is Testosterone a weak anabolic/muscle builder?

[29trt]

The logic doesn't follow here.

If someone inject 3 whole grams of ANY AAS and then discontinued, they would all end up in the same position when all is said and done. This is simply because most don't need and won't see any additional benefit from extreme dosages regardless of the AAS.

If you are saying that 3 grams of testosterone used accordingly would result in a great number and degree of side effects (specifically excessive water retention / bloat /etc) when compared to 3 grams of other injectables, I don't think you would find much objection.

But instead of making that argument, you are asserting something completely different i.e. testosterone is useless at building more contractile muscle. I don't think you even believe that.

Testosterone, at equivalent dosages, will have similar results are far as contractile muscle. And taking into consideration your implication, I agree that the excessive bloat and water retention doesn't count as "real gains".

So at most, the perception that test create more dramatic gains (because of the excessive bodyweight gained due to water retention/bloat/etc) is misleading and inaccurate.

And most do minimize the test component in their stack specifically to minimize the harm of those side effects (as well as potential for synergy). It doesn't mean test couldn't get the job done - it just would likely come at a much greater cost in terms of side effects. At least that is the rationale for most people - maximizing "real" results and minimizing harm.

And most people go by perception and use intuitive thinking to determine if said AAS is strong , weak has sides etc
Hence the sides you get from test are very aparent like water, gyno, acne, hair etc... but other drugs like primo, deca, eq might not have such estetic sides but they do have internal ones of which some you can't even test for.. like memory issues from deca

 

[Cyp180]

Some people say that Testosterone on its own is a weak anabolic and does not really build much muscle/size. Is it true? Like there is no point to run test higher than 200mg-250mg per week, and best to add Anabolics as main drivers of anabolism.

Instead, they advocate Nandrolone, Oxymetholone, Primobolan and Oxandrolone as superior muscle builders.


How true is that? Why can't non-competitive trainees use Test only to grow quality size?

Testosterone Profile

Testosterone, as the natural product drug and one of the most widely used anabolic steroids, is the most convenient choice for a reference drug to which

thinksteroids.com

 

[Piromanu87]

I guess nutrition and training needs to be looked at if you cant make progress on big test doses.

 

[grey]

I guess nutrition and training needs to be looked at if you cant make progress on big test doses.

I would guess so too

 

[DoNotFearGearIsHere]

The logic doesn't follow here.

If someone inject 3 whole grams of ANY AAS and then discontinued, they would all end up in the same position when all is said and done. This is simply because most don't need and won't see any additional benefit from extreme dosages regardless of the AAS.

If you are saying that 3 grams of testosterone used accordingly would result in a great number and degree of side effects (specifically excessive water retention / bloat /etc) when compared to 3 grams of other injectables, I don't think you would find much objection.

But instead of making that argument, you are asserting something completely different i.e. testosterone is useless at building more contractile muscle. I don't think you even believe that.

Testosterone, at equivalent dosages, will have similar results are far as contractile muscle. And taking into consideration your implication, I agree that the excessive bloat and water retention doesn't count as "real gains".

So at most, the perception that test create more dramatic gains (because of the excessive bodyweight gained due to water retention/bloat/etc) is misleading and inaccurate.

And most do minimize the test component in their stack specifically to minimize the harm of those side effects (as well as potential for synergy). It doesn't mean test couldn't get the job done - it just would likely come at a much greater cost in terms of side effects. At least that is the rationale for most people - maximizing "real" results and minimizing harm.

honestly, the thing is he does have a point and so do you. At least in my approach, In terms of doses, nearly all anabolics equate to the same contractile tissue accrual, Therefor the 'safest' approach would be to take a compound that is more benign and poses fewer sides, Which is why Test due to its highly androgenic sides wouldn't ideally be the best, however, if it's well tolerated then go with whichever u respond best to.
(open to argument or opposing views)