# The effects of supraphysiological doses of testosterone on muscle size and strength in normal men



## DocDePanda187123 (Dec 2, 2016)

*The effects of supraphysiological doses of testosterone on muscle size and strength in normal men*

N Engl J Med. 1996 Jul 4;335(1):1-7.
The effects of supraphysiologic doses of testosterone on muscle size and strength in normal men.
Bhasin S1, Storer TW, Berman N, Callegari C, Clevenger B, Phillips J, Bunnell TJ, Tricker R, Shirazi A, Casaburi R.
Author information
Abstract

BACKGROUND:
Athletes often take androgenic steroids in an attempt to increase their strength. The efficacy of these substances for this purpose is unsubstantiated, however.

METHODS:
We randomly assigned 43 normal men to one of four groups: placebo with no exercise; testosterone with no exercise; placebo plus exercise; and testosterone plus exercise. The men received injections of 600 mg of testosterone enanthate or placebo weekly for 10 weeks. The men in the exercise groups performed standardized weight-lifting exercises three times weekly. Before and after the treatment period, fat-free mass was determined by underwater weighing, muscle size was measured by magnetic resonance imaging, and the strength of the arms and legs was assessed by bench-press and squatting exercises, respectively.

RESULTS:
Among the men in the no-exercise groups, those given testosterone had greater increases than those given placebo in muscle size in their arms (mean [+/-SE] change in triceps area, 424 +/- 104 vs. -81 +/- 109 square millimeters; P < 0.05) and legs (change in quadriceps area, 607 +/- 123 vs. -131 +/- 111 square millimeters; P < 0.05) and greater increases in strength in the bench-press (9 +/- 4 vs. -1 +/- 1 kg, P < 0.05) and squatting exercises (16 +/- 4 vs. 3 +/- 1 kg, P < 0.05). The men assigned to testosterone and exercise had greater increases in fat-free mass (6.1 +/- 0.6 kg) and muscle size (triceps area, 501 +/- 104 square millimeters; quadriceps area, 1174 +/- 91 square millimeters) than those assigned to either no-exercise group, and greater increases in muscle strength (bench-press strength, 22 +/- 2 kg; squatting-exercise capacity, 38 +/- 4 kg) than either no-exercise group. Neither mood nor behavior was altered in any group.

CONCLUSIONS:
Supraphysiologic doses of testosterone, especially when combined with strength training, increase fat-free mass and muscle size and strength in normal men.

The anabolic action of testosterone. [N Engl J Med. 1996]
PMID: 8637535 DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199607043350101


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Dec 2, 2016)

Full paper: The Effects of Supraphysiologic Doses of Testosterone on Muscle Size and Strength in Normal Men

Now let's break this baby down ...

*Methodology*

We've got 43 guys divided into 4 groups but only 3 groups of relevance for us:
1) - Guys doing resistance training with no exogenous test supplementation aka "natties"
2) - Guys taking 600mg test with no resistance training
3) - Guys taking 600mg test with resistance training

The baseline characteristics of the subjects (age, weight, height and BMI) can be found here but we're talking about average *newbies* in their late 20s. This automatically means that the results will NOT be directly transferable to more experience lifters and/or AAS users.  

The study was conducted over 30 weeks with *10 weeks for the 600mg cycle* and 16 weeks for recovery.

The subjects underwent full body workouts, 3x week on non-consecutive days, working with 70-90%1RM for 4 sets of 6 reps, which was then increased to 5 sets of 6 reps for the final 5 weeks. 
Straight away, we can see that training wasn't as optimal as it could've been but hey...its newbies. 

Calories were standardized to 36cals/kg (about maintenance level) and protein to 1.5g/kg. 
Now we see that protein intake should really of been higher to optimize the results.


*Results*

After 30 weeks, this is what happened:
- Natties gained 1.9kg (4 pounds) of muscle, which is pretty standard gains for any but the elite naturals. 
- The guys on test with NO exercise gained 3.2kg (7 pounds) of muscle.
- The guys on test and a training stimulus gained 6.1kg (13.5 pounds) of muscle .
- No significant changes in bf% for any of the groups.

