Recomposition: Maintaining weight while losing fat
Replies
-
All, I'll let you know if age impacts any possible changes. I'm older than most (55+) and will be starting my recomp next week. I lost the 8-9 lbs I wanted to lose but am still carrying more body fat than I want and would also like some muscle definition.0
-
griffinca2 wrote: »All, I'll let you know if age impacts any possible changes. I'm older than most (55+) and will be starting my recomp next week. I lost the 8-9 lbs I wanted to lose but am still carrying more body fat than I want and would also like some muscle definition.
To be clear, I am not saying it does not impect it - for women or for men. It would just make it slower generally, not impossible.
good luck!0 -
griffinca2 wrote: »All, I'll let you know if age impacts any possible changes. I'm older than most (55+) and will be starting my recomp next week. I lost the 8-9 lbs I wanted to lose but am still carrying more body fat than I want and would also like some muscle definition.
The biggest impact with age is crappier recovery.
But there's various ways to optimise recovery. Also you can adapt programming to work around it.0 -
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.0 -
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
I was not saying that it was linear - and do not think it is. What do you consider normal ranges?0 -
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA0 -
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.0 -
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.
Ah so this is really only even applicable to men who should be on TRT anyway...
I don't know about you but I'd take an extra 60% testosterone any day
0 -
I'm not sure where the cut off would be for strength and muscle maintenance. Off the top of my head, I know that it has to drop to 10% of average without affecting libido in males, and yet all kinds of people erroneously believe that lowering testosterone is why male drive drops with aging.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
I was not saying that it was linear - and do not think it is. What do you consider normal ranges?0 -
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.
You are using the D-aspartic acid studies to show an increase in test but no impact on muscle mass? Or am I interpreting this incorrectly?0 -
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.
You are using the D-aspartic acid studies to show an increase in test but no impact on muscle mass? Or am I interpreting this incorrectly?
Yes, D-aspartic has been shown to increase testosterone, particularly in infertile men, as much as 60%. Even when that large an increase It hasn't been shown to impact muscle mass.0 -
Honestly, not sure I'd care for all of what goes on if testosterone is increased enough to make actual physiological changes.
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.
Ah so this is really only even applicable to men who should be on TRT anyway...
I don't know about you but I'd take an extra 60% testosterone any day
0 -
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.
You are using the D-aspartic acid studies to show an increase in test but no impact on muscle mass? Or am I interpreting this incorrectly?
Yes, D-aspartic has been shown to increase testosterone, particularly in infertile men, as much as 60%. Even when that large an increase It hasn't been shown to impact muscle mass.
Were these guys on an adequate volume progressive lifting routine with a quantified maintenance or caloric surplus?0 -
Not sure. Increasing testosterone to supranormal on its own increases muscle mass without increasing activity.
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.
You are using the D-aspartic acid studies to show an increase in test but no impact on muscle mass? Or am I interpreting this incorrectly?
Yes, D-aspartic has been shown to increase testosterone, particularly in infertile men, as much as 60%. Even when that large an increase It hasn't been shown to impact muscle mass.
Were these guys on an adequate volume progressive lifting routine with a quantified maintenance or caloric surplus?
0 -
I think we're getting a bit off track at this point with the testosterone discussion debate.
The good thing about this thread so far is that it is fairly succinct (in comparison to most MFP threads). The T discussion can easily get its own thread.0 -
Not sure. Increasing testosterone to supranormal on its own increases muscle mass without increasing activity.
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.
You are using the D-aspartic acid studies to show an increase in test but no impact on muscle mass? Or am I interpreting this incorrectly?
Yes, D-aspartic has been shown to increase testosterone, particularly in infertile men, as much as 60%. Even when that large an increase It hasn't been shown to impact muscle mass.
Were these guys on an adequate volume progressive lifting routine with a quantified maintenance or caloric surplus?
And here is the problem with plucking studies out of the aether...0 -
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results. There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.
You are using the D-aspartic acid studies to show an increase in test but no impact on muscle mass? Or am I interpreting this incorrectly?
Yes, D-aspartic has been shown to increase testosterone, particularly in infertile men, as much as 60%. Even when that large an increase It hasn't been shown to impact muscle mass.
Thanks.
On looking at the three underlying studies (abstract only at the moment for the first two).
- looks like one was on men with normal levels - no impact to testosterone in the first place (and no impact on body comp), and another did show an increase (subjects had normal test levels I think also) - does not look like body comp was looked at in this.
