Does Testosterone help more with muscle gain or fat loss?

[InfectedWithDrugs]

There are numerous factors that come into play when it comes to BB. Testosterone, growth hormone, insulin, thyroid, lipolysis, and probably a lot of others I am not even aware of. However, when it comes to testosterone specifically, is it more of a cutting agent or bulking agent? i know high T levels make muscle loss much slower during a cutting phase, so its obviously important for both cutting and bulking, but I assume it is more of a bulking agent because healthy-weight men who are placed on TRT (due to low T) tend to gain weight rather than lose it without changing their diet. I recall a study that demonstrated an average of 6lbs of muscle gain for men from changing their Total T levels from 250ng/dL to 1200ng/dL for 3 months and that was without changing their diets OR even hitting the gym. That makes T more of a muscle-gaining agent than a cutting agent. After all, even women can get 6-packs, but it is borderline impossible for women to get as big as men due to women's low T levels, unless those women use AAS...

 

[Intense]

Testosterone is testosterone. It can aid in fat loss and bulking, depending on your diet. Logically I would say it's "better" for bulking due to the appetite increasing effects as well as the increase in RBCs. Your total test can be whatever, it's your free test that you want high to build the muscle. Which is why proviron and masteron come in handy in conjunction.

 

[Genetic Freak]

Testosterone is testosterone. It can aid in fat loss and bulking, depending on your diet. Logically I would say it's "better" for bulking due to the appetite increasing effects as well as the increase in RBCs. Your total test can be whatever, it's your free test that you want high to build the muscle. Which is why proviron and masteron come in handy in conjunction.

What's your reasoning, always thought they were kinda pointless compounds for most people..?

 

[CFC]

I think the question is a bit of a false dichotomy really, since you're working on this 'bulking agent vs cutting agent' assumption. There really is no such thing. As said above, the outcome depends on your diet and training schedule.

By inhibiting myostatin to some degree, all AAS will tend to shift the muscle to fat ratio in favour of muscle, but you still need to be burning any fat calories that are released or fat mass won't ultimately change (although percentage will fall relative to muscle mass).

 

[Intense]

What's your reasoning, always thought they were kinda pointless compounds for most people..?

Masteron is a DHT derivative and binds to SHBG, which increases free testosterone. In my experience it makes me feel better, almost anti depressant like, and increases my libido. Especially when on certain compounds. Many guys use it for a hardening effect pre contest when bf is low, but in my experience I have never noticed this, but also I have never competed or been to that low of levels of bf.

Then there's the positive effect of limiting estrogen production due to aromitisation, due to the inability of the estrogen to bind to the ER. I've noticed on low dose cycles (which is all I run now anyway) that I don't need to use low dose exemestane or arimidex when I'm running a low dose of mast or proviron. I don't know exactly how this works but I'm sure I could find some literature to back it up.

I will say I have heard of guys saying they felt absolutely nothing from either of the compounds, which is hard for me to believe but anything is possible. Curious on their source etc..

Have you ever tried either of them? I tend to feel more from a decent dose of mast verses proviron.But there is alot of fake mast out there that is usually just testosterone.

 

[Intense]

This means nothing but his posts crack me up. GH feels pretty strongly on mast pre comp lol.


Quote
fuckin reduce testosterona doses and if you dont want to reduce testosterona then....youll have to use prescribed diuretic,,


trenbolona,,masterona usualy result in sick dry look especialy when doses go up on masterona ,,for fulness you need to add anadrola at 50-100mg ..thats AFTER youre dry to your wantings


it go like this....


trenbolona as base


masterona for driness...


masterona will get you flater no matter what...it will make you go nuts and think you lose volume when in reality you get harder drier and more detailed especialy back...so what you do then? you add anadrola and that will take the veins and pop them out while maintaining your hardness and pushing the muscles out giving them fuller look little fuller little thicker but actualy will make you look more conditioned and lower bodyfat and the muscles will PUSH out while skin will be shrinkwarped on the muscle,,not to the level of hgh but it will be good enough for what you look for,,


ofcourseeeeee for competition look you HAVE to use diuretic no ifs no buts,, you just cant get that sandy crispiness with out diuretic ,,human body will hold to the water it needs it to function properly,,


in any way from the pic you are pretty damn dry ,,you got the shiney all star jacked look ...its part of the hormonized world friend






Quote
no!,, masteron even good at 50mg everyday sometime its too much,,winstrol is the most overrated steroid that ever created,, one of the WORST STEROIDS,, and really mainly for weakling females who need play with light weight ,,fellas on winstrol cant lift nothing,,they are walking stiff and breakable


what you gave up there is not hands on,, its reading balonie,, im ok with you but dont throw shit into their eyes


winstrol is garbage,, this is lies we tell you ,, we use masterona always! when prep come ,, masterona MUCH MUCH better for polish look than winstrol






Quote
if you approach masteorna when you are truly 6-7% then 50mg a day of LEGIT MASTERONA will be too much for most,, 50-75mg every second day is what amtuer at 200lb needs


dont come to me with this winstrol balonie,, it is very very very bad for bodybuild,, it is only for the really weakling fragile physie man competition fellas,, it dry them some ...but leavew them with no thickness nor enough densitty,, trenbolona + masterona is what every serious bodybuild use AND ABUSE!





^I do agree with him on winstrol though. Makes the joints feel god awful and there are much better options pre contest for drying up. I know it's good for endurance athletes but at the cost of what? fried joints. Not worth it imo.

