The effects of supraphysiological doses of testosterone on muscle size and strength in normal men

[DocDePanda187123]

The effects of supraphysiological doses of testosterone on muscle size and strength in normal men

N Engl J Med. 1996 Jul 4;335(1):1-7.
The effects of supraphysiologic doses of testosterone on muscle size and strength in normal men.
Bhasin S1, Storer TW, Berman N, Callegari C, Clevenger B, Phillips J, Bunnell TJ, Tricker R, Shirazi A, Casaburi R.
Author information
Abstract

BACKGROUND:
Athletes often take androgenic steroids in an attempt to increase their strength. The efficacy of these substances for this purpose is unsubstantiated, however.

METHODS:
We randomly assigned 43 normal men to one of four groups: placebo with no exercise; testosterone with no exercise; placebo plus exercise; and testosterone plus exercise. The men received injections of 600 mg of testosterone enanthate or placebo weekly for 10 weeks. The men in the exercise groups performed standardized weight-lifting exercises three times weekly. Before and after the treatment period, fat-free mass was determined by underwater weighing, muscle size was measured by magnetic resonance imaging, and the strength of the arms and legs was assessed by bench-press and squatting exercises, respectively.

RESULTS:
Among the men in the no-exercise groups, those given testosterone had greater increases than those given placebo in muscle size in their arms (mean [+/-SE] change in triceps area, 424 +/- 104 vs. -81 +/- 109 square millimeters; P < 0.05) and legs (change in quadriceps area, 607 +/- 123 vs. -131 +/- 111 square millimeters; P < 0.05) and greater increases in strength in the bench-press (9 +/- 4 vs. -1 +/- 1 kg, P < 0.05) and squatting exercises (16 +/- 4 vs. 3 +/- 1 kg, P < 0.05). The men assigned to testosterone and exercise had greater increases in fat-free mass (6.1 +/- 0.6 kg) and muscle size (triceps area, 501 +/- 104 square millimeters; quadriceps area, 1174 +/- 91 square millimeters) than those assigned to either no-exercise group, and greater increases in muscle strength (bench-press strength, 22 +/- 2 kg; squatting-exercise capacity, 38 +/- 4 kg) than either no-exercise group. Neither mood nor behavior was altered in any group.

CONCLUSIONS:
Supraphysiologic doses of testosterone, especially when combined with strength training, increase fat-free mass and muscle size and strength in normal men.

The anabolic action of testosterone. [N Engl J Med. 1996]
PMID: 8637535 DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199607043350101

 

[MrRippedZilla]

Full paper: The Effects of Supraphysiologic Doses of Testosterone on Muscle Size and Strength in Normal Men

Now let's break this baby down ...

Methodology

We've got 43 guys divided into 4 groups but only 3 groups of relevance for us:
1) - Guys doing resistance training with no exogenous test supplementation aka "natties"
2) - Guys taking 600mg test with no resistance training
3) - Guys taking 600mg test with resistance training

The baseline characteristics of the subjects (age, weight, height and BMI) can be found here but we're talking about average newbies in their late 20s. This automatically means that the results will NOT be directly transferable to more experience lifters and/or AAS users.

The study was conducted over 30 weeks with 10 weeks for the 600mg cycle and 16 weeks for recovery.

The subjects underwent full body workouts, 3x week on non-consecutive days, working with 70-90%1RM for 4 sets of 6 reps, which was then increased to 5 sets of 6 reps for the final 5 weeks.
Straight away, we can see that training wasn't as optimal as it could've been but hey...its newbies.

Calories were standardized to 36cals/kg (about maintenance level) and protein to 1.5g/kg.
Now we see that protein intake should really of been higher to optimize the results.


Results

After 30 weeks, this is what happened:
- Natties gained 1.9kg (4 pounds) of muscle, which is pretty standard gains for any but the elite naturals.
- The guys on test with NO exercise gained 3.2kg (7 pounds) of muscle.
- The guys on test and a training stimulus gained 6.1kg (13.5 pounds) of muscle .
- No significant changes in bf% for any of the groups.

Fat free mass, bench and squat numbers:


- Notice how the 600mg + no exercise group is almost equal to the exercise only group for bench strength and completely dwarfes it for tricep muscle mass. Test with no training is better than training natty folks, at least with beginners.

Hormone numbers at baseline & after 10 weeks:


- TT Baselines of 431-557ng/dl for all groups with 2828 & 3244ng/dl for the 600mg only & 600mg plus training groups.
- SHBG dropped 70 & 80 ng/dl for the 600mg groups, sometihng to consider for those obsessed with adding provi or whatever else to get the number down.

Finally, some Hemoglobin & lipid data to round it off (nothing significant changed in the test groups):



Take home points

I think this paper makes a strong case for recommending 600mg as the starting dose for beginner cycles.

The subjects in this study were beginners and therefore benefit a lot from newbie gains but,considering the cycle was only 10 weeks in length and both diet & training could've been better, I think it is possible to get close to these results with more advanced trainees (as all users should be) and extending the cycle to 12-16.

It's also worth keeping in mind that the data only showed group averages and not individual numbers so don't put too much stock into what TT 600mg should give you and so on.

 

[ToolSteel]

I know jol has a study marked somewhere showing 600/wk being the breaking point for type 2 muscle growth. That would be a good addition running right along with this study.
And another reason to advocate 600 vs the standard 500.

 

[DocDePanda187123]

I know jol has a study marked somewhere showing 600/wk being the breaking point for type 2 muscle growth. That would be a good addition running right along with this study.
And another reason to advocate 600 vs the standard 500.