- one was on men with a low sperm count - which it did improve - there was no note of body composition that I could see.
0 -
I wish I knew what in the hell you guys were talking about.0
-
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.
You are using the D-aspartic acid studies to show an increase in test but no impact on muscle mass? Or am I interpreting this incorrectly?
Yes, D-aspartic has been shown to increase testosterone, particularly in infertile men, as much as 60%. Even when that large an increase It hasn't been shown to impact muscle mass.
Were these guys on an adequate volume progressive lifting routine with a quantified maintenance or caloric surplus?
Only one of the studies looked at resistance trained men from what I could tell. No impact on body comp or total or free test in that one.0 -
Not sure. Increasing testosterone to supranormal on its own increases muscle mass without increasing activity.
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.
You are using the D-aspartic acid studies to show an increase in test but no impact on muscle mass? Or am I interpreting this incorrectly?
Yes, D-aspartic has been shown to increase testosterone, particularly in infertile men, as much as 60%. Even when that large an increase It hasn't been shown to impact muscle mass.
Were these guys on an adequate volume progressive lifting routine with a quantified maintenance or caloric surplus?
And here is the problem with plucking studies out of the aether...
And it is better to assume that just any increase in testosterone will benefit muscle gain, sans clinical evidence?
Testosterone doesn't just increase recovery, despite what some people think. It also increases muscle mass without regard to stimulus. However, the effect isn't linear enough to be appreciable. You need to have supranormal amounts to denote clinically significant effects.
If you want aspartic acid (without regard to testosterone changes it made in subjects), there is this study showing it not affecting muscle mass:
http://www.nrjournal.com/article/S0271-5317(13)00173-5/abstractd-Aspartic acid supplementation combined with 28 days of heavy resistance training has no effect on body composition, muscle strength, and serum hormones associated with the hypothalamo-pituitary-gonadal axis in resistance-trained men
Darryn S. Willoughbycorrespondenceemail, Brian Leutholtz0 -
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.
You are using the D-aspartic acid studies to show an increase in test but no impact on muscle mass? Or am I interpreting this incorrectly?
Yes, D-aspartic has been shown to increase testosterone, particularly in infertile men, as much as 60%. Even when that large an increase It hasn't been shown to impact muscle mass.
Were these guys on an adequate volume progressive lifting routine with a quantified maintenance or caloric surplus?
Only one of the studies looked at resistance trained men from what I could tell. No impact on body comp or total or free test in that one.
Stuff like this gets away from what is important, IMHO:
Get a bar in your hands (or other implements) and do the work, eat the food and put in the time.
It really doesn't have to be too complicated.
Young people have it easier. Older people have to work a bit smarter/longer. We're all going to make it brah...5 -
Agreed. The most damning thing for an older individual will be over believing their age will reduce their ability.
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.
You are using the D-aspartic acid studies to show an increase in test but no impact on muscle mass? Or am I interpreting this incorrectly?
Yes, D-aspartic has been shown to increase testosterone, particularly in infertile men, as much as 60%. Even when that large an increase It hasn't been shown to impact muscle mass.
Were these guys on an adequate volume progressive lifting routine with a quantified maintenance or caloric surplus?
Only one of the studies looked at resistance trained men from what I could tell. No impact on body comp or total or free test in that one.
Stuff like this gets away from what is important, IMHO:
Get a bar in your hands (or other implements) and do the work, eat the food and put in the time.
It really doesn't have to be too complicated.
Young people have it easier. Older people have to work a bit smarter/longer. We're all going to make it brah...
2 -
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.
You are using the D-aspartic acid studies to show an increase in test but no impact on muscle mass? Or am I interpreting this incorrectly?
Yes, D-aspartic has been shown to increase testosterone, particularly in infertile men, as much as 60%. Even when that large an increase It hasn't been shown to impact muscle mass.
Were these guys on an adequate volume progressive lifting routine with a quantified maintenance or caloric surplus?
Only one of the studies looked at resistance trained men from what I could tell. No impact on body comp or total or free test in that one.
Stuff like this gets away from what is important, IMHO:
Get a bar in your hands (or other implements) and do the work, eat the food and put in the time.
It really doesn't have to be too complicated.
Young people have it easier. Older people have to work a bit smarter/longer. We're all going to make it brah...
