USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
researching now but you already made the statements as fact…??
Natty Test Boosting Supps that actually work
- Thread starter TitanTide816
- Start date
researching now but you already made the statements as fact…??
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
That's kinda how science works
I have a piece I have been meaning to write titled "in defense of the anecdote". It is a concept that a lot of the pro-science hasn't grasped yet.
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
Aren't we in this conversation for that exact same reason? You backed a statement without evidence?
first look at what is considered normal ranges and you may have a different opinion as the divide is pretty substantial
That's kinda how science works
I have a piece I have been meaning to write titled "in defense of the anecdote". It is a concept that a lot of the pro-science hasn't grasped yet.
Oh I know, but I remember him being so rigid years ago. Many people still take that stance. Like I said, I enjoy his stuff....just thought that interesting.
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
The bandana is anabolic.
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
And I still support his post as being a good post.
He is essentially advocating the null, which is an increase in test within range will unlikely have an observable effect on hypertrophy. This is the null position and it is true unless there is evidence to disprove it.
Now test booster might have effects that contribute to some changes, as pointed out earlier.. extra drive > increased intensity > increased gains, but the question remains is the outcome a direct result of the change in test or is it something else, such as the increased intensity.
I'm open to reading any literature you have on the subject. I honestly haven't looked too much into this but from my understanding of some of the mechanisims of hypertrophy, test within a normal range is unlikely to directly have a big difference on muscle size. But again, I'm open to saying I'm wrong here if you have some sort of evidence to present.
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
Ahh.. smart thinking... I am a sucker for AP (favorite USP product by far!)........ if he wants to send me some AP and his new test product...You should have said "I'm willing for you to send me a bottle and show me"
Matthew1237
Well-known member
This. You can pick it up at Orbit Nutrition and save 10% with the code SOCIAL
The_Old_Guy
Well-known member
Ah, the Catch-22 of research. When it's obscure, possibly in a foreign language, and about Rats - it's good. When it's about stuff in humans not working - it's bad. I think that Test Enanthate study was pretty relevant, but hey, the readers can decide. It was you after all, that asked for data about physiological range changes not mattering for LBM gains, right? Now I know what messengers feel like, LOL!
No, when its measuring the "acute" effects of exercise on hormones, its not really relevant.
The_Old_Guy
Well-known member
The primary study in my answering of the reps question, was the Test Enanthate one. Any relevance with that one? Don't like the second, cool by me, throw it out. Of course, the nail in my coffin would be research showing fluctuations within the physiological range *do* lead to LBM gains... anyone find any of those?
breezy11
Well-known member
"...This is what we do. We figure out things and leave breadcrumbs for scientists and they put the pieces together for us, and vice versa. Sometimes they leave bread crumbs for us in the field, and we have to put the pieces together and figure out how to apply it. It’s a symbiotic relationship, at least in my view anyway. The most annoying thing I see in the industry these days are people taking a “side”. They are for science or for in the trenches experience. This attitude pretty much halts progress long term. We need to work together, not make fun of each other. I have zero respect for people who engage in this bashing of each other."
John Meadows
The_Old_Guy
Well-known member
This is the main one I'm looking at:
h t t p : / / press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2002-021231
If you've read that one and still think it isn't relevant to increasing T within the physiological range and "gains", we have one of those agree to disagree deals going on. Or maybe it isn't - I don't have an MD, but I'd need it broken down Barney style as to why.
I think natty boosters increase "horny-ness", and I think they help burn fat. I don't think they add LBM or Strength.
And I fail to see how it can effect these while magically not the other. So it will help with mood...and help reduce fat...all the things test normally does...but for some reason it doesn't help with increased muscle mass over time. Why? As I said before, the decrease in muscle mass of men aging occurs over a very long period of time. So the loss of mass is equated to lower T, GH, IGF-1, etc....yet you don't think if you increase them back to a higher range, lets say when he was 25, there will be no effect over a long period of time?
A study of injectable test compared to natural test boosters can't be used, even by their own definition. They simply are not the same, much like raising insulin and injecting it. Its a whole different ballpark.
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
Perfect! Will include this quote in the piece. Thanks breezy
The_Old_Guy
Well-known member
There are studies showing (that I know of off the top of my head) fat loss in humans, and libido in both humans and rats (the first via self survey's, the latter via mounting frequency). Neither of those automatically mean that an increase in muscle mass or strength also follows. Second, the end result of taking a plant or the synthetic, is an increase (hopefully) of Testosterone. I am unaware of any research showing that fluctuations within the normal range in humans, leads to LBM/Strength gains above the normal training/diet progression. Are there any? Using your insulin example - even inject-able Test up to 125mg per week, had no affect on strength (there was the 50mg outlier but I've read that thing twice and can't find them explaining that). But orally digestible plant compounds will somehow do better?
