How much does normal T range effect muscle growth?

[kira1357]

Hi guys,

I just got bloodwork done that showed Total Test at 380 - not great, but not below the (kind of arbitrary) reference range. Is there any evidence that it actually matters for the purposes of building muscle whether or not T is in the low, medium, or high areas of the reference range? Obviously is someone is on a test cycle or is naturally at numbers above 1000 they're gonna build more, but would there necessarily be a difference in results from, say, 380 to 500 or 700? I'm curious what you all think. For reference, I've been training about 2 years and am 30yo, have only done 1 very mild cycle, and I'm guessing what I need to focus on more than these particular numbers is pounding food down for a long proper bulk to overcome this training plateau. Thanks everyone.

 

[GreenMachineX]

Hi guys,

I just got bloodwork done that showed Total Test at 380 - not great, but not below the (kind of arbitrary) reference range. Is there any evidence that it actually matters for the purposes of building muscle whether or not T is in the low, medium, or high areas of the reference range? Obviously is someone is on a test cycle or is naturally at numbers above 1000 they're gonna build more, but would there necessarily be a difference in results from, say, 380 to 500 or 700? I'm curious what you all think. For reference, I've been training about 2 years and am 30yo, have only done 1 very mild cycle, and I'm guessing what I need to focus on more than these particular numbers is pounding food down for a long proper bulk to overcome this training plateau. Thanks everyone.

From personal experience, comparing free test levels at right under the reference range to about the upper third of the reference range did significantly help my recovery and progress. But comparing upper third to the very top of range did not matter, just brought more side effects. YMMV.

 

[Mikereyn513]

Hi guys,

I just got bloodwork done that showed Total Test at 380 - not great, but not below the (kind of arbitrary) reference range. Is there any evidence that it actually matters for the purposes of building muscle whether or not T is in the low, medium, or high areas of the reference range? Obviously is someone is on a test cycle or is naturally at numbers above 1000 they're gonna build more, but would there necessarily be a difference in results from, say, 380 to 500 or 700? I'm curious what you all think. For reference, I've been training about 2 years and am 30yo, have only done 1 very mild cycle, and I'm guessing what I need to focus on more than these particular numbers is pounding food down for a long proper bulk to overcome this training plateau. Thanks everyone.

You have the right idea..food is the most anabolic thing on the planet. Someone who doesn't miss a single meal and trains their ass off will get better results than someone who half asses everything and runs gear. Trust me I know from personal experience

 

[KvanH]

Taking the liberty of tagging a few good fellas who know what theyre talking about @Smont @Renew1 @Hyde @nostrum420 @sns8778

 

[Jeremyk1]

Yeah you pretty much have the answer. I’d focus way more on diet and training than a number on a blood test. That said, more testosterone is more anabolic, but you get diminished returns the higher you go. If it was a weekend and I had more time, I’d try to find a graph on SuppVersity which showed the results from a study that pretty much did this. But the lean mass gained from test will follow a curve. Going from zero to 100 will give a big spike, but it levels off more the higher you go.

 

[Resolve10]

I can dig some studies up if that’s the kind of thing you care about, but short answer is if you feel fine then worrying about training, nutrition, sleep, and recovery will have bigger impacts on gains (and focusing on them may help test levels anyways) than trying to focus solely on boosting test.

That said if you have other symptoms or issues caused by low levels increasing them may benefit in certain ways and/or boosting your natural levels may indirectly improve your gains over time.

 

[Smont]

Someone with low testosterone is going to build less muscle in most cases then Someone with high testosterone if everything else is equal. Is there gonna be a big difference between a 600 and a 700, probably not. But the 300 vs 800+ is probably going to be a more significant difference.

With all that said, if your doing everything else right your still going to make progress. We use to have a member here who was hypogonadal and competed in men's physique and looked decent. Always shredded and if he let his bodyfat get higher he probably could have added a lot more size

 

[Resolve10]

Yeah you pretty much have the answer. I’d focus way more on diet and training than a number on a blood test. That said, more testosterone is more anabolic, but you get diminished returns the higher you go. If it was a weekend and I had more time, I’d try to find a graph on SuppVersity which showed the results from a study that pretty much did this. But the lean mass gained from test will follow a curve. Going from zero to 100 will give a big spike, but it levels off more the higher you go.

