycle and compare that to a high test cycle instead of just citing scripture bro.....and then come back and give a review on the effect it had on your athletic perfomance.

Ok so anecdotal and personal experience is even better then studies and data on the actual subject?
And with that logic test is the most important for athletic performance if we are just answering the most important hormone for athletic performance like the op is asking.
Hard pass on running any nandrolones for me, let alone without test.
Wasn’t trying to argue or win anything I could care less.

 

[1tank1]

Perhaps I agree that nandrolone is a completely working option without testosterone and was actively used in 70-80, only many suffered from libido.

Libido isn't high priority to all guys though so having low sex drive doesn't need to be a big deal coz it's only gonna be temporary anyway. If you've got a girlfriend and she needs an active sex life you can always pop a cialis or viagra etc....and problem solved.

Or....tell her to start being more dirty to keep you turned on

 

[canadian mutant]

Ok so anecdotal and personal experience is even better then studies and data on the actual subject?
And with that logic test is the most important for athletic performance if we are just answering the most important hormone for athletic performance like the op is asking.
Hard pass on running any nandrolones for me, let alone without test.
Wasn’t trying to argue or win anything I could care less.

I know every1 is different so just out of curiously why are nandrolones a hard pass for you? For me nandrolone is like a substance from god. I get 0 sides what’s so ever and stay lean without the deca bloat like Most ppl get. With test that is

 

[Jurgen]

I know every1 is different so just out of curiously why are nandrolones a hard pass for you? For me nandrolone is like a substance from god. I get 0 sides what’s so ever and stay lean without the deca bloat like Most ppl get. With test that is

They are probably some of the worst compounds to run health risk wise. Including altering the dna of your heart. Yes all aas aren’t good for your heart but adding the extra stress on top of that just doesn’t seem worth it to me. I’m not a body builder or a power lifter so for me it’s just not worth the extra risk. I also believe you can achieve whatever physique your after without them. I’m finishing my first cycle at the end of this month and staying on trt, which I started trt Oct 2021.
Maybe I’ll reconsider in the future.

 

[1tank1]

Ok so anecdotal and personal experience is even better then studies and data on the actual subject?

I don't like ignoring people if they ask me a question, but I don't really wanna answer this question either, so I'm responding just to be polite and share my opinion.

Is personal experience better than studies etc? It depends on the subject.

With AAS/PEDS/DRUGS/MEDS/PEPTIDES ETC used in bodybuilding and sports.....personal experience (not opinion) gained from their extensive real world use from a variety of experienced people is more beneficial than any study/book/article.

Why? The short answer is because there are no studies or clinical trials that have ever been done on iilicit steroid/drug use in bodybuilding at a variety of different doses and durations and combinations of different aas/drugs/medicines.

The studies that are out there about different human trials of drugs and protocols were all conducted on healthy/natty adult males/females with specific bodily deficiencies or disorders (whether that be hormonal, physical, or mental) and we within this community take snippets from all these studies and then try to translate the results into ways that will help us and justify the risks we all take with our bodies.

Ultimately there is no right or wrong cycle or right or wrong combination of drugs in this game and no 2 people will ever have the exact same results in gains or same side effects/issues to resolve after the cycle.

Every user starts off with the basic light cycles and general advice but when you start pushing boundaries and want to smash through advanced plateaus you (eventually) have to experiment with new ideas and see what happens to your own body.

The basic cycles and protocols just teach you what drugs you respond to the best and what drugs you don't like. Everything past that point is what each person has to figure out for themselves with trial and error.

That's my opinion....for what it's worth.
(p.s.....I've done about 30 cycles in total but I only blast/cruise with low doses now coz of my age).

 

[Jurgen]

I don't like ignoring people if they ask me a question, but I don't really wanna answer this question either, so I'm responding just to be polite and share my opinion.

Is personal experience better than studies etc? It depends on the subject.

With AAS/PEDS/DRUGS/MEDS/PEPTIDES ETC used in bodybuilding and sports.....personal experience (not opinion) gained from their extensive real world use from a variety of experienced people is more beneficial than any study/book/article.

Why? The short answer is because there are no studies or clinical trials that have ever been done on iilicit steroid/drug use in bodybuilding at a variety of different doses and durations and combinations of different aas/drugs/medicines.

The studies that are out there about different human trials of drugs and protocols were all conducted on healthy/natty adult males/females with specific bodily deficiencies or disorders (whether that be hormonal, physical, or mental) and we within this community take snippets from all these studies and then try to translate the results into ways that will help us and justify the risks we all take with our bodies.

Ultimately there is no right or wrong cycle or right or wrong combination of drugs in this game and no 2 people will ever have the exact same results in gains or same side effects/issues to resolve after the cycle.

Every user starts off with the basic light cycles and general advice but when you start pushing boundaries and want to smash through advanced plateaus you (eventually) have to experiment with new ideas and see what happens to your own body.

The basic cycles and protocols just teach you what drugs you respond to the best and what drugs you don't like. Everything past that point is what each person has to figure out for themselves with trial and error.

