Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Natty Test Boosting Supps that actually work

TitanTide816

New member
With all of the noise coming out on DAA and with some of the other Natural Teat boosters being proven non effective over the years, I am curious what you guys have found that actually works. Either from experience or studies you have seen. Mainly looking for individual ingredients here.
 
Nothing OTC will increase endogenous testosterone production to a point that will assist with muscle growth. A non-hypogonadic individual that increase testosterone 10, 20, 30%, etc won't notice increased muscle growth. So, even though they may be "working", what will you truly be noticing?

That's why I support products that may assist with increasing lean body mass and/or improving body composition. Look into AnaBeta Elite or X-Gels (or both, awesome stack!). AnaBeta Elite has the potential to assist with lean body mass accrual, gym performance and hormonal optimization.
 
Invalid Link Removed

Longjack is an upper echelon tboosting ingredient, check out this stack at NUTRIVERSE with code TEST20 for 20% off
 
I would do some research on Alphamax. Its a full open label product so you know the extact dosage of every ingredeints. Its fully dosed using 1.4g Divanil, 300mg L-DOPA, 75mg Arimistane and 50mg 95% Forskolin with Vitamin D3 and Zinc. Its a very complete product and has tons of positive reviews, its rated a 4.9/5 based on over 15+ reviews in the Product Reviews section.

You can check out reviews here: ALPHAMAX
 
I have definitely tried Anabeta and Anabeta Elite along with A-Acid products with success.

Probably should have worded the question differently. A %30 increase in T (while not life changing) would be enough for me to feel that "alpha" feeling and help with overall well being.

LJ100 is good stuff. Would you combine this with Bulbine? I have seen some pretty good reviews on that also.
 
There is a thread on Chlorophytum Borivilianum which you might find interesting: anabolicminds.com/forum/supplements/260030-chlorophytum-borivilianum-potential.html
 
Volvo140G said:
nutri-verse.com/the-demigod-test-boosting-stack-by-olympus-labs/

Longjack is an upper echelon tboosting ingredient, check out this stack at NUTRIVERSE with code TEST20 for 20% off
Click to expand...

LJ100 has a myriad of studies behind it, both in infertile and healthy men in supporting increases in sexual drive/libido and testosterone levels. In addition, there have been more recent studies looking at its effect on performance and LBM as well. So many benefits.

The stack on Nutriverse of LJ100 and Elim1nate is both a great price and gives you two very versatile ingredients.
 
aaronuconn said:
Nothing OTC will increase endogenous testosterone production to a point that will assist with muscle growth. A non-hypogonadic individual that increase testosterone 10, 20, 30%, etc won't notice increased muscle growth. So, even though they may be "working", what will you truly be noticing?

That's why I support products that may assist with increasing lean body mass and/or improving body composition. Look into AnaBeta Elite or X-Gels (or both, awesome stack!). AnaBeta Elite has the potential to assist with lean body mass accrual, gym performance and hormonal optimization.
Click to expand...

Very nice post and a breath of fresh air. Nice to read some honesty, but you know no one wants to hear that.
 
Segansational said:
LJ100 has a myriad of studies behind it, both in infertile and healthy men in supporting increases in sexual drive/libido and testosterone levels. In addition, there have been more recent studies looking at its effect on performance and LBM as well. So many benefits. The stack on Nutriverse of LJ100 and Elim1nate is both a great price and gives you two very versatile ingredients.
Click to expand...

I've never really looked into this, which products contain the specific extract used in studies?

Is this deemed the "most validated" single ingredient at present?
 
We have tons of natural test boosters over at strong supplement shop that you can look at and look at reviews over there. A lot of times personally I've found natural anabolic supps to be a lot more effective in building muscle than a natural test booster.
 
My 2 favorite test boosters that actually work....

BLR Viron

IronChamp HPTA
 
One cap sns bulbine stacked with alphamax is going great for me right now! X gels are great, ABE is great, alphamax and bulbine is pretty good at keeping me dry and helping with my recomp (don't forget the ergonine)
 
aaronuconn said:
Nothing OTC will increase endogenous testosterone production to a point that will assist with muscle growth. A non-hypogonadic individual that increase testosterone 10, 20, 30%, etc won't notice increased muscle growth. So, even though they may be "working", what will you truly be noticing?

That's why I support products that may assist with increasing lean body mass and/or improving body composition. Look into AnaBeta Elite or X-Gels (or both, awesome stack!). AnaBeta Elite has the potential to assist with lean body mass accrual, gym performance and hormonal optimization.
Click to expand...
Great post!
 
aaronuconn said:
Nothing OTC will increase endogenous testosterone production to a point that will assist with muscle growth. A non-hypogonadic individual that increase testosterone 10, 20, 30%, etc won't notice increased muscle growth. So, even though they may be "working", what will you truly be noticing?.
Click to expand...

