While your trolling you are still a small little girl with NO PICTURES. Called you out and of course you pinked out. We should have a thread for fakes on here. You could run it
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
TT > 1000 to grow muscle?
- Thread starter Theworm
- Start date
Theworm
Member
What did they say? Any links to these studies? I find it very interesting. For instance, can I really add decent muscle with my trt that puts my TT around 700? Love to see what those studies you spoke of showed...
Ps, I know you can grow with low T but I’m not assuming trt dose of test plus 500-1000 mg of other anabolics.
Test_Subject
New Member
Why do you want pictures of shirtless guys so badly? It's not like there's a shortage of porn on the internet.
maxx the dogg
Member
Ho boy....it seems like I can never find the exact article twice but here's a new one I just found
The Complicated Relationship Between Testosterone and Muscle Growth , which indicates that, strictly speaking of guys with T in the normal ranges, it's not the total T but the number of androgen receptors that matter, quote "More interesting still, the amount of testosterone you have at rest—in healthy young men, at least—doesn’t appear to have much to do with muscle growth either. In fact, the latest science shows that guys who built the most muscle after 12 weeks of weight training weren’t the ones with the highest testosterone levels, but the ones with more androgen receptors."
The study I was thinking of stated that men in the higher range of normal did build a little more muscle and strength but said it wasn't a "significant difference", whatever that means. It went on to conclude that as long as you are within the normal ranges, and I think that study used 300-900 ng/dl, there wasn't a significant advantage to be in the higher ranges.
I've also read opinions that even doubling your T level won't have a significant difference. But if that article I linked is correct about it having more to do with androgen receptors and your body's sensitivity to testosterone then it might explain why one would get better gains than the next guy, all other things being equal.
But regardless, and as the linked article explains, if you jack T up to levels like you'd get using 500-600 mg/wk you are going to get gains for sure.
Oldschool
New Member
His auto correct went to pink instead of punk. Lol. Maybe he normally catches?
Test_Subject
New Member
Makes sense. That somewhat explains his over-the-top rage.
Spokeonawheel
Member
I've just read this whole thread. I have no actual idea what the fuck we are even debating.
That you cant make gains without a TT of 900 or so. Is that it? What about every poor chump we say isn't ready for gear and tell him to go gain some muscle first. I put on 20 lbs of muscle over the course of 5 or 6 years or so with a TT around 500.
That's not the debate right? There are big strong guys who've never touched gear with totally average TT levels.
That you cant make gains without a TT of 900 or so. Is that it? What about every poor chump we say isn't ready for gear and tell him to go gain some muscle first. I put on 20 lbs of muscle over the course of 5 or 6 years or so with a TT around 500.
That's not the debate right? There are big strong guys who've never touched gear with totally average TT levels.
Theworm
Member
Yes that is the question.
Basically in the March muscular development issue there’s an article stating you needed a TT of 1000 or more to make “significant gains”. That’s where the original post came from in regards to debating that stance then people said it was a shit study (only on the basis the study used an older population) then a pissing match erupted and here we are
Interesting. But it’s a website article and one of the studies is done by a supplement company. (BioPRO; Davisco Foods International. After skimming through the vomit I couldn’t find any age of subjects. Only “young” and it seems to combine multiple studies. Also explain how anyone can determine the number of androgen receptors in a muscle? Seriously. Unfortunately like O said before, most studies are a pile of shit with misleading “conclusions “ not to say the higher testosterone isn’t an advantage but when certain variables are ignored , like diet, and not they were eating a healthy diet, which could mean anything. Also I could list about a dozen variables that could make considerable changes to any output. Thanks for posting
I’m just debating that the study posted , which is a bunch of old men up to 90 years old, give me a fucking break. Has zero carry over to healthy athletic younger enhanced men.
maxx the dogg
Member
I believe androgen receptors are proteins that bind to androgens. They can evidently be measured by blood analysis. I'm not exactly sure what all is measured to determine androgen receptor content but I'm assuming the amount of the specific circulating protein and/or other hormones?
Here's a study that talks about androgen receptor content
Muscle Androgen Receptor Content but Not Systemic Hormones Is Associated With Resistance Training-Induced Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy in Healthy, Young Men
And a couple quotes from the article specifically mentioning androgen receptor content.
"Consistent with previous work, we propose instead that the magnitude of RET-induced skeletal muscle hypertrophy is modulated in part by intramuscular androgen receptor content (Figure Figure44) and likely other intramuscular variables."
"We hypothesize that though androgen delivery may be a rate-limiting step for RET-induced muscle hypertrophy in hypogonadal men (Bhasin et al., 1997; Kvorning et al., 2013), androgen receptor content is the more important variable in RET-induced androgen-mediated skeletal muscle protein accretion in healthy men (Diver et al., 2003)."
Similar threads
- Question
