The more testosterone, the greater the mass gain. Really?

cassius

Member
10+ Year Member
Undoubtedly, of all the hormones, testosterone is the one most associated with lean mass gain. It is not by chance that its use and its derivatives, as well as products that promise its natural increase, known as testo boosters, are common among bodybuilders.

The question, then, is: “the higher my testosterone levels, the greater my mass gain?”. And the answer is: Not exactly.

Through hormonal physiology, we know that a certain hormone only exerts its biological function after binding to its receptor (which can be located in various tissues of our organism) and, then, starting a series of metabolic reactions. Therefore, the amount of hormone that is still circulating in the plasma, identified through biochemical tests, is not yet bound to the receptor and, therefore, is not performing its expected function [1].

In the case of testosterone and the hypertrophy process, what we expect is that the hormone binds to the receptor located in the skeletal muscle and that, then, there is a signal to increase protein synthesis or prevent degradation. However, the acute increase in the levels of intramuscular testosterone and its derivatives does not predict gains in men who practice bodybuilding [2].

More important than circulating and intramuscular levels, what we must consider is the density of androgen receptors contained in skeletal muscle. That is, the more androgen receptors you express in your muscles, the greater the response to the hormone. This was demonstrated in 2018 in the study conducted by Morton and his colleagues. In summary, in this study, the researchers were able to conclude that the density of androgen receptors, and not hormones (testosterone and its derivatives) at the intramuscular level, influences the hypertrophy process in young men who practice bodybuilding.

So now the question is: What should I do to increase this androgen receptor density?

Well, about that, certainly the first most impacting factor is genetics. This explains when we see bodybuilders, without the use of anabolic steroids, with high physiological levels of testosterone and who do not have a greater volume of lean mass even when training and eating properly. At the same time, the opposite is true. There are men with relatively low levels of testosterone, but who have a physique that calls into question the use of steroids. Not to mention that, sometimes, the latter don't even follow a proper diet, but at least they put a good intensity in their training. And speaking of training, this is the second factor to consider, but, like other factors, due to the extension of the topic, I will leave it to be addressed in the next posts.

In images 1, 2 and 3 you see, respectively, the difference in the increase of type 1, type 2 fibers and lean mass in individuals who had a higher density of androgen receptors (high responders, in gray) compared to individuals with lower density of receptors (low responders, blank) when both were submitted to resistance training.

--
References:

1 - GARDNER, David G; SHOBACK, Dolores. Greenspan's Basic and Clinical Endocrinology. 9. ed. Porto Alegre: AMGH, 2013. p. 5-6.

2 - Morton RW, Sato K, Gallaugher MPB, Oikawa SY, McNicholas PD, Fujita S and Phillips SM (2018) Muscle Androgen Receptor Content but Not Systemic Hormones Is Associated With Resistance Training-Induced Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy in Healthy, Young Men. Front Physiol. 9:1373. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.01373

--
Images

Fibra 1.jpg

Fibra 2.jpg

LBM 3.jpg
 
I thought we were pretty sure by now that taking androgens upregulated the androgen receptors.

I also have a theory that for guys with low numbers of AR that it's best to take the strongest possible steroid possible in smaller doses (like MENT or something) rather than lots and lots of Test to make the best use of the limited numbers of receptors.

I think this is possibly absolute bullshit broscience on my part though as I also understand (I think?) that the increased power of stuff like MENT mg for mg is just that it has an easier time binding to receptors.
 
What about high aromatizers? Taking 50mg of exemestane per week on top of 1:1 ratio of 450mg Test and Mast puts my e2 at 90. If I wanted to run a high Test cycle of 1 gram, then it would take an equal amount of mast and 110-125mg/week of exemestane to keep my e2 around 90-100.
 
I thought we were pretty sure by now that taking androgens upregulated the androgen receptors.

I also have a theory that for guys with low numbers of AR that it's best to take the strongest possible steroid possible in smaller doses (like MENT or something) rather than lots and lots of Test to make the best use of the limited numbers of receptors.

I think this is possibly absolute bullshit broscience on my part though as I also understand (I think?) that the increased power of stuff like MENT mg for mg is just that it has an easier time binding to receptors.
Your thinking makes sense, but I believe that the best thing to do is to try to adjust the doses according to the response that each individual presents, because in the same way that you can have a low density of androgen receptors in muscle tissue, you can have a high density on other tissues and the effects can be unpleasant or even harmful to health.

I think that if there is a low response to steroids, which is due to a low density of receptors, the best thing to do is to continue using smaller doses until that individual is able to gradually gain more volume. Theoretically, the more volume it has, the more receptors it will have and then, in the future, it can increase the doses.

Another strategy would be the combination with GH, in view of the upregulation effect of androgen receptors caused by IGF-1.

Talking about MENT, if the individual still has a volume gain goal, even though it might bind strongly to androgen receptors, I believe that a lower dose of nandrolone would have a more positive effect on this volume increase goal (just one example).
 
What about high aromatizers? Taking 50mg of exemestane per week on top of 1:1 ratio of 450mg Test and Mast puts my e2 at 90. If I wanted to run a high Test cycle of 1 gram, then it would take an equal amount of mast and 110-125mg/week of exemestane to keep my e2 around 90-100.
The dosage of your aromatase inhibitor should always be adjusted based on what is seen in blood tests, but mainly based on your feeling. If your estradiol increases, but you don't suffer from this increase, not least because your testosterone is also increasing, then there's no reason to just start reducing your estradiol already. This can even cause you to have problems related to low estradiol levels if you use an aromatase inhibitor in high doses.

Also, the rate of aromatization is limited. 1000mg of testo will not aromatize to the same extent as 500mg of testo.
Let's say if you use 50mg/wk of Exemestane for 500mg/wk of Testo, for 1000mg/wk of Testo you would maybe use around 75mg/wk of Exemestane. Therefore, the dosage adjustment should be done considering your feeling.
 
The dosage of your aromatase inhibitor should always be adjusted based on what is seen in blood tests, but mainly based on your feeling. If your estradiol increases, but you don't suffer from this increase, not least because your testosterone is also increasing, then there's no reason to just start reducing your estradiol already. This can even cause you to have problems related to low estradiol levels if you use an aromatase inhibitor in high doses.

Also, the rate of aromatization is limited. 1000mg of testo will not aromatize to the same extent as 500mg of testo.
Let's say if you use 50mg/wk of Exemestane for 500mg/wk of Testo, for 1000mg/wk of Testo you would maybe use around 75mg/wk of Exemestane. Therefore, the dosage adjustment should be done considering your feeling.
Based on my e2 levels from my first cycle, I successfully extrapolated the dosage with great accuracy. I was thinking it would be around 80, it was 89. I'll test this out in the future with blood work to confirm. Thanks for mentioning it. It would be nice to only increase 25mg/week and be able to run high test.
 
Based on my e2 levels from my first cycle, I successfully extrapolated the dosage with great accuracy. I was thinking it would be around 80, it was 89. I'll test this out in the future with blood work to confirm. Thanks for mentioning it. It would be nice to only increase 25mg/week and be able to run high test.
Yes my friend. And have no doubt that low estradiol is much worse than high estradiol. So it will always be better to increase the dose of the aromatase inhibitor gradually and cautiously.
 
Back
Top