What's that based on?
 
Maybe this study?

Testosterone Dose-Dependently Increases Maximal Voluntary Strength and Leg Power, but Does Not Affect Fatigability or Specific Tension

h t t p : / / press.endocrine.org/doi/10.1210/jc.2002-021231?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmed

To examine the relationship between testosterone dose and muscle performance, 61 healthy, eugonadal young men (aged 18–35 yr) were randomized to 1 of 5 groups, each receiving a long-acting GnRH agonist to suppress endogenous testosterone production plus weekly injections of 25, 50, 125, 300, or 600 mg testosterone enanthate for 20 wk.
Click to expand...

Significant changes from baseline in leg press strength were observed in the 50, 300, and 600 mg/wk dose groups, but not for the 25 and 125 mg/wk groups.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many mg's of Test E per week all these 'stem and leaves' products equal?

Another related one:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22105707

Associations of exercise-induced hormone profiles and gains in strength and hypertrophy in a large cohort after weight training.

Subjects lifted 5 times per week for 12 weeks, and followed a standard dietary protocol (high-protein intake, post-workout nutrition, etc.). The primary finding of the study was that the exercise-induced spikes in anabolic hormones like testosterone, growth hormone, and IGF-1, which all remained within physiological normal ranges, had no effect on overall muscle growth and strength gains.

That is, all subjects made gains in muscle, but the variations in the size of the hormone spikes among them had no bearing on the results.
Click to expand...

The area these companies need to pimp, is fat loss for " T boosters". There actually is a lot of research that changes in physiological range *do* influence fat mass. IIRC, going from 600ng/dl to 300 ng/dl, led to a 36% increase in fat mass.
 
The_Old_Guy said:
Maybe this study?

Testosterone Dose-Dependently Increases Maximal Voluntary Strength and Leg Power, but Does Not Affect Fatigability or Specific Tension

h t t p : / / press.endocrine.org/doi/10.1210/jc.2002-021231?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmed





I wonder how many mg's of Test E per week all these 'stem and leaves' products equal?

Another related one:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22105707

Associations of exercise-induced hormone profiles and gains in strength and hypertrophy in a large cohort after weight training.
Click to expand...

They suppressed endogenous testosterone in the first study. Without seeing the entire text its difficult to say, but why did the 50mgs show results and not the 125mgs?

The real question you should pose (if not biased) is how much stems and leaves needed in males with normal testosterone to reach the equivalence of 125mgs of T. Enanthate in subjects made hypo-gonadal prior to the injection of Testosterone E and then told to exclusively leg press.?
 
The_Old_Guy said:
Another related one:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22105707

Associations of exercise-induced hormone profiles and gains in strength and hypertrophy in a large cohort after weight training.



The area these companies need to pimp, is fat loss for " T boosters". There actually is a lot of research that changes in physiological range *do* influence fat mass. IIRC, going from 600ng/dl to 300 ng/dl, led to a 36% increase in fat mass.
Click to expand...

How does this study apply to this discussion?
 
USPlabsRep said:
How does this study apply to this discussion?
Click to expand...

"There were no significant correlations between the exercise-induced elevations (area under the curve-AUC) of GH, fT and IGF-1 and gains in LBM or leg press strength."
Click to expand...

Meaning the hormonal spikes of testosterone within the normal physiological range - had no effect on LBM. Isn't that what 'Naturals' do - boost T, but still within the physiological range?
 
USPlabsRep said:
They suppressed endogenous testosterone in the first study. Without seeing the entire text its difficult to say, but why did the 50mgs show results and not the 125mgs?

The real question you should pose (if not biased) is how much stems and leaves needed in males with normal testosterone to reach the equivalence of 125mgs of T. Enanthate in subjects made hypo-gonadal prior to the injection of Testosterone E and then told to exclusively leg press.?
Click to expand...

That endocrine.org link should have the full pdf.
 
Yup, but they weren't rats. What are we getting at here, that the study has no bearing on natural boosters giving tonzzz of gainzzz? Guys on harsh cycles are essentially "chemically castrated" too - endogenous production is heavily suppressed, and T is coming from the AAS/DS/PH's. Bottom line is that nothing worthwhile happened until 300-600mg's of Test Enanthate per week, was administered. Even if one wants to cling to the 50mg (which I am quickly developing a headache trying to see what was up there) - a correlation has to be made that natural products equal or surpass that amount of Test Enanthate. Anyone want to make that claim?
 
Although some top notch products have been named, the OP asked for test boosting ingredients that worked, didn't say anything about ingredients that produced muscle gains or increased mass. He also said he is mostly looking for single ingredients. With that being said

Fadogia and Eurycoma longifolia (also known as tongkat ali) are my go to ingredients for test boosting
 
Also, this video is great as well. Go to about 2:35 in.