That's my opinion....for what it's worth.
(p.s.....I've done about 30 cycles in total but I only blast/cruise with low doses now coz of my age).

I didn’t mean any disrespect, maybe it came off that way.
I understand where you’re coming from and what you’re saying is 100% valid.
Even with anecdotal stuff having a test base has been proven throughout the bodybuilding and powerlifting community. And if not test SOMETHING that converts to enough estrogen like dbol, ment, and I think even Eq to an extent there’s probably others maybe I don’t know about. There’s enough anecdotal evidence and studies that back that up.
I do take others experiences into account for sure especially when they have a lot of it.
I’ve only ran/running still, one cycle and I trained natural for a long time and did a lot of research and studying before I ever touched anything. I know people who have run peds for over a decade and still look like shit as well or who are barely my size and strength because it took them a long time to even realize what they were doing or even research what’s what etc. I love this place for that reason, I was able to start off right with so much good information and direction that I didn’t have to go through a lot of that bullshit.
It does suck that many of the studies available to us were done on rats or like you said regular people and or people with disorders.
Anyway thanks for the reply and hopefully you can continue to contribute to the community with your experience.

 

[MR_Midas]

Libido isn't high priority to all guys though so having low sex drive doesn't need to be a big deal coz it's only gonna be temporary anyway. If you've got a girlfriend and she needs an active sex life you can always pop a cialis or viagra etc....and problem solved.

Or....tell her to start being more dirty to keep you turned on

Exactly, exactly, there is always a true friend of Cialis. Straight to the point, I have a friend of his as rice. Constantly and regularly.

 

[cmK9s33]

Without test with your nandrolone you’ll be shut down as fuck and won’t be able to do shit, so technically test will always trump everything

Nand was the primary HRT drug for nearly 2 decades. "Shut down as fuck" occurs from any steroid including testosterone.

And the question was about athletic performance anyways. Granted, I wouldn't have expected it as a primary answer for athletic performance. But I suppose it depends on the context and sport.

 

[Ridethelightningbarefoot]

Absolutely not. there are studies that show the hormones arent the only thing. Testosterone has long term effects on muscle mass, muscle quality, and neurology. So even if you have a guy who shuts down his test and starts pinning estrogen he will still have the advantage of once being a male. We are born biologically dominant and die biologically dominant regardless of choice

 

[1tank1]

Nand was the primary HRT drug for nearly 2 decades. "Shut down as fuck" occurs from any steroid including testosterone.

And the question was about athletic performance anyways. Granted, I wouldn't have expected it as a primary answer for athletic performance. But I suppose it depends on the context and sport.

Nandrolone and Stanazolol are the 2 most popular for track and field and olympic weightlifting coz most of those athletes just need explosive power in short burst and the anabolic/androgenic ratio of those 2 drugs is ideal for those events. Testosterone and Methandienone also get tested quite a lot in athletics but not as much as Nandrolone.

In endurance sports like running and cycling those athletes very rarely use hormones. It's all about peptides and a lot of modern synthetic drugs that are no use in bodybuilding.

EPO is probably the drug that gets tested the most in endurance sports and it's favoured coz it increases red blood count and aerobic capability......but use of diuretics and HGH is widespread within endurance too.

I'd love to find out about the drugs used in Ice Hockey and American Football coz those guys are all total lunatics and they really punish their bodies for those sports.

 

[cmK9s33]

Nandrolone and Stanazolol are the 2 most popular for track and field and olympic weightlifting coz most of those athletes just need explosive power in short burst and the anabolic/androgenic ratio of those 2 drugs is ideal for those events. Testosterone and Methandienone also get tested quite a lot in athletics but not as much as Nandrolone.

Anabolic:androgenic ratio doesn't mean much. Those were calculated from rats and there are many examples where the ratios seem wildly inaccurate compared to outcomes in humans.

Winstrol I have read being used quite a bit for high impulse sports like sprinting and OL weightlifting (weight class restricted). I could see nandrolone being helpful for weightlifters if they aren't concerned about maintaining a weight class. Otherwise, superfluous weight (and long detection time) would be detrimental to athletes like sprinters. Throwers may get some benefit though.

In endurance sports like running and cycling those athletes very rarely use hormones. It's all about peptides and a lot of modern synthetic drugs that are no use in bodybuilding.

Not really. They often employ TRT+ doses of test and sometimes boldenone as well. Still modest doses obviously. They use smaller doses of HGH year round as well.

EPO is probably the drug that gets tested the most in endurance sports and it's favoured coz it increases red blood count and aerobic capability......but use of diuretics and HGH is widespread within endurance too.

EPO is indeed found in endurance sports ALOT but it's found in more glycolytic sports as well. See the positive tests in MMA athletes and Tim Montgomery's positive.

Diuretics?!? How are diuretics useful for endurance athletes? With their high rbc/HCT values and the the amount they sweat, I would think diuretics could be russian roulette every time they used them.