Joliver posted this study

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2439525/#!po=0.188679

 

[MrRippedZilla]

I know jol has a study marked somewhere showing 600/wk being the breaking point for type 2 muscle growth. That would be a good addition running right along with this study.
And another reason to advocate 600 vs the standard 500.

I just skimmed through the paper Doc provided and I have a feeling that this is the reference within that caught Jol's eye:
Testosterone-induced increase in muscle size in healthy young men is associated with muscle fiber hypertrophy

Lots of juicy stuff in there that I'll dig into later but the problem we have is that the comparison, again, is between 300mg vs 600mg.
We know that 300mg won't do much but we know little about the minute differences between 500-600mg except the fact that 600mg is more commonly used dose in scientific research.
That alone also suggests moving away from 500mg (based mostly on broscience) since more of the data can be extrapolated to apply to our circumstances, JMO.

 

[DF]

I think the 500mg is mostly based on easy math. You know these guys cant figure out how to get 600mg out of 250mg/ml test.

Also Jada tries to recreate this study all the time. Running cycles without lifting.


Shit! did I just break the rules?

 

[NbleSavage]

I think the 500mg is mostly based on easy math. You know these guys cant figure out how to get 600mg out of 250mg/ml test.

Also Jada tries to recreate this study all the time. Running cycles without lifting.


Shit! did I just break the rules?

Wait...you guys lift?

 

[DF]

Wait...you guys lift?

Not really, I just hit the gym for the yoga pants.

 

[ToolSteel]

....You know these guys cant figure out how to get 600mg out of 250mg/ml test......

You know what, that's actually a really good point lol

 

[TriniJuice]

Do what the pros do.....4grams Test

 

[Bro Bundy]

you wont notice a difference between 500 or 600...750 you will

 

[Bro Bundy]

I also have a hard time believing u can shoot test and sit on your ass with no training making better gains then a person whos natty thats eating and lifting for gains..Im not trying to go against the grain im asking for u guys to help me understand

 

[MrRippedZilla]

I also have a hard time believing u can shoot test and sit on your ass with no training making better gains then a person whos natty thats eating and lifting for gains..Im not trying to go against the grain im asking for u guys to help me understand

This is where keeping an open mind becomes important.

The study showed that beginners (this is a very important point) can indeed shoot test, sit on their asses and still grow more than natural beginners working hard in the gym. It might be hard to believe but that's exactly what happened, its a factual event that occurred, and the explanation is pretty simple - AAS are awesome

Diet could've been better (more calories and protein in general) but since it was kept equal across all the groups, its not a factor here. So it becomes a straight race between AAS vs training and AAS wins by a LARGE margin (4 vs 7 pounds of muscle gain). Obviously doing both is optimal (13.5 pounds of gain).

By all means ask as many questions as you want man, that's what this section is for - to learn what the data is telling us - and I'll do my best to help you understand.

 

[Bro Bundy]

This is where keeping an open mind becomes important.

The study showed that beginners (this is a very important point) can indeed shoot test, sit on their asses and still grow more than natural beginners working hard in the gym. It might be hard to believe but that's exactly what happened, its a factual event that occurred, and the explanation is pretty simple - AAS are awesome

Diet could've been better (more calories and protein in general) but since it was kept equal across all the groups, its not a factor here. So it becomes a straight race between AAS vs training and AAS wins by a LARGE margin (4 vs 7 pounds of muscle gain). Obviously doing both is optimal (13.5 pounds of gain).

By all means ask as many questions as you want man, that's what this section is for - to learn what the data is telling us - and I'll do my best to help you understand

thanks man.I appreciate it..

 

[ToolSteel]

I just skimmed through the paper Doc provided and I have a feeling that this is the reference within that caught Jol's eye:
Testosterone-induced increase in muscle size in healthy young men is associated with muscle fiber hypertrophy

Lots of juicy stuff in there that I'll dig into later but the problem we have is that the comparison, again, is between 300mg vs 600mg.
We know that 300mg won't do much but we know little about the minute differences between 500-600mg except the fact that 600mg is more commonly used dose in scientific research.
That alone also suggests moving away from 500mg (based mostly on broscience) since more of the data can be extrapolated to apply to our circumstances, JMO.

Just thought of another point; mot every study I've seen also pins once a week, vs the 2x/wk commonly recommended.
Notable difference in peak plasma levels.

 

[IHI]

Love this thread zilla, always in sponge mode on this board soaking up all relevant info.

 

[Yaya]

Jurox made some good test s

 

[ECKSRATED]

So a newbie is better off taking steroids and sitting on his ass!!! I would have loved to known that 17 years ago. Lol

AAS are extremely awesome zilla.

 

[IHI]

So a newbie is better off taking steroids and sitting on his ass!!! I would have loved to known that 17 years ago. Lol

AAS are extremely awesome zilla.

Surgery looks inevitable for me at this point for my shoulder after Thursdays bad PT. Was just going to run my scribed dose for the next yr until I can jump back in the game, but now thinking, hell, maybe continue with plan to try a blast, continue plan to focus on core/legs, and see what happens. He'll if I can stay the same size up top even though I wont be able to workout for about a yr, maybe it would prevent atrophy (sp?)

 

[Baxter513]

This is an interesting read because I was just browsing a different forum that was making an argument for recommending 400mg on a first timer cycle per week (split into 2 doses) versus the standard 500 that is frequently touted.

Recommending 400mg per week to newbies (Frontloaded) with an additional shot of 275mg on day one for a total of an 8 week cycle. Plotted like this:

Edit: I tried to attach the graph and plot but the system wont allow me to because I have less than 25 posts

Link is^^^^^^i.imgur.com/jTP7i0z.png

Edit: Ok there we go just copy and paste the link starting with imgur