Exodus Strength

This is probably one of the better videos on the subject.

'twas a good one.

Mine is pretty low per "the charts" for my age (46).

I have no real symptoms other than semi-shitty sleep, and ummmm uhhh real weak ass lifts.
But somehow I was slowly talked into, or Jedi mind tricked, into considering TRT, just because ..... numbers.
I think the video puts things into a better perspective.

Jordan and Austin use that word "No-cebo" and placebo, basically a mini Jedi mind trick.
Now think it sort of irresponsible for people to NoCebo people into think their testosterone levels are low.

Certain people and/or coaches seem to go there, when a person isn't making progress, and is doing everything else right.
"It must be your test levels" . . . or "you should get your test checked".
Then, they get tested, and low a behold they get a "low" number. . . . and then they've been Nocebo-ed in going down the road to get on TRT.
Or they get Nocebo-ed into shitty lifting, because they (think they) know now they have "low test".

I know this isn't mentioned in this episode (it probably will be in part 2), but I think their position that variations in testosterone levels within the "normal range" (i.e. whatever +/- 2 SDs is in a bunch of lab samples) don't matter for strength training is just wrong. See, for example:
http://www.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.11 ... 81.6.E1172

The authors took a bunch of healthy young men, suppressed their natural testosterone production, and gave them injections with varying levels of T. Unsurprisingly, the ones with more T got more jacked. In particular, the response curve seems to be logarithmic, and the change from the bottom end of normal to average seems large enough to be practically significant.

There are some nuances, for example: they weren't lifting, maybe exogenous and endogenous test work differently, maybe shutting off the testes had some effect, etc. But I think it's suggestive nonetheless. There are a few more studies that support a logarithmic dose-response curve.

Haven't listened to that podcast yet, but I'm very happy to be on TRT. Back in 2013-2015 I tried running multiple programs to get my squat above 285 and I always crashed hard. Now I can hit 315x5 and recover just fine afterwards, and I'm only on 100mg/week. Energy levels are higher, I can function on less sleep if I need to, I don't need caffeine or naps anymore, and concentration and motivation are better too now.

Interestingly enough, my T levels are the same as before, but that's 1 week after a shot. No clue what they are 2 days later.

My SSLP capped out at a 215 lb squat, on 4 tries. As middle-aged man 5'10" and 185 lbs.

I did *everything* right by that 4th attempt. I ate (got fat), slept, had good form, didn't miss sessions, etc.
But I recovered like 80-year old -- slow growth, sore all the time, lots of tendinopathies, etc.

Had a bunch of the other symptoms of low T as well -- legs gone shiny and hairless, 3 blood screens done at the right time of day showing low levels, reduced libido, depression, etc.

Resigned myself to training as if I were 80 and just switched to intermediate programming at very low strength levels, and made glacially slow progress by doing everything just right, and being super cautious about injury.

Then when I started the injections, I suddenly got a giant boost in libido, started recovering better, my rate of gains on the same exact program increased noticeably, etc. And my aching swollen varicose-veiny balls shrank back to normal size and stopped hurting. Sorry about the TMI.

I sure wouldn't recommend TRT to a 20-year old unless their symptoms were really severe. TRT is oversold for sure.

PatrickDB wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am I know this isn't mentioned in this episode (it probably will be in part 2), but I think their position that variations in testosterone levels within the "normal range" (i.e. whatever +/- 2 SDs is in a bunch of lab samples) don't matter for strength training is just wrong. See, for example:
http://www.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.11 ... 81.6.E1172

I could postulate some reasons why that study is misleading.

Also, I think Jordan has mentioned somewhere, there was a study that suggested that some of the better performing athletes were in fact at the lower end of the range of "normal", rather at the upper end.

mbasic wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:14 pm I could postulate some reasons why that study is misleading.

Please do. As I said, there are definitely nits one could pick, but in the context of the literature as a whole I am convinced.

Also, I think Jordan has mentioned somewhere, there was a study that suggested that some of the better performing athletes were in fact at the lower end of the range of "normal", rather at the upper end.

He also said he suspected that was because some of the top olympic athletes had overreached coming into competition, IIRC. Further, for the purposes of this discussion I care only about hypertrophy and not, for example, archery ability.

I also don't care for this sort of deflection. There are a billion studies and steroid-using bodybuilders that show the dose-response curve (when hypertrophy is the outcome variable) slopes upward. This is not in question. What is in question is whether the slope is steep enough in the normal range for TRT to produce practically significant performance benefits in men with subclinical testosterone deficiencies.

Yes, I would imagine taking a regular dose of test increases performance.

But I've seen/heard about people with lower test numbers who do fine. Numbers at the bottom end of the their age-range, alot peeps would point to THAT as their "problem".... if they had low lifts. The low test number is not the end all be all.

Or if you are teetering on the margins, is signing up for a lifetime of hormone therapy worth it? Cost wise, health wise, pain-in-ass-wise, etc. I guess put it off as long as possible.