"Just taking yourself from 400 to 800 in the physiological range isn't going to make a difference in muscle mass"

Invalid Link Removed
 
He should probably wait until he's over 35 to say that, because there IS a difference.
 
aaronuconn said:
In what regard?

And I think he's close to 35.
Click to expand...

"
Just taking yourself from 400 to 800 in the physiological range isn't going to make a difference in muscle mass"

In regards to this. I can tell 20 guys alone in my gym that statement and they would laugh their asses off.

Close isn't good enough. Ask most guys how different they feel and how much harder it is from 30 to 35 to 40 and over.
 
And I'm not sure how studies showing the acute effects of exercise induced hormonal changes applies to this. Its comparing apples to cannon balls.
 
Admin said:
"
Just taking yourself from 400 to 800 in the physiological range isn't going to make a difference in muscle mass"

In regards to this. I can tell 20 guys alone in my gym that statement and they would laugh their asses off.

Close isn't good enough. Ask most guys how different they feel and how much harder it is from 30 to 35 to 40 and over.
Click to expand...

I believe Layne Norton was speaking purely from a muscle growth perspective, not a psychological one.

And of course you can tell those 20 guys in your gym that. You can also probably tell those same 20 people that they don't need to pound a protein shake with fast digesting carbs post workout and they would continue to laugh. The literature available supports what Layne Norton is saying.
 
aaronuconn said:
I believe Layne Norton was speaking purely from a muscle growth perspective, not a psychological one.

And of course you can tell those 20 guys in your gym that. You can also probably tell those same 20 people that they don't need to pound a protein shake with fast digesting carbs post workout and they would continue to laugh. The literature available supports what Layne Norton is saying.
Click to expand...

Nah, most of those guys have been lifting for 25+ years and sort of know whats going on. They love when 20 somethings tell them whats best.

But I love how you assume they don't know what their doing as if they've never been through what Layne can only theorize about.

And Layne's interpretation of the "literature" supports Layne's point of view.

And thats not a knock on Layne. I remember Layne first starting as an undergrad and have followed him throughout his career. I agree with a lot of what he says, but I've seen too many times experience trump what a funded study from 10 years ago will tell me what will happen 100% of the time.
 
aaronuconn said:
I believe Layne Norton was speaking purely from a muscle growth perspective, not a psychological one.
Click to expand...

I never knew it has this magic ability to effect one and not another.
 
Admin said:
I never knew it has this magic ability to effect one and not another.
Click to expand...

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. The effects of exogenous testosterone on mood have been established for hypogonadal men.

I'm going to say increasing test within a physiological range for a healthy, non-hypogonadic male (increasing 400 to 800 for example) probably doesn't impact mood either.
 
aaronuconn said:
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. The effects of exogenous testosterone on mood have been established for hypogonadal men.

I'm going to say increasing test within a physiological range for a healthy, non-hypogonadic male (increasing 400 to 800 for example) probably doesn't impact mood either.
Click to expand...

I love when guys make absolute statements.
 
Admin said:
I love when guys make absolute statements.
Click to expand...

To semi-support my claim (admitting I'm reaching a bit):

Invalid Link Removed

"In conclusion, we have shown that a single administration of 1000 mg TU in healthy young men, raising circulating T levels into the supraphysiological range, produces detectable but relatively minor mood changes...Our results suggest that TU, administered in a dose within the range required for male contraception, has only very limited psychological effects, restricted to short-lived mood changes."

Therefore, if taking my test levels to a supraphysiological range has limited psychological effects, I'd assume doubling my test in the physiological range would have even less of an effect.
 
aaronuconn said:
To semi-support my claim (admitting I'm reaching a bit):

Invalid Link Removed

"In conclusion, we have shown that a single administration of 1000 mg TU in healthy young men, raising circulating T levels into the supraphysiological range, produces detectable but relatively minor mood changes...Our results suggest that TU, administered in a dose within the range required for male contraception, has only very limited psychological effects, restricted to short-lived mood changes."

Therefore, if taking my test levels to a supraphysiological range has limited psychological effects, I'd assume doubling my test in the physiological range would have even less of an effect.
Click to expand...

You are comparing an effect that can be seen in a very short period of time to one that takes an exceptionally long time (mood vs muscle growth) If you look at most studies that show any type of muscle growth, even the one Layne references, it went for 5 months with very small increases (1%). The role of testosterone and muscle loss in normal men is something seen over periods of 5, 10, 15, 20 years. So to make an assumption on the benefits of doubling it from 400-800 in a matter of 5 months with a small increase, and magnify that by years, you simply can't say it will have "no effect".
 
