Couple things about my unique case with multiple years of blood tests.
The dose doesn’t matter if the dose results in a 40 point difference in free test. But yes, 8mg daily did have me at 54 HCT (so did 60mg twice per week but with a lower trough free test). So the question isn’t the dose, but is a 40 point increase in free test a meaningful difference?
80mg twice per week had me at HCT of 58 and HGB>19 (19.5 IIRC), but with a lower free test than 10mg daily. FWIW, I was not doing any cardio, but did average 20k steps per day with lots of lifting/movement in a warehouse.
Couple things that have nothing to do with your unique responses:
-Lower trough free test does not mean lower total free testosterone exposure with the larger less frequent administrations. It’s well established that larger less frequent injections have those lower troughs, higher peaks, cause greater total anabolism (despite higher estrogen conversion, probably because estrogen is also so critical to anabolism & facilitates strength as well), and will typically drive SHBG down, eventually supporting more free test levels. HCT also tends to go up worse with bigger less frequent shots.
I prefer daily shots, but they are the worst for getting the most bang for the mg you take. I can just take more and feel better using them, but it’s not superior for performance.
-40 points of free test is still under that ~50% increase threshold I mentioned to really see much of anything. So no, I do not believe the adulterations you will achieve will bring about significant changes if you don’t otherwise want to be at those levels. If you get worse sleep for example, you will definitely struggle to net any positive changes on such a small adjustment.
This I highly disagree with though from years of my own cycles with AAS and SARMs, as well as watching plenty of people IRL stuck forever looking the same, adding in gear, then turning into Chris Hemsworth in less than a year (less cut though). And for clarity, those individuals were not people who maxed out their genetic potential before jumping on.
Well, did they take their free test levels from 108 to 148 to accomplish those things, or do you think they were probably using something a bit more realistic and stout? And do you genuinely believe they would keep getting that level of cosmetic improvement in anywhere close to linear fashion as dose escalated? Of course not. 30mg daily of LGD is not yet terribly different in net effect as 3mg, and that 3mg does a lot more for a 60 year old hypogonadal man than an 18-year-old buck.
Furthermore, 10-20% is the well-documented range in strength increase demonstrated in strength sport. In powerlifting, the difference in all-time world records in many classes is closer to only 10%, and in some cases the best tested lifter ever in a class is stronger than the best steroid user (but we obviously know that’s genetics, and steroids would still help if they decided to use).
Steroids are (subjectively) more effective for temporary cosmetic changes than actual objective performance metrics. There’s just certain things they do visually that you’re not going to replicate naturally, so they are much more beneficial if you want that aesthetic. If you want to look like a bodybuilder, you will need them.