Novel stimulus!

[Brain5ick]

So I want to run my theory past you guys just for fun. Let’s say your test is at a good range for someone between 21-30 years old at around 600ng/dL to 905ng/dL (this seems to be an appropriate range for most guys I’ve talked with and seen blood work on). When running test most people start out on about 500mg a week (as you all know) but for people with lower T I feel like results could be met at a lower dose per week. If you’ve never had higher end T and were in 280ng/dL to 475ng/dL you more than likely would look and feel like someone in that range. Taking any substance is to create a novel stimulus, meaning to give our bodies something they aren’t used to so we can stimulate growth or change in the body. So for a guy who’s never experienced high T, or higher end T naturally, to create a novel stimulus would be easier with less substance. What some may experience off a higher dose of T could be possible with a lower dose for these kinds of people because they’ve simply never had higher levels. Now, I’m not saying a guy in this category running 300mg of Test per week will have the exact same experience as a high T guy running 500mg per week or higher, BUT the low T guy with 300mg per week would induce a quality change in performance off of that dose much easier than someone who’s a higher T range to start with. They would still induce an anabolic effect with generally less side effects in some cases.

Some of my buddies have had their T tested before their cycles and out of three of them one had a level of 862ng/dL, one had 603ng-dL and one had 276ng/dL.
The one with 862ng/dL uses 600mg Test E per week, the one with 603ng/dL runs 500mg Test E per week and the one with 276ng/dL runs 350mg of cyp per week all of these in split doses Monday and Thursday. The low T guy has lower bf% on cycle, less sides (estro and dht related), an increase in strength and solid gains over 16 weeks, the other two receive generally the same increases in strength (although the guy at 600mg is actually a bit stronger on his DL, squat and bench) the same increases in hypertrophy, lower bf% (generally, I’m sure they aren’t all eating the exact same stuff), receive slightly more bloating and both get acne on the backs of arms, shoulders, chest and back.
This isn’t really a log or anything but I’ve asked them if they’d be into just using test and this is what it came out to. I’m not sure what this means for my theory but it is interesting to me.
My T is at 302ng/dL and I’ll be going on TRT soon at 100mg a week then 200mg a week, so it will be interesting to compare my dose to that of a more anabolic one of the three I’ve mentioned.
What are your guys thoughts here?

 

[Matthersby]

I’m going to say I don’t think so.
It’s like measuring testicular atrophy to gauge how shut down one is.
Numbers tell the story, their diet and training could be massively different, one or all of them could have totally different SHBG interaction. Some will aromatize 3x as heavily.
Now, if you had labs before, labs 4 weeks in, labs at the end. On all 3. All those labs on all 3, and I would buy into this theory. But I get labs 4x a year and have for 7 years. Obviously I don’t know what my natural levels even are anymore, but aromatization aside, the more test you take the higher your levels are, irregardless of levels prior. I fact, if you start w lower natty levels, I’ve noticed it takes more test to get you to an adequate number.
But there could be loads of scientific data countering this. I just provide anecdotal experience and accounts. To me, in this variable-heavy arena of PEDs, anecdotal doesn’t get the credit it deserves. We see it all the time with XYZ drug’s A:A ratio seems like it will do “this”. And we take XYZ drug and for 90% of us, it does something totally different.