Admin said:
..... but I've seen too many times experience trump what a funded study from 10 years ago will tell me what will happen 100% of the time.
Click to expand...

Do studies ever claim this?
 
Admin said:
You are comparing an effect that can be seen in a very short period of time to one that takes an exceptionally long time (mood vs muscle growth) If you look at most studies that show any type of muscle growth, even the one Layne references, it went for 5 months with very small increases (1%). The role of testosterone and muscle loss in normal men is something seen over periods of 5, 10, 15, 20 years. So to make an assumption on the benefits of doubling it from 400-800 in a matter of 5 months with a small increase, and magnify that by years, you simply can't say it will have "no effect".
Click to expand...
The issue is we'll probably never see data or literature on healthy males doubling their testosterone within a physiological range over the course of 5-20 years. Let's just say supplement "XYZ" doubles testosterone production. It'll at the most be used 12 weeks on 4 weeks off, or something of the sort, so it wouldn't be a consistent, sustainable androgenic response.

We just have anecdote to go off of, which is all we're left with in the absence of empirical data.

Nonetheless, good discussion. :)
 
aaronuconn said:
The issue is we'll probably never see data or literature on healthy males doubling their testosterone within a physiological range over the course of 5-20 years. Let's just say supplement "XYZ" doubles testosterone production. It'll at the most be used 12 weeks on 4 weeks off, or something of the sort, so it wouldn't be a consistent, sustainable androgenic response.

We just have anecdote to go off of, which is all we're left with in the absence of empirical data.

Nonetheless, good discussion. :)
Click to expand...

And thats exactly the problem these things will always have. My opinion is they probably do help over a very prolonged period of time but comparing the effect of anything natural to injected is a stretch. Just like insulin, injected seem to have a much larger effect even kept within "normal" ranges. But to some people, it might have an increased effect while others it will have almost zero. I think it really is an individual thing.

Reason I even posted in here is because this is something I am looking into because even though I have a "normal" range, the drastic difference in the last 15 years is very noticeable.
 
Admin said:
Never, but I'm amazed by people that believe that.
Click to expand...

And I didn't mean anyone in this thread or Layne. :)

Like I said before, I have followed Layne since he was an undergrad and respect his opinions in all things.
 
Is there any evidence to suggest a increase in test within normal clinical range translates to actual noticiable muscle growth?

I do however, see your point regarding psychological effects (and performance increases for that matter) from test boosters, especially in older population where drive sees a decline, but in this regard, is it the increased test the responsible mechanisim for growth or maybe is it the increased intensity?

As for Layne, he is by far one of my least favorite researchers. He parades the whole, I have a PhD so listen to me, argument far too much IMO (although I did get to meet him in person once briefly and didn't see the arrogant online side of him) but in his defense, he does do more than just "theorize" about lifting. Think he recently set a new squat record actually. So in that regard, I do give him credit for being a researcher who does also walk the walk
 
JudoJosh said:
Is there any evidence to suggest a increase in test within normal clinical range translates to actual noticiable muscle growth?
Click to expand...

Single digit %'s in months but even then, diet, program, etc...weren't really monitored well IMO. Problem here is I think the study needs to be long term with monitored diet, training, etc...and good luck with anyone funding that one.

I do however, see your point regarding psychological effects (and performance increases for that matter) from test boosters, especially in older population where drive sees a decline, but in this regard, is it the increased test the responsible mechanisim for growth or maybe is it the increased intensity?
Click to expand...

I think any study on mood will have a much quicker and drastic effect than anything growth related. A crude comparison is meth and weight loss. You are going notice mood much faster than weight loss, but the conditions are being created for both. Yes, its crude but explains my point a bit better.

As for Layne, he is by far one of my least favorite researchers. He parades the whole, I have a PhD so listen to me, argument far too much online (although I did get to meet him in person once briefly and didn't see the arrogant online side of him) but he does do more than just "theorize" about lifting.
Click to expand...

I have noticed those that pursue these topics in academia often get frustrated debating with those that do not. Its not a sense of superiority, but its the understanding that you know for a fact they couldn't get past nutrition 101 and they want to debate glut 4 translocation with you. I see mr.cooper69 going through this at times :D
 
The_Old_Guy said:
Yup, but they weren't rats. What are we getting at here, that the study has no bearing on natural boosters giving tonzzz of gainzzz? Guys on harsh cycles are essentially "chemically castrated" too - endogenous production is heavily suppressed, and T is coming from the AAS/DS/PH's. Bottom line is that nothing worthwhile happened until 300-600mg's of Test Enanthate per week, was administered. Even if one wants to cling to the 50mg (which I am quickly developing a headache trying to see what was up there) - a correlation has to be made that natural products equal or surpass that amount of Test Enanthate. Anyone want to make that claim?
Click to expand...

Huh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top