Think they were looking at some of the Bhasin studies, but I didn’t follow suppversity as close so might be wrong.

If you look at it within the physiological range it’s relatively linear.

It is pretty complicated stuff with all the variables to try and account for things. Weightology’s assessment of similar studies went along with the idea that it influences baseline muscle mass (how much you carry from day to day is going to be higher in those or when you have higher levels), but that rate of relative gains (so as a percentage, remembering that that means absolute gains will be higher if you have a higher starting point) at the various ranges were similar as long as you weren’t below baselines. That seemed a reasonable take based on what I’d seen.

I think it’s a pretty interesting topic but also don’t think people always want to have nuanced discussions about it. 🫣

 

[kisaj]

Anything in reference ranges will be negligible regarding muscle building, you are likely to feel better, more energetic, etc on higher normal ranges. Ultimately (diet, programming, and lifestyle) aside, it comes down to androgen density. You can take 2 guys with the same natural test levels and all other things other than AR being equal- have one person that can put on muscle mass easier. This is partly why you see guys packing on muscle after getting on TRT and staying in the same ranges- exogenous test increases AR.

 

[kira1357]

looks like there's some consensus here, thanks bros, i appreciate everyone who commented

 

[Jeremyk1]

Think they were looking at some of the Bhasin studies, but I didn’t follow suppversity as close so might be wrong.

If you look at it within the physiological range it’s relatively linear.

It is pretty complicated stuff with all the variables to try and account for things. Weightology’s assessment of similar studies went along with the idea that it influences baseline muscle mass (how much you carry from day to day is going to be higher in those or when you have higher levels), but that rate of relative gains (so as a percentage, remembering that that means absolute gains will be higher if you have a higher starting point) at the various ranges were similar as long as you weren’t below baselines. That seemed a reasonable take based on what I’d seen.

I think it’s a pretty interesting topic but also don’t think people always want to have nuanced discussions about it. 🫣

That one is based on a change in testosterone, not absolute values. Which is pretty interesting on its own though. I actually don’t think I’ve seen that before.

 

[Dustin07]

You can take 2 guys with the same natural test levels and all other things other than AR being equal- have one person that can put on muscle mass easier. This is partly why you see guys packing on muscle after getting on TRT and staying in the same ranges- exogenous test increases AR

I wonder if this is me. after 25 yrs gym rat all natty, I saw modest gains sept-dec with reverse dieting, but then saw my traps, pecs, and lats all absolutely explode this year since about late january playing with the TD prohormones, and oral epiandro. the results have been mind blowing at age 40 with decades of lifting

 

[cruze1911r1]

Anything in reference ranges will be negligible regarding muscle building, you are likely to feel better, more energetic, etc on higher normal ranges. Ultimately (diet, programming, and lifestyle) aside, it comes down to androgen density. You can take 2 guys with the same natural test levels and all other things other than AR being equal- have one person that can put on muscle mass easier. This is partly why you see guys packing on muscle after getting on TRT and staying in the same ranges- exogenous test increases AR.

So that would also explain why delts usually pop on gear. Higher density of androgen receptors in the shoulder area, I remember deltoid Derek talking about that.

 

[Dustin07]

So that would also explain why delts usually pop on gear. Higher density of androgen receptors in the shoulder area, I remember deltoid Derek talking about that.

I was always told traps and lats were highly responsive and I do feel like mine exploded this year to the point where I'm now regretting previously telling my wife that huge traps are an indicator lol

 

[Jeremyk1]

Okay I went ahead and checked. The info was based on research by Bhasin.


First, there’s a graph showing, essentially, the “efficiency” of doses of testosterone. It gives a good visualization of the diminished returns you’ll see from progressively higher testosterone. The graph shows change in lean body mass per amount of test.

