Test dropping

We're on Veeky Forums not /pol/, this isn't to say the constant lowering of testosterone is nothing to worry about as it might eventually come to a level that it is significantly hurting other males or the simple fact it is an indication of an even more important health issue such as possible contamination of estrogen in water supplies.

That being said, I just get tired of seeing all this broscience about increasing your test but doing x and it will make you feel/be able to do y. That's not how test levels work. Negative health effects are not seen until lower than average testosterone levels are measured. Athletic benefits are not seen until 100s of times past the normal limit. This is what the research points too.

Why are you responding to a merchant poster. No discourse ever comes from fucking merchant posters they are literally meth-addled Virginians, the lowest tier of /pol/ack

Amount of muscle mass gain does not increase unless you have 100 times higher testosterone than the average.
Got any sources to back that up, schlomo?

This board is not in love with jews, no board is for that matter

...

I'll admit I was horrible wrong on the ratios but the principle of test levels do not increase athletic performance unless put far beyond normal levels still holds true.

ajpendo.physiology.org/content/281/6/E1172.full

Take note in this study that the recorded testosterone levels of the groups were their absolute lows over a week after injection. I'm not sure why they did this but considering how much test fluctuates in simply a day, the 253 group for instance would at least be averaging a test level of 450 but it would be more likely to be estimating levels around 600 or so. And again, the morning test levels like which was measured in OP's study would be even higher. At least 31% higher based on this other study which I can't find for free but is shows how much test fluctuates if you want to look that bad at it onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1177/00912700022009486/abstract

Keeping that in mind, we only see athletic benefits as I said in the 1,345 and 2,370 group. As mentioned this is their low so we can estimate they would have test levels averaging at least 1,800 and 2,900 though most likely more with god knows what maximum test levels as again would be represented in the op study. These test levels are absolutely beyond any means besides using injectable and oral steroids.

I didn't mention muscle mass gain actually but that also isn't seen until much higher levels though it seems to occur at least faster than athletic benefits. As steroids also increase glycogen storage which creates a bigger looking muscle.

I read once that eating lots of oats and greens exits estrogen.

Yup fibre lowers estrogen levels

>12 filtered posts
holy shit lol /pol/ needs to leave

Response to androgens is log-linear. That first study supports that. Acute spikes are pretty meaningless. Area under the curve over prolonged periods of time is what's meaningful.

Because populations change over time. We don't need to be moderately strong track bois to catch our food anymore. Now that we have technology so we can be weak and lazy track bois.

"Response" was in other assets like reduction in fat free mass index but I simply cannot see how this can be considered log-linear. It is clear that until a very large threshold is reached, no dose response is found.

Also where is your evidence for that last statement? Hormone levels need not be above average threshold for long periods of time to work. Instead they will generally spike several times higher for a few hours and then go back down to relatively normal levels and the user still gets the benefits. Otherwise basic doping techniques would be impossible.

Forgot graph

Less manual labor and fatter people. Also I feel the hypertension epidemic is because people don't sweat anymore and not because there's too much sodium in food.

excess estrogen is excreted via sweat. so, cardio which will boost your free testosterone btw and then follow up with some compound movements like lifts or kettle bells = DHT

all in all, easiest way is to avoid xenoestrogens.

picolinate is the only one you want, and take it with a meal.

Because hypermasculinity is not a boon in modern society. Men with excessive testosterone are the types who often end up in bar fights or dead at a young age (often prior to reproducing). They're the ones who make the bad parts of town bad.

Meanwhile, moderate-testosterone men are the ones making their way through high end schools, ascending through the business world, and generally being more successful because they're cooperative, negotiable, and personable.

So naturally, moderate-test men are the ones who aren't just passing on their genetics but also raising their kids well and putting them on a successful path. High test men may reproduce at higher rates, but their offspring end up dead or in permanently shitty situations at a far greater frequency. Over time, the moderate-test population comes to dominate and most men just naturally produce less testosterone.

>"Response" was in other assets like reduction in fat free mass index but I simply cannot see how this can be considered log-linear. It is clear that until a very large threshold is reached, no dose response is found.
"The relationships between circulating testosterone concentrations and changes in fat-free mass and muscle size conform to a single log-linear dose-response curve. "

>Also where is your evidence for that last statement? Hormone levels need not be above average threshold for long periods of time to work. Instead they will generally spike several times higher for a few hours and then go back down to relatively normal levels and the user still gets the benefits. Otherwise basic doping techniques would be impossible.
I don't know what you mean by 'hours', but if AUC doesn't change it's mostly useless. Otherwise we wouldn't see data like

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2790261/

The overarching mediator of these (circulating) hormones is most likely changes in gene expression and not acute signaling events. Some discussion here

journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Citation/2013/11000/Are_Acute_Post_Resistance_Exercise_Increases_in.4.aspx

Strength is mostly neural adaptation. Not really controlled by anabolic hormones per se.

...

Is the plastic thing actually real? I thought it was just conspiracy nuttiness.

Plastics
Water poisoning
Air poisoning

Just drink cleaner water.
Avoid using plastics for storing food.
Avoid air fresheners or similar. Get a plant or live in a green environment.

That's it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoestrogen
Yes

people fap too much

Yes fat free mass and muscle size, read my original comment

> Athletic benefits are not seen until 100s of times past the normal limit.

>Athletic benefits

Ie strength, the increase in muscle volumes is a completely different subject involving other factors including excess glycogen strorage.

