Interesting Research
- Thread starter JReinhal
- Start date
mr.cooper69
Legend
This has been known, hence why no one recommends squatting for growth hormone elevation in this day and age 
.
.
StackedCop
Well-known member
This has been known, hence why no one recommends squatting for growth hormone elevation in this day and age
The other day at the gym I was told by a high school kid that I need to squat more often to raise gh ......
jbryand101b
Banned
mr.cooper69 said:This has been known, hence why no one recommends squatting for growth hormone elevation in this day and age
yea, squatting is for girls, who squats any more.
kokobeware2
Active member
"While testosterone is definitely anabolic and promotes muscle growth in men and women at high doses, such as those used during steroid abuse, our findings show that naturally occurring levels of testosterone do not influence the rate of muscle protein synthesis."
So does this mean natty boosters don't really do anything?
So does this mean natty boosters don't really do anything?
mr.cooper69
Legend
That isn't quite what it's saying. You see, the hormonal fluxes from exercise are transient, and any "anabolic" effect is closely countered by the transient rise in cortisol from prolonged training. This is in contrast to a natural testosterone booster which changes the tightly regulated hormonal environment of the body by increasing your testosterone production in a subchronic fashion (over the course of 1-2 months, rather than a few hours post-training). So the jury is still out in that regard.
J19891
Member
I see your point, but I'm not exactly sure the article is limiting it's claims to post-workout hormonal response. It actually seems to be saying that naturally occuring anabolic hormone levels aren't responsible for the variance in the rate of muscle mass gained at all in some places in the text...
"Despite a 45-fold difference in testosterone increase, men and women were able to make new muscle protein at exactly the same rate."
"While testosterone is definitely anabolic and promotes muscle growth in men and women at high doses, such as those used during steroid abuse, our findings show that naturally occurring levels of testosterone do not influence the rate of muscle protein synthesis."
I wonder if they're conducting this research with trained athletes, or with entirely untrained subjects going through that anabolic honeymoon phase where you can pack on lbs of muscle just by walking into the gym.
mr.cooper69
Legend
Again, I still don't see how this can be extrapolated to testosterone boosters. Naturally occurring levels of testosterone are not synonymous with natural testosterone elevation by the use of compounds. Also, if this study did anything, it confirmed that muscle protein synthesis rates are not the only factor that dictates hypertrophy.
J19891
Member
Well assuming someone isn't bordering on supraphysiological test naturally, test boosters wouldn't shoot someone outside of the naturally occuring range, at least based on the bloodwork I've seen done. The second study is the only one measuring the acute, short lived boost in test post workout, the first is comparing the rate of protein synthesis between male in female groups with a large disparity in baseline testosterone levels. It could be that a person's baseline natty test correlates to their untrained musculature, and these studies are only showing that gains made once a person starts training are made independent of those levels. In that case it's more likely that, as you said, the sustained, mild, subchronic elevation in testosterone via OTC natty test boosters would accelerate protein synthesis. By their wording, I'm not exactly sure that's what theyre saying though and I haven't seen the actual studies, so without their methodology I'm not exactly sure if you can infer that or not.
On the other hand it could be that testosterone levels within the normal range aren't a big factor in a person's trained or untrained musculature whatsoever. From the quotations in the text, it actually seems to be that's what the researchers are inferring (though again, without the actual studies you really cant draw any conclusions). If that's the case, then test boosters would be nearly worthless.
I'm leaning more toward the second possibility based on the quote "our findings show that naturally occurring levels of testosterone do not influence the rate of muscle protein synthesis." I don't think any researcher worth his salt would make a claim that broad and profound if he didn't intend it literally. Again, you're right though, we can't really draw any absolute conclusions about test boosters based on this article. I think it's just the murky phrasing though.