Fat free mass, bench and squat numbers:



- Notice how the 600mg + no exercise group is almost equal to the exercise only group for bench strength and completely dwarfes it for tricep muscle mass. *Test with no training is better than training natty folks, at least with beginners.*

Hormone numbers at baseline & after 10 weeks:



- *TT Baselines* of 431-557ng/dl for all groups with 2828 & 3244ng/dl for the 600mg only & 600mg plus training groups. 
- *SHBG* dropped 70 & 80 ng/dl for the 600mg groups, sometihng to consider for those obsessed with adding provi or whatever else to get the number down.

Finally, some Hemoglobin & lipid data to round it off (nothing significant changed in the test groups):




*Take home points* 

I think this paper makes a strong case for recommending 600mg as the starting dose for beginner cycles. 

The subjects in this study were beginners and therefore benefit a lot from newbie gains but,considering the cycle was only 10 weeks in length and both diet & training could've been better, I think it is possible to get close to these results with more advanced trainees (as all users should be) and extending the cycle to 12-16. 

It's also worth keeping in mind that the data only showed group averages and not individual numbers so don't put too much stock into what TT 600mg should give you and so on.


----------



## ToolSteel (Dec 2, 2016)

I know jol has a study marked somewhere showing 600/wk being the breaking point for type 2 muscle growth. That would be a good addition running right along with this study. 
And another reason to advocate 600 vs the standard 500.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Dec 2, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> I know jol has a study marked somewhere showing 600/wk being the breaking point for type 2 muscle growth. That would be a good addition running right along with this study.
> And another reason to advocate 600 vs the standard 500.



Joliver posted this study

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2439525/#!po=0.188679


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Dec 2, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> I know jol has a study marked somewhere showing 600/wk being the breaking point for type 2 muscle growth. That would be a good addition running right along with this study.
> And another reason to advocate 600 vs the standard 500.



I just skimmed through the paper Doc provided and I have a feeling that this is the reference within that caught Jol's eye:
Testosterone-induced increase in muscle size in healthy young men is associated with muscle fiber hypertrophy

Lots of juicy stuff in there that I'll dig into later but the problem we have is that the comparison, again, is between 300mg vs 600mg. 
We know that 300mg won't do much but we know little about the minute differences between 500-600mg except the fact that 600mg is more commonly used dose in scientific research. 
That alone also suggests moving away from 500mg (based mostly on broscience) since more of the data can be extrapolated to apply to our circumstances, JMO.


----------



## DF (Dec 2, 2016)

I think the 500mg is mostly based on easy math. You know these guys cant figure out how to get 600mg out of 250mg/ml test.

Also Jada tries to recreate this study all the time.  Running cycles without lifting.


Shit! did I just break the rules?


----------



## NbleSavage (Dec 2, 2016)

DF said:


> I think the 500mg is mostly based on easy math. You know these guys cant figure out how to get 600mg out of 250mg/ml test.
> 
> Also Jada tries to recreate this study all the time.  Running cycles without lifting.
> 
> ...



Wait...you guys lift?


----------



## DF (Dec 2, 2016)

NbleSavage said:


> Wait...you guys lift?



Not really, I just hit the gym for the yoga pants.


----------



## ToolSteel (Dec 2, 2016)

DF said:


> ....You know these guys cant figure out how to get 600mg out of 250mg/ml test......



You know what, that's actually a really good point lol


----------



## TriniJuice (Dec 3, 2016)

Do what the pros do.....4grams Test


----------



## Bro Bundy (Dec 3, 2016)

you wont notice a difference between 500 or 600...750 you will


----------



## Bro Bundy (Dec 3, 2016)

I also have a hard time believing u can shoot test and sit on your ass with no training making better gains then a person whos natty thats eating and lifting for gains..Im not trying to go against the grain im asking for u guys to help me understand


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Dec 3, 2016)

Bro Bundy said:


> I also have a hard time believing u can shoot test and sit on your ass with no training making better gains then a person whos natty thats eating and lifting for gains..Im not trying to go against the grain im asking for u guys to help me understand



This is where keeping an open mind becomes important. 

The study showed that *beginners* (this is a very important point) can indeed shoot test, sit on their asses and still grow more than natural beginners working hard in the gym. It might be hard to believe but that's exactly what happened, its a factual event that occurred, and the explanation is pretty simple - AAS are awesome 

Diet could've been better (more calories and protein in general) but since it was kept equal across all the groups, its not a factor here. So it becomes a straight race between AAS vs training and AAS wins by a LARGE margin (4 vs 7 pounds of muscle gain). Obviously doing both is optimal (13.5 pounds of gain). 