Ok - I will give you that we don't know (again, unless there have been long a$$ studies) what spending $60 a month on T boosters, and taking them 24/7/365 for 50 years, keeping your levels at 750 while your friends dwindle to the 100's - will do. Absolutely fair.
But that is definitely not the marketing copy behind T Boosting supplements - everyone knows it.
Considering the short time frame, it also means it doesn't. You seem to think there is some magic property that a hormone can exert some effects while not exerting others.
I believe Danes might know of some, but as I said before, you seem to think hormones, within a physiological level should exert the same effects within the same time frame as injectable test (or its study). It doesn't work that way.
Do you seriously want to argue that TRT doesn't work? Does your entire basis of thought revolve around one study comparing the effects of injected testosterone in NORMAL men over a period of weeks? Its like you can't even acknowledge the role of diminishing muscle mass and how it correlates to aging NORMAL men.
How about doubling for a year? Two years? How long does SUPRA physiological levels of GH take to work? You seem to think this stuff works in a vacuum within 10-12 weeks.
I'm not debating marketing. If you have a problem with marketing, you will probably have a problem with every industry for the rest of your life. Its irrelevant to me the result I may or may not get.
The last think I wanted to do is compare or correlate HRT studies to anything natural.
But thanks!
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
Where's your evidence?
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
Well they took men who had T within physiological range but in the low end and gave them T and increased it to mid-upper range but still within the physiological range and showed an increase in lbm.... so if the argument is over if an increase in T within range will effect muscle size, it seems it does.The last think I wanted to do is compare or correlate HRT studies to anything natural.
But thanks!
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
Are you really asking me to prove a negative? Seriously.... ?? Want evidence that Santa clause isn't real either?
Try reading my post. I actually just posted to studies SUPPORTING your position here. Something that you have yet to do...
I don't think that's the issue. It's when people make absolute statements that it will not work in any way shape or form, you have to back that up.
Just a hunch, but him posting studies on HRT to back his supplement would not be the wisest of moves...from a company perspective.
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
Valid point... damn you Obama!
Agreed, but my point about comparing these is that it seems injectable test fires all possible pathways...known and unknown...to enhance muscle growth on a much faster level. Natural boosters don't seems to exert those effects in such a rapid and pronounced fashion. And that could be based entirely on the individual himself. And it certainly doesn't mean they won't work or have zero effect on muscle mass.
thebigt
Legend
That's kinda how science works
I have a piece I have been meaning to write titled "in defense of the anecdote". It is a concept that a lot of the pro-science hasn't grasped yet.
i would really like to read that piece, i hope you write it soon....
my contribution to this thread is the mind is very powerful, athletes are even using psychologists to mentally prepare and train...i don't realistically buy a test booster thinking i am going to see really significant muscle gains from a short run--but i do see a boost in motivation and drive and sometimes a boost in aggression, but libido boosting is something i really look for...to me if my libido is high i feel more virile[manly] and i guess this is what many refer to as 'alpha male'. my attitude going into the gym when i workout is highly reflective of how successful it will be....those who say test boosters are worthless are full of crap, imo-regardless of if scientifically they increase test or not...i think a more fair label would be performance enhancers, which i believe test boosters do a good job of!!!
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
I will let you know as soon as I write it buddy
As for the second part I quoted, sport psychology is a very real field. I worked with a sports psychologist in the past on a project (using exercise as an intervention to with drug addicts). Hell, there was just a paper on mindfulness an weight loss that was published not that long ago that was a pretty good read. Unfortunately however, psychologist are still somewhat taboo for a lot of people so athletes are still hesitant to use one, but the field itself and their results they produce is very real. The mind is an amazing and fascinating powerful thing.
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
quote from the second liks abstracts even though they have absolutely no relevance to anyone of us...
After 3 months of TE treatment, lean body mass was significantly increased
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
I think he is calling us old men indirectly. He should be banned! jk
He's right. And I feel it in the morning.
At 30 I felt like I was 18. At 42 I feel like I'm 55, regardless of how I look. :lol:
Mine started around 36...aches, pains, knee issues, back issues, etc...Just creeps up on you.
Danes
Well-known member
Sorry, I am not sure what you guys talked about. Natty T boosters which can lead to more muscles?
The_Old_Guy
Well-known member
I never said TRT doesn't work. I said plants that *may* raise T within the phys range, won't increase LBM/Strength in the population that frequents these boards.