The second shows relative changes in lean and fat mass respectively. The effect on fat seems to be far greater. The lean gains are more linear than I remembered, but it is curved. Apparently at high doses, it takes a 27% increase in test for a 1% improvement in mass gain.

Basically, more will always be “stronger”, but returns diminish and risk of side effects increase.

 

[kisaj]

I wonder if this is me. after 25 yrs gym rat all natty, I saw modest gains sept-dec with reverse dieting, but then saw my traps, pecs, and lats all absolutely explode this year since about late january playing with the TD prohormones, and oral epiandro. the results have been mind blowing at age 40 with decades of lifting

So that would also explain why delts usually pop on gear. Higher density of androgen receptors in the shoulder area, I remember deltoid Derek talking about that.

It's true, AR density is in the shoulders, neck/traps and upper chest. I was lucky enough to get some genetic help from my dad and grandfather in that I've always been able to put on muscle even when my test levels were 200, but as soon as I got on TRT, my traps and delts became massive.

 

[Resolve10]

That one is based on a change in testosterone, not absolute values. Which is pretty interesting on its own though. I actually don’t think I’ve seen that before.

There are a few more Krieger put together for that portion of his breakdown on it that include other studies as well including that 2001 study.

 

[Dustin07]

It's true, AR density is in the shoulders, neck/traps and upper chest. I was lucky enough to get some genetic help from my dad and grandfather in that I've always been able to put on muscle even when my test levels were 200, but as soon as I got on TRT, my traps and delts became massive.

I have noticed when applying TD's to these areas, sometimes I feel like I got hit by a truck the next day with DOMs in those regions which I find to be interesting

 

[sns8778]

There are already been some great answers and explanations in the thread.

The only thing I could really add would just be simply saying that yes, I think that a natural level of say 800 for example is going to generally lead to a person feeling better and building more muscle than a 300 would.

 

[kira1357]

What do yall think about the idea of doing 12.5mg Enclo ed to boost my test up to mid-normal range for 8 weeks of my current bulk? Good idea or worthless waste of money? I've been pounding food and training as hard as I can but am not seeing much progress in upper body areas with high androgen receptor density, ie delts, lats and traps. Don't want to use anything suppressive right now.

 

[Rad83]

What do yall think about the idea of doing 12.5mg Enclo ed to boost my test up to mid-normal range for 8 weeks of my current bulk? Good idea or worthless waste of money? I've been pounding food and training as hard as I can but am not seeing much progress in upper body areas with high androgen receptor density, ie delts, lats and traps. Don't want to use anything suppressive right now.

From my experience I suggest transdermal epiandro over those ‘andro…areas’ pre-training! (It’s hardly suppressive at all) A nitric oxide and creatine stack is beneficial too!

 

[BillD]

From my experience I suggest transdermal epiandro over those ‘andro…areas’ pre-training! (It’s hardly suppressive at all) A nitric oxide and creatine stack is beneficial too!

How much better do you like TD Epiandro vs oral?

 

[kira1357]

From my experience I suggest transdermal epiandro over those ‘andro…areas’ pre-training! (It’s hardly suppressive at all) A nitric oxide and creatine stack is beneficial too!

interesting idea. i'm guessing a bit of td epiandro over those areas only on upper body days wouldn't end up being suppressive, but also wouldn't i only be getting some of it absorbed if i put it on an hour before training? is the intention to increase strength locally or increase anabolism the whole day?

 

[Rad83]

How much better do you like TD Epiandro vs oral?

I like em both, my fave is some oral stacked with transdermal. I’ll give the slight edge to transdermal for being able to place over the main area I’m training…

 

[Rad83]

interesting idea. i'm guessing a bit of td epiandro over those areas only on upper body days wouldn't end up being suppressive, but also wouldn't i only be getting some of it absorbed if i put it on an hour before training? is the intention to increase strength locally or increase anabolism the whole day?

Good questions…I think it absorbs very quickly (for me at least) and continues to work during training etc…(I typically put it on around 6:30-7pm and lift at 9:15pm)

 

[botk1161]

Top Muscle (all natural) by evomuse works really well imo especially you their andro-lotion with it or a TD epiandro.