By all means ask as many questions as you want man, that's what this section is for - to learn what the data is telling us - and I'll do my best to help you understand.


----------



## Bro Bundy (Dec 3, 2016)

MrRippedZilla said:


> This is where keeping an open mind becomes important.
> 
> The study showed that *beginners* (this is a very important point) can indeed shoot test, sit on their asses and still grow more than natural beginners working hard in the gym. It might be hard to believe but that's exactly what happened, its a factual event that occurred, and the explanation is pretty simple - AAS are awesome
> 
> ...


thanks man.I appreciate it..


----------



## ToolSteel (Dec 3, 2016)

MrRippedZilla said:


> I just skimmed through the paper Doc provided and I have a feeling that this is the reference within that caught Jol's eye:
> Testosterone-induced increase in muscle size in healthy young men is associated with muscle fiber hypertrophy
> 
> Lots of juicy stuff in there that I'll dig into later but the problem we have is that the comparison, again, is between 300mg vs 600mg.
> ...


Just thought of another point; mot every study I've seen also pins once a week, vs the 2x/wk commonly recommended. 
Notable difference in peak plasma levels.


----------



## IHI (Dec 4, 2016)

Love this thread zilla, always in sponge mode on this board soaking up all relevant info.


----------



## Yaya (Dec 4, 2016)

Jurox made some good test s


----------



## ECKSRATED (Dec 4, 2016)

So a newbie is better off taking steroids and sitting on his ass!!! I would have loved to known that 17 years ago. Lol

AAS are extremely awesome zilla.


----------



## IHI (Dec 4, 2016)

ECKSRATED said:


> So a newbie is better off taking steroids and sitting on his ass!!! I would have loved to known that 17 years ago. Lol
> 
> AAS are extremely awesome zilla.



Surgery looks inevitable for me at this point for my shoulder after Thursdays bad PT. Was just going to run my scribed dose for the next yr until I can jump back in the game, but now thinking, hell, maybe continue with plan to try a blast, continue plan to focus on core/legs, and see what happens. He'll if I can stay the same size up top even though I wont be able to workout for about a yr, maybe it would prevent atrophy (sp?)


----------



## Baxter513 (Dec 4, 2016)

This is an interesting read because I was just browsing a different forum that was making an argument for recommending 400mg on a first timer cycle per week (split into 2 doses) versus the standard 500 that is frequently touted.  

Recommending 400mg per week to newbies (Frontloaded) with an additional shot of 275mg on day one for a total of an 8 week cycle.  Plotted like this:

Edit:  I tried to attach the graph and plot but the system wont allow me to because I have less than 25 posts 

Link is^^^^^^i.imgur.com/jTP7i0z.png

Edit:  Ok there we go just *copy and paste the link starting with imgur*


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Dec 4, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> Just thought of another point; mot every study I've seen also pins once a week, vs the 2x/wk commonly recommended.
> Notable difference in peak plasma levels.



That's actually a good point but keep in mind that most of the literature is taking blood work 1 week after the last injection of Test e (in this & the other study doc posted's case) in order to reflect lowest levels, not peak, after an injection. So we don't actually know the peak in this particular case either. 

The researchers have also been well aware of the fluctuations associated with weekly injections since 1980 but don't seem to be fussed about it so...annoying, but it is what it is. 



Baxter513 said:


> This is an interesting read because I was just browsing a different forum that was making an argument for recommending 400mg on a first timer cycle per week (split into 2 doses) versus the standard 500 that is frequently touted.
> 
> Recommending 400mg per week to newbies (Frontloaded) with an additional shot of 275mg on day one for a total of an 8 week cycle.  Plotted like this:
> 
> ...



Well, we have scientific research beyond the 600mg idea and, unless his post was referenced, some bro on a board advocating 400mg = who do you think is a more reliable source of information? (hint: read the rules) 

Beyond that, I don't have much interest diving into the idea


----------



## Baxter513 (Dec 4, 2016)

MrRippedZilla said:


> Well, we have scientific research beyond the 600mg idea and, unless his post was referenced, some bro on a board advocating 400mg = who do you think is a more reliable source of information? (hint: read the rules)
> 
> Beyond that, I don't have much interest diving into the idea



Thanks for your response.  I have read several of your threads but have never heard you speak on the topic of frontloading


----------



## Baxter513 (Dec 4, 2016)

ANd after reading thousands of threads (me myself) I have never heard anyone speak about frontloading when it comes to a first timer cycle

If I had to choose between taking hepatoxic dianabol for the first 4 weeks versus frontloading the Test-E it seems to me that the frontlaoding would be safer especailly for a first timer cycle


----------



## Baxter513 (Dec 4, 2016)

IHI said:


> Surgery looks inevitable for me at this point for my shoulder after Thursdays bad PT. Was just going to run my scribed dose for the next yr until I can jump back in the game, but now thinking, hell, maybe continue with plan to try a blast, continue plan to focus on core/legs, and see what happens. He'll if I can stay the same size up top even though I wont be able to workout for about a yr, maybe it would prevent atrophy (sp?)