I'll stand by for any proof from disinterested third party studies showing Maca/Long Jack/Horny Goat Weed/Tribulus/Bulbine/Fadogia/Anacyclus/ Spilanthes/etc.. increases LBM/Strength in people like the members here, more than just natural training progression/diet.
Because in the end, after all the twists and turns presented in this thread, the proof is in the pudding: Prove to me that plants increase LBM/Strength in resistance training males like the members here. If that can't be done, there's a fantasy world somewhere all right
If it matters, I'm 48. I am currently finishing up an 8 week cycle of Bulbine (6 weeks), ABE, Fadogia, and Tribulus. I've also done 1-Step Conversion DHEA's in the 90's/Early 2K, and 2-Step Conversion DHEA's recently. N=1, yes.
With that, you have the floor. I don't think we'all are going to agree and going 'round and 'round doesn't lead to peace and love in my experience - and I like it here
And you know this how? I'm 42 and you're 48...whats the population?
Its easy to say you'll wait for proof when you know it doesn't exist...at least to YOUR criteria.
Because in the end, after all the twists and turns presented in this thread, the proof is in the pudding: Prove to me that plants increase LBM/Strength in resistance training males like the members here. If that can't be done, there's a fantasy world somewhere all right
What does it being a plant have to do with anything? Its easy for you sit back and say, "you have to prove to me this exact supplement will increase muscle mass and it has to be double blind, placebo, fully controlled study" when you know it doesn't exist. Its basically a cop out.
No, doesn't really change anything.
With that, you have the floor. I don't think we'all are going to agree and going 'round and 'round doesn't lead to peace and love in my experience - and I like it here
I don't need the floor. I simply believe I am much more open minded than you. I know the studies don't exist. I know they probably won't, but that didn't stop many supplements form coming to the market that actually work and science proved it later. You seem to think it comes first to validate something. Its the other way around.
I'm not the one posting studies on the acute effect of exercise on hormones, or injectable test and correlating that with what happens in a natural test booster. The concept alone is flawed and if you can't identify that, you simply won't believe much of anything. It seems the guys who don't think it works are the ones making absolute statements with no proof.
Yes. The Old Guy says its not possible. Ever. At all.
Danes
Well-known member
Our bodies are complicated and it is actually not so easy lets say boost T levels 20-30% and it will provide better gains. Its not working that way.
Lets take TRT/Steroids as example. Its not just increasing Testosterone/DHT/Binding to AR levels.It would increase MPS,nitrogen retention, glycogen retention etc..
On other hand, We have natty T boosters (no matter if its amino acid,plant,herb etc).
In many animal studies they provide amazing results. (Some of them)dont just increase T levels sky high but actually does have effect on AR ,have pro anabolic properties and much more. Does it mean that works the same in humans ? Not at all. Look at Ecdysterone (it is not a t booster but using it as example). In rats, its stronger and better than Dianabol (pro Anabolic). In humans it can be anabolic but it is an adaptogen ingredient and not heavy pro anabolic like in rats.
I mean we all can have benefits from increased T levels even if it is just 20%.
20% could actually lead to better sleep, more energy, well being etc. What happens when you sleep better, feel better and have more energy? It can lead to Indirectly gains
-Feeling better=you have better appetite= you eat more=more gains.
-More energy=hitting gym harder=more strength/size (if diet is in check)
-Sleeping better=better recovery=optimalizing hormones=more energy and much more (that leads to more gains).
I really dont think 20% increase of T in guys who have normal levels would directly lead to more gains due to 20% increase of T.
BUT, lets say we have a T booster which can increase T levels 40%. the normal values are between 9-28 nmol/L (just an example). and one guy have 8 nmol/L.
Increasing 40% means the new value would be 11.2 nmol/L. Not only is it more healthy value (in normal range), but I bet this guy would feel better too. Better sleep, better libido, possibly less depressed (if he is depressed at all) and much more.
I dont think 40% would directly lead to more strength and size gains after just 2 months but it would make a difference years after years (longer period/long term).it would be a combination most of indirectly gains of T Booster and some % due to increased T levels (but like said. This means year after year)
Those who get 10lbs after 1-2 months while on T booster is NOT due to increased T . We are talking about Calorie Surplus! (It is generaly for most of products)
Sorry for all bad spelling. I am writing with my phone
Danes
Well-known member
Yes but those natural AI (such as Brassaiopsis Glomerulata standarized for (-)-Dehydrololiolide)
is not boosting T directly (extract has no direct stimulation on Testosterone). They have directly impact on atomataze enzyme/estrogen , which lead to less estrogen then body produce more T
Danes
Well-known member
Yes ! I really enjoyed Inhibiting E from SNS
But if you look at LOSS of muscle loss in aging men, it is.