 

[CFC]

Oestrogen sides are the cumulative outcome of competing messages from all the hormones and growth factors in various target tissues throughout the body. Masteron, as a strong androgen, can thus shift this hormonal balance in favour of androgenic pathways/transcription and as such acts as an 'anti-oestrogen'. Hence its use in oestrogen sensitive female breast cancer. But also, wave goodbye to your hairline lol.

 

[Genetic Freak]

Masteron is a DHT derivative and binds to SHBG, which increases free testosterone.

Have you ever tried either of them? I tend to feel more from a decent dose of mast verses proviron.But there is a lot of fake mast out there that is usually just testosterone.

Any effects of binding SHBG should be temporary as the body will buffer this by producing more..

Tried both extensively, went along with the hype a few years ago, can't give it away...

 

[Intense]

Any effects of binding SHBG should be temporary as the body will buffer this by producing more..

Tried both extensively, went along with the hype a few years ago, can't give it away...

Interesting. So short term it could be positive? along with the "anti-estrogen" effects, or do you mostly feel it's a waste of money?

 

[CFC]

I'd say Masteron was a boring compound except when exceptionally lean, when it can add a grainy hardness to the ripped look. For most guys that limits its use to essentially competition time. Used alone it seems minimally anabolic and causes prostate and hair issues more often than not, plus its usually expensive. As for the anti-oestrogen effect, I'd rather just use an AI.

 

[Genetic Freak]

Interesting. So short term it could be positive? along with the "anti-estrogen" effects, or do you mostly feel it's a waste of money?

Regards short term, I'd be thinking a matter of hours, so is it really worth it, plus more free test only means it will be metabolised quicker...

As CFC stated there is a time and place for masteron, low BF%, pre-comp, for some people....

As an anti-e, Peter Van Mol had quite a rant about masteron:

Masteron Big Cat

I've read this stupidity in so many threads on here, and literally every other board, book and article. But apparently no one in the whole AAS game understand the difference between androgen mediated repression of estrogenic actions and actual anti-estrogenic actions.

SERMS, are partial agonists and partial antagonists at the ER. Where they are antagonistic (like all of them are in the breast), they can be considered anti-estrogens. Aromatase inhibitors are anti-estrogens.

Dihydrotestosterone and ONLY dihydrotestosterone, as an androgen, has very mild anti-aromatase activity and could be considered a very mild anti-estrogen. THIS DOES NOT, NEVER DID, AND NEVER WILL MEAN THAT EVERY 5-ALPHA-REDUCED HORMONE (or DHT derivative as some like to call it) HAS ANTI-AROMATASE ACTION.

Androgens of all sorts, including actual testosterone, have been used in the clinical treatment of breast cancer, because androgen receptor binding in the breast, outweighing estrogen receptor activation, will counteract the estrogen-induced proliferation of breast cells. This is not an anti-estrogenic action, this is merely a function of androgens in the breast to counteract breast growth. This applies to :

- Mesterolone. Basically 1-methyl DHT, but the A-ring modification would interefere with aromatase binding. Meaning if DHT is a weak anti-aromatase drug, then the activity mesterolone might still have would require in excess of 500mg per day to have any direct anti-aromatase effect worth having. If you are using Proviron specifically as an anti-estrogen, you are wasting your money. It's effect in this regard is no different than any other potent androgen.

-Drostanolone, the 2-methyl group isn't just an A-ring modification that prevents or limits aromatase binding, it structurally protects the 3-keto group from being reduced, which is a requirement for aromatase function. Drostanolone is absolutely NOT an aromatase blocker. This is just some label given to it by people who saw it was predominantly used in treatment for breast cancer (which it was quite good at, because despite its weak nature, it is a very pure androgen, with little or no interaction outside of the AR) and the fact that it was structurally related to DHT.

-Epistane, similar to drostanolone, the non17AA version Epitiostanol was principally used to treat breast cancer. There is no evidence or suggestion that points to either structure having the least bit of affinity for aromatase, let alone being a functionally active inhibitor in doses used.

- Stanozolol, is MOST DEFINITELY NOT an anti-estrogen. On the contrary. The study mentioned below shows that Stanozolol can actually induce partial estrogenic sexual maturation in ovariectomized female rats. It would actually be an extremely weak estrogen, rather than an anti-estrogen.

Whitney AC, Clark AS. Effects of acute stanozolol treatment on puberty in female rats. Biol Reprod 2001 May;64(5):1460-5.

So please, do not confuse these things. known AI's like letrozole, anastrozole and exemestane are anti-estrogens. SERMs are conditional anti-estrogens. DHT, as a very, very mild AI, could potentially be termed modestly anti-estrogenic. Pretty much all other androgens we use ARE NOT ANTI-ESTROGENIC. Their effect in counteracting estrogen is purely based on their activity at the AR, and the effect is always going to be greater for more potent androgens.

If there is no evidence of anti-estrogenic action, please don't go around saying it's anti-estrogenic. Any increase in A:E ratio by the addition of a non-aromatizing, non-estrogenic androgen will in fact have some apparent estrogen countering effect, simply because you are increasing the ratio of androgens to estrogens.

Big Cat...

 

[CFC]

The trouble with his argument is that it's false (or more accurately 'splitting hairs') - the outcome of pro-androgenic action in relevant tissues is technically 'anti-oestrogenic'. Indirectly. Though I said that before in inverted commas for the same reason he has. And of course it soon gets misinterpreted and taken to mean it modulates aromatase activity or whatever.

Interestingly with stanozolol, more recent research suggests not only does it have some weak oestrogen and progesterone action, it radically upregulates aromatase expression and oestrogen output directly, despite being 'non aromatising'. Which makes controlling its sides difficult.