[quote]Boffin wrote:
to the OP, how old are you?[/quote]
I’m 38, currently using TBT anywhere from 3-5 days/week with varrying set/rep schemes.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
pepperman wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:
I totally respect that you want other’s opinions. Its just that after years of education and observation, I find it, well…a little silly for authors to constantly write that certain routines and dietary practices are going to SIGNIFICANTLY increase T levels.
It is NOT significant. The male testicles produce 7 to 10 mg of T per day. What is a diet or training routine going to do to enhance this? If someone could give me a good, logical answer, I’d listen. Do you know how much T (drug form) one has to use to even see effects.
Most users I know had to use a minimum of 250 mg per week, minimum, to see significant results. Thats 250 mg compared to a normal healthy male’s level of 50 to 70 mg/week.
Obviously, for normal functioning one should have the diet at 15 to 30% fat. I see 10% or lower as likely to cause problems with skin, hair, nails, and so on, not just with T, essential fatty acid deficiency.
Since I have been hypogonadal for the past 7 years, I have both an endocrinologist and an andrologist (urologist with fellowship in andrology). These people deal with T issues EVERYDAY and both have stated that programs or diets will not significantly increase T. [/quote]
Bricknyce, clearly you have some experience with this subject, so a question: In your opinion and experience, is there a discernible difference between one who registers low-normal T levels and one who registers high-normal T levels, as it relates to muscle growth potential? To put it another way - would the guy who has a 900 ng/dL T reading be more apt to put on muscle when training than the guy at 300 ng/dL?
It seems to me that the answer has to be yes; otherwise, why does it become so hard for men over 40 to add muscle as their T levels decline? I simply can’t believe that T levels have NOTHING to do with adding muscle mass unless your are at supra-physiological levels. This may not be what you’re saying, but either way, I’d love to hear what you think.
[quote]doubleh wrote:
Bricknyce wrote:
why does it become so hard for men over 40 to add muscle as their T levels decline? I simply can’t believe that T levels have NOTHING to do with adding muscle mass unless your are at supra-physiological levels. [/quote]
I think it is just harder [than used to be], but by no means impossible. There is a previous post that states that the decline is not as dramatical as people thinks, and CT posted about people started bodybuilding at 40’s getting nice results.
so don’t worry, you will build mass at such age as always.
From my personal point of view: it is more rewarding and easier to gain couple of inches as a beginner than to an experienced 40’s who has gained the most when younger, because he will work harder/heavier to get that very same inches.
-
Overeating.
-
Very high fat diet.
-
Lots of sleep.
-
Limit training volume and intensity.
-
Take your zinc.
-
Avoid stress.
These things will max your natural test levels. As you can see, some of this conflicts with making maximal gains from your training. And some of it will help alot.
not VERY high fat Ramo - too high and it will reduce test levels… think fat guy and aromatase adipose.
TBH, the amount of cholesterol that is needed to be the pre-coursor to make endo test is so little - no EXTRA fat is needed to be worried about.
[quote]doubleh wrote:
Bricknyce wrote:
pepperman wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:
I totally respect that you want other’s opinions. Its just that after years of education and observation, I find it, well…a little silly for authors to constantly write that certain routines and dietary practices are going to SIGNIFICANTLY increase T levels.
It is NOT significant. The male testicles produce 7 to 10 mg of T per day. What is a diet or training routine going to do to enhance this? If someone could give me a good, logical answer, I’d listen. Do you know how much T (drug form) one has to use to even see effects.
Most users I know had to use a minimum of 250 mg per week, minimum, to see significant results. Thats 250 mg compared to a normal healthy male’s level of 50 to 70 mg/week.
Obviously, for normal functioning one should have the diet at 15 to 30% fat. I see 10% or lower as likely to cause problems with skin, hair, nails, and so on, not just with T, essential fatty acid deficiency.
Since I have been hypogonadal for the past 7 years, I have both an endocrinologist and an andrologist (urologist with fellowship in andrology). These people deal with T issues EVERYDAY and both have stated that programs or diets will not significantly increase T.
Bricknyce, clearly you have some experience with this subject, so a question: In your opinion and experience, is there a discernible difference between one who registers low-normal T levels and one who registers high-normal T levels, as it relates to muscle growth potential? To put it another way - would the guy who has a 900 ng/dL T reading be more apt to put on muscle when training than the guy at 300 ng/dL?
It seems to me that the answer has to be yes; otherwise, why does it become so hard for men over 40 to add muscle as their T levels decline? I simply can’t believe that T levels have NOTHING to do with adding muscle mass unless your are at supra-physiological levels. This may not be what you’re saying, but either way, I’d love to hear what you think.[/quote]
Thank you for your response.
Ihave some knowledge in this from my life science background in school, my recreational reading on the topic, and the fact that I am hypogonadal and have an andrologist and use T for HRT MEDICINAL purposes. I use Androgel, 7.5 grams per day (7.5 mg of T). I do not have hypogonadism from 'roids, radiation therapy, or injury or a pituitary tumor. So its labeled IDIOPATHIC, a fancy term to say “we don’t know why”.