But when it came to strength ie the athletic benefit
>The leg press strength did not change significantly in the 25- and 125-mg-dose groups but increased significantly in those receiving the 50-, 300-, and 600-mg doses

>Leg power, measured by the Nottingham leg rig, did not change significantly in men receiving the 25-, 50-, and 125-mg doses of testosterone weekly, but it increased significantly in those receiving the 300- and 600-mg doses.

Also keep in mind my entire point of this discussion is showing how you need huge spikes in these hormones levels for these beneficial effects. Injecting test for even the low end of these groups will give spikes much higher than normal.

The study you linked showed there was no response but the levels created during exercise are highly insignificant would be equivalent of injecting mostly saline with a drop of test. Like I stated, they are not in high enough concentration to elicit a response.

What I mean by hours is that the way drug tested athletes have been using for decades is based on this philosophy of spikes. They can be tested throughout the day and in the early morning around 6am. So they inject they steroids around 8pm and by 6am their levels are already back to normal. However, through simple observation it is clear these spikes give huge advantages and illicit a anabolic response in this short amount of time. Whether through gene expression or signaling.

The study measured these levels a week after their last injection meaning their actual average levels were much greater than these numbers. And much greater than any other method of test boosting which are being advised in here could ever achieve.

I for one welcome the coming age of cute femboys
The age of smelly, fat, hairy men is finally coming to an end thank god

>Strength is mostly neural adaptation. Not really controlled by anabolic hormones per se.

If only this was true. Then we could have 160lb powerlifters deadlifting 900lbs. Also that wouldn't explain why we are seeing such a dramatic increase in strength from the high test group. In an untrained individual, the first two month of training will most involve neural adaptations and they will gain little to no muscle. However, afterwards neural efficiency is not enough to adapt to the increasing loads and the body has to compensate by increasing muscle mass since as the surface area of the muscle increases so too does its strength. Neural efficiency may slightly increase but after a year or so it becomes mostly irrelevant, increases in strength must be from increases in muscle size.

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/453338

I do apologize for not posting a free full length though.

>Ie strength
That's quite the shallow definition of athleticism and not one I'm familiar with, but okay.

>What I mean by hours is that the way drug tested athletes have been using for decades is based on this philosophy of spikes. They can be tested throughout the day and in the early morning around 6am. So they inject they steroids around 8pm and by 6am their levels are already back to normal. However, through simple observation it is clear these spikes give huge advantages and illicit a anabolic response in this short amount of time. Whether through gene expression or signaling.
Athletes, drug-tested or not, proselytize all kinds of broscience. Do you have any actual data to support these claims specifically with regards to testosterone? Testosterone esters tend to have much longer half lives.

Obviously at some point hypertrophy has to become rate-limiting. But this isn't a very fair comparison with a short-term 20 week period and relatively small strength gains like the trial we're talking about, where the bulk of the literature agrees that adaptation is mostly neurally mediated.

>Also that wouldn't explain why we are seeing such a dramatic increase in strength from the high test group.
Testosterone has effects on neural substrates of strength training. The differential dose-response relationship could be attributed to resistance penetrating the BBB and BSCB.

Also, upon having some time to look at the paper in more detail, it could be driven (in part) by an outlier given low sample size. See this analysis using same dataset for example

press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2002-021231
press.endocrine.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/endo/journals/content/jcem/2003/jcem.2003.88.issue-4/jc.2002-021231/production/images/medium/eg0439307001.jpeg

So I don't see how you can use it ipso facto to so adamantly declare a threshold effect. There are clearly other plausible explanations.

I am 25 and I have extremely low T because I am obese. Something like 1/3 Americans is obese now, and 1/5 in other developed countries. This is the cause of the low T epidemic. All the other answers in this thread are complete bullshit. Trace amounts of birth control and trace amounts of plastics in water do not affect your health as much as the fucking tire of fat around your waist you pathetic piece of shit.

Lost 6 kg so far on keto + IF. Wish me luck.

Veeky Forums fraud reporting in. Just do steroids.

Problem solved.

It isn't dropping. It's just not as elevated as it was before because people aren't in situations where here forced to do manual labor as often. You release more test as an adult male when you break down muscle and go through the recovery cycle, especially when doing heavy leg or back work, and we don't have to do most stuff like that anymore thanks to machines.

This one of the key answers nobody wants to hear. A lot of people have too much free time and drain all the test production from their bodies by whacking it several times a day, almost well into the double digits, on top of not working out at all.

Go get some TRT, you have low testosterone, it's even evident in your writings.
Mental betterment of upping your testosterone from 300 to 900 will clear your brain fog and make you stop watching FOX news.

> just pin bro
just fuck my shit up fampai

Sweet pseudoscience, bro.

>it's even evident in your writings.
Fuck, yes it is. He sounds beta, weak, manlet.

How do we make the Y chromosome great again? The females are stealing all our genes.

I've been looking into it more and while I'm still agreeing with my general post about how small increases won't affect athletic performances and that the levels of the participants are much higher than the average test levels and therefore can't be applied to the average person, spikes are as you said not nearly as important as constant levels.

Can you show me some examples of how strength is more neural mediated though? The paper I linked is how I've always been taught in that after only 5-8 weeks, strength increases is predominately hypertrophy which is why in the 20 week study, the groups who had high enough test levels to actually affect hypertrophy saw significantly higher strength gains.

I do see your point about the small sample size, which explains that insanely high error bar. Which could be the reason behind the significant differences. Honestly I didn't post the best study for this it seems but I could not find any better ones either. A study in which they took in average test levels during the study would be much easier to interpret.