I've seen/read about plenty that went on TRT and their lifts and symptoms didn't improve much at all...to their disappointment. (Prob misdiagnosed)

I'm sure they do fine. There are a huge number of other factors (e.g. genetics) to consider. Testosterone is not the sole determiner of strength performance.

The cost/benefit discussion doesn't interest me. That's a personal decision. I just care about the science of the effect size.

In a hypothetical scenario where someone was at 250 ng/dL (bottom of normal range) and got aggressive TRT to go to 1000 (top of normal range), I find it hard to imagine there wouldn't be hypertrophy, strength, and recovery benefits. (Assuming the low T isn't caused by sleep apnea, which I guess TRT worsens, and a few more nuances.) Just look at the paper I linked.

What I wonder, is which guy has the better turn around.

A guy who's normally at 200, who is functioning not too badly, then with TRT boost to 800. (Which is sorta crazy I know)

Or say a guy at 600 who uses test to boost around 1200.

I guess what I'm saying, if say your cruising along at the lower ranges, and say I guess that person has more androgen receptors....that person is going to be more sensitive to the test increases? Or no?

As compared to the middle of the road guy who has dose real high. (Not TRT, basically on gear).

I wonder if the drug using countries take this into consideration when deciding on athletes (Russia, China, etc). Say a guy who has natural higher testosterone....but maybe he has a lower percentage of receptors....so pumping him full of gear isn't going to yield that great of an effect.

Whereas if they have an athlete that has just ho-hum test levels, but still is doing good....well, maybe that guy has more up side ...

mbasic wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:28 pm What I wonder, is which guy has the better turn around.

A guy who's normally at 200, who is functioning not too badly, then with TRT boost to 800. (Which is sorta crazy I know)

Or say a guy at 600 who uses test to boost around 1200.

I guess what I'm saying, if say your cruising along at the lower ranges, and say I guess that person has more androgen receptors....that person is going to be more sensitive to the test increases? Or no?

As compared to the middle of the road guy who has dose real high. (Not TRT, basically on gear).

I wonder if the drug using countries take this into consideration when deciding on athletes (Russia, China, etc). Say a guy who has natural higher testosterone....but maybe he has a lower percentage of receptors....so pumping him full of gear isn't going to yield that great of an effect.

Whereas if they have an athlete that has just ho-hum test levels, but still is doing good....well, maybe that guy has more up side ...

This reminds me of a video I saw (I think it was on Joe Rogan's podcast) where Dorian Yates was talking about how he was always very candid about what drugs he was using, but people would come along and say he was full of shit and must have been lying since they were on twice as much gear and still half his size.

From what little I know, Dorian was also using actual medical grade properly dosed drugs, not some underground lab shit.

Part 2 is up, for anyone interested:

PatrickDB wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am I know this isn't mentioned in this episode (it probably will be in part 2), but I think their position that variations in testosterone levels within the "normal range" (i.e. whatever +/- 2 SDs is in a bunch of lab samples) don't matter for strength training is just wrong.

and there it is



. . . I guess comparing person to a different person though.
A person's own individual test level being high against that own's person's low test level isn't what they are saying though.
But then they seem to discount test in the same way for the individual (i.e. your level don't matter, unless extremely whacked).

To be fair, the position taken in that video is reasonable and not exactly the one I attributed to them above.

Does the IPF use the biological passport Jordan was talking about?

IPF and any sport uses nothing, it's WADA and the various national equivalents that do the bio passport testing. There's not a lot of testing in powerlifting. I looked it up, a full test in Australia is about $1,500, so in a sport with no endorsement deals or patrons, just memberships and meet fees, you'd need 10 members to pay for 1 test.

Government pays for a lot of it, but the various national bodies are either corrupt, or tend to put most of their energies into one sport each year. For example, here in Australia a couple of years back they went all-out to smash an Aussie Rules Football team for some rather minor and not very effective stuff, it acted as a warning to the others.

You'd be unlucky to be popped in powerlifting in most countries.

PatrickDB wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am I know this isn't mentioned in this episode (it probably will be in part 2), but I think their position that variations in testosterone levels within the "normal range" (i.e. whatever +/- 2 SDs is in a bunch of lab samples) don't matter for strength training is just wrong. See, for example:
http://www.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.11 ... 81.6.E1172

Conflicted feels.

This makes me want to take drugs.

Hanley wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:13 am

PatrickDB wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am I know this isn't mentioned in this episode (it probably will be in part 2), but I think their position that variations in testosterone levels within the "normal range" (i.e. whatever +/- 2 SDs is in a bunch of lab samples) don't matter for strength training is just wrong. See, for example:
http://www.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.11 ... 81.6.E1172

Conflicted feels.

This makes me want to take drugs.

Me too. My doc just had me do a lab and my total testosterone was 287 ng/dL. It would be interesting to see how tripling this number might affect my training. For science.