I am in agreement with you. Someone who tests at 900 will probably grow better and recover better than someone who tests at 300. However, its not a matter of total T. Its also a matter of FREE T, the stuff thats not bound up to sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG). I once tested high for FREE T (forgot number) and 590 for total T but my SHBG was quite low normal. I felt fucking awesome too! I usually test around 800 to 900.
Read the book The Testosterone Syndrome by Eugene Shippen if you want to get a good understanding of this stuff.
There are a number of things that go on in the aging process. I do not know all of them nor do I have extensive knowledge in this. It does make things harder in bodybuilding. But its not the extent to what people make it to be. There are morons who talk as if once you reach 35, you MUST call it quits! This is the age most bodybuilders did their best!
Just as an aside, you can be 80 years old and test at 800 ng/dL and 40 yrs old and test at 400 ng/dl. Its not all about T levels, the aging and weakening process. Another aside, if anyone gives a damn since we are speaking of age! It doesn’t take much T to get a hardon and have a libido. I worked in a nursing home and most of the dudes would talk about sex all day.
[quote] Brook wrote:
not VERY high fat Ramo - too high and it will reduce test levels… think fat guy and aromatase adipose.
[/quote]
This is true, but in my experience it’s only LONG TERM high fat/calorie diets which decreases T-levels. In the short term it can spike T-levels (e.g. 2 - 8 weeks).
I once was on a 300g/day saturated fat diet and it took a few weeks before my body “caught up” and started adding a lot of fat. But in the meantime I went through a large growth spurt and sex drive etc went through the roof.
This may be due to the fact that I was already very lean at that time; there’s been a study or two done which “apparently” shows that while lean and bulking, you gain mainly muscle compared to fat but as your BF goes up you’re likely to gain more fat than muscle on a bulking diet.
The point being, as long as you are lean (and your body is used to a moderate calorie diet or even a restricted calorie diet), you can maintain a “spike” in your T-levels by taking in “excessive” levels of fat - for a short period. Obviously your carb levels will be low (e.g. under 100g/day) and you can have a carb loading phase every 3 days or so.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Bricknyce wrote:
Bricknyce, clearly you have some experience with this subject, so a question: In your opinion and experience, is there a discernible difference between one who registers low-normal T levels and one who registers high-normal T levels, as it relates to muscle growth potential? To put it another way - would the guy who has a 900 ng/dL T reading be more apt to put on muscle when training than the guy at 300 ng/dL?
It seems to me that the answer has to be yes; otherwise, why does it become so hard for men over 40 to add muscle as their T levels decline? I simply can’t believe that T levels have NOTHING to do with adding muscle mass unless your are at supra-physiological levels. This may not be what you’re saying, but either way, I’d love to hear what you think.
Thank you for your response.
Ihave some knowledge in this from my life science background in school, my recreational reading on the topic, and the fact that I am hypogonadal and have an andrologist and use T for HRT MEDICINAL purposes. I use Androgel, 7.5 grams per day (7.5 mg of T). I do not have hypogonadism from 'roids, radiation therapy, or injury or a pituitary tumor. So its labeled IDIOPATHIC, a fancy term to say “we don’t know why”.
I am in agreement with you. Someone who tests at 900 will probably grow better and recover better than someone who tests at 300.[/quote]
OK, whew. After reading your posts and remembering you had posted on this topic in another thread some time back, I got the impression you were implying T levels don’t make much difference unless you’re on gear. I was all ready to disagree with you, but I wanted to hear what you thought and why.
Right, I do know this. But for you personally: 590 total T, and an 800-900 T count at some point - and you’re on HRT? Sounds like you’re in good shape, so I’m assuming these were past tests and you’re considerably lower now, otherwise I need to see your doc (I usually test 550-600 total, pun intended, and I’ve been trying to boost it a la Alpha Male).
[quote]Read the book The Testosterone Syndrome by Eugene Shippen if you want to get a good understanding of this stuff.
There are a number of things that go on in the aging process. I do not know all of them nor do I have extensive knowledge in this. It does make things harder in bodybuilding. But its not the extent to what people make it to be. There are morons who talk as if once you reach 35, you MUST call it quits! This is the age most bodybuilders did their best!
Just as an aside, you can be 80 years old and test at 800 ng/dL and 40 yrs old and test at 400 ng/dl. Its not all about T levels, the aging and weakening process. Another aside, if anyone gives a damn since we are speaking of age! It doesn’t take much T to get a hardon and have a libido. I worked in a nursing home and most of the dudes would talk about sex all day.
[/quote]
I didn’t mean to say that T levels are the end-all, be-all with respect to putting on muscle mass as we age, but it’s right at the top of the list. I used the 40+ thing as an example b/c it’s well documented that T levels start to really fall off in your 40s (after a slow decline throughout the 30s). So yeah, there are other factors at work, but dropping T is a major factor. But like you said, even 40+, hell 50+ lifters can put on mass - it just gets harder.
Thanks for all the info.