I personally think that would be a waste of drugs and you would be introducing toxicity into your body for very marginal improvement.  I have read stories galore of men who where in very good shape and physique and then had a car accident or other tragedy and where bed bound for 3 months or more (and could not train).  And then when they healed up and got back to training they where able to get back to their old form in a very short time.  

Just look at Christian Bale and how he went down to 120lbs for his role in the movie "THe Machinist" and then bulked up in just a few weeks to play a buff and ripped Batman.


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Dec 4, 2016)

Baxter513 said:


> Thanks for your response.  I have read several of your threads but have never heard you speak on the topic of frontloading



I find the overall benefits of frontloading questionable and certainly don't recommend it for beginners - making things more complicated, with potentially harder to deal with side effects, for marginal benefit is not the goal of a 1st cycle. 
Also I don't care how much frontloading is involved, 400mg isn't going to produce the gains of 600mg.

Beyond that, I suggest starting a separate thread on the topic so that others can also give you their opinions on the matter.


----------



## Baxter513 (Dec 4, 2016)

Thank You.  I will do as you say and start a separate thread.  Thank you for your input on this subject


----------



## ken Sass (Dec 4, 2016)

dose seems to be so person specific but i dont get much more out of1 gram than i do out of 600mgj  just more sides. it is definitely not double the benefits of a gram over 500mg


----------



## Baxter513 (Dec 9, 2016)

How do you guys feel about tapered in doses and tapered off doses such as

week 1 250
week 2 300
week 3 400

&&&&&

week 11 200
week 12 100

I noticed that in the book Anabolics 10th edition by LLewelyn

The tapered in provides "periodization" effect I was assuming and the tapering off assists the body to adjust less violently to the huge cold turkey drop in exogenous testosterone.  Am I understanding this correctly?  THe amount of scientific studies are limited.  And the forums I am reading and cycle logs of people are mostly all following the same cookie cutter mold.  So how can we know that this is the best approach?  How will we *ever* know until somebody tries something different?  And especially when it comes to "first timer cycles"  since we only get one attempt at a first timer cycle.


----------



## gymrat827 (Dec 9, 2016)

Baxter513 said:


> How do you guys feel about tapered in doses and tapered off doses such as
> 
> week 1 250
> week 2 300
> ...



dumb idea.

Just go X dose the whole run.   All this taper up, frontload, etc isnt going to make much, if any difference.  

1st runs should be 400-600mg, pin twice a wk & run 12wks.  

pct starts 2wks later on cyp/enth, or 2 days later on prop/TPP


----------



## automatondan (Dec 9, 2016)

Baxter513 said:


> How do you guys feel about tapered in doses and tapered off doses such as
> 
> week 1 250
> week 2 300
> ...



Remember a couple days ago when Zilla asked you to start your own thread.....?


----------



## Baxter513 (Dec 9, 2016)

automatonDan said:


> Remember a couple days ago when Zilla asked you to start your own thread.....?



The system wont let me create a new thread because I have fewer than 25 posts.  Thats why I am asking on here.  

SO nobody here agrees with tapered off doses?


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Dec 10, 2016)

Baxter513 said:


> The system wont let me create a new thread because I have fewer than 25 posts.  Thats why I am asking on here.
> 
> SO nobody here agrees with tapered off doses?



Tapering up/down isn't necessary and counterproductive (less overall dose = less gains). 600mg all the way works just fine.


----------



## PillarofBalance (Dec 10, 2016)

Baxter513 said:


> The system wont let me create a new thread because I have fewer than 25 posts.  Thats why I am asking on here.
> 
> SO nobody here agrees with tapered off doses?



No man tapering is like 1980's cycling method. It's pointless. Even on 100mg per week you are suppressed. Suppressed is suppressed.  Tapering does nothing.


----------