My original point was actually to the poster saying exactly that, who btw was female so this side conversation is not even relevant to. It's totally possible if you are older - its often just a bit slower and you need to be a bit more intelligent with your programming.0 -
Agreed. The most damning thing for an older individual will be over believing their age will reduce their ability.
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.
You are using the D-aspartic acid studies to show an increase in test but no impact on muscle mass? Or am I interpreting this incorrectly?
Yes, D-aspartic has been shown to increase testosterone, particularly in infertile men, as much as 60%. Even when that large an increase It hasn't been shown to impact muscle mass.
Were these guys on an adequate volume progressive lifting routine with a quantified maintenance or caloric surplus?
Only one of the studies looked at resistance trained men from what I could tell. No impact on body comp or total or free test in that one.
Stuff like this gets away from what is important, IMHO:
Get a bar in your hands (or other implements) and do the work, eat the food and put in the time.
It really doesn't have to be too complicated.
Young people have it easier. Older people have to work a bit smarter/longer. We're all going to make it brah...
And that was totally the opposite to what I originally posted.0 -
Not sure. Increasing testosterone to supranormal on its own increases muscle mass without increasing activity.
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.
You are using the D-aspartic acid studies to show an increase in test but no impact on muscle mass? Or am I interpreting this incorrectly?
Yes, D-aspartic has been shown to increase testosterone, particularly in infertile men, as much as 60%. Even when that large an increase It hasn't been shown to impact muscle mass.
Were these guys on an adequate volume progressive lifting routine with a quantified maintenance or caloric surplus?
And here is the problem with plucking studies out of the aether...
And it is better to assume that just any increase in testosterone will benefit muscle gain, sans clinical evidence?
Testosterone doesn't just increase recovery, despite what some people think. It also increases muscle mass without regard to stimulus. However, the effect isn't linear enough to be appreciable. You need to have supranormal amounts to denote clinically significant effects.
If you want aspartic acid (without regard to testosterone changes it made in subjects), there is this study showing it not affecting muscle mass:
http://www.nrjournal.com/article/S0271-5317(13)00173-5/abstractd-Aspartic acid supplementation combined with 28 days of heavy resistance training has no effect on body composition, muscle strength, and serum hormones associated with the hypothalamo-pituitary-gonadal axis in resistance-trained men
Darryn S. Willoughbycorrespondenceemail, Brian Leutholtz
But were test levels different?
0 -
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.
You are using the D-aspartic acid studies to show an increase in test but no impact on muscle mass? Or am I interpreting this incorrectly?
Yes, D-aspartic has been shown to increase testosterone, particularly in infertile men, as much as 60%. Even when that large an increase It hasn't been shown to impact muscle mass.
Were these guys on an adequate volume progressive lifting routine with a quantified maintenance or caloric surplus?
Only one of the studies looked at resistance trained men from what I could tell. No impact on body comp or total or free test in that one.
Stuff like this gets away from what is important, IMHO:
Get a bar in your hands (or other implements) and do the work, eat the food and put in the time.
It really doesn't have to be too complicated.
Young people have it easier. Older people have to work a bit smarter/longer. We're all going to make it brah...
Yeah things are just derailing at this point...c'mon y'all
let's lift and eat0 -
griffinca2 wrote: »All, I'll let you know if age impacts any possible changes. I'm older than most (55+) and will be starting my recomp next week. I lost the 8-9 lbs I wanted to lose but am still carrying more body fat than I want and would also like some muscle definition.
The biggest impact with age is crappier recovery.
But there's various ways to optimise recovery. Also you can adapt programming to work around it.
Agreed - also, potential for orthopedic injuries and degeneration. Biggest risk there though is impact cardio. Second is overly repetitive cardio (not switching things up).0 -
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.
You are using the D-aspartic acid studies to show an increase in test but no impact on muscle mass? Or am I interpreting this incorrectly?
Yes, D-aspartic has been shown to increase testosterone, particularly in infertile men, as much as 60%. Even when that large an increase It hasn't been shown to impact muscle mass.
Were these guys on an adequate volume progressive lifting routine with a quantified maintenance or caloric surplus?
Only one of the studies looked at resistance trained men from what I could tell. No impact on body comp or total or free test in that one.
Stuff like this gets away from what is important, IMHO:
Get a bar in your hands (or other implements) and do the work, eat the food and put in the time.
It really doesn't have to be too complicated.
Young people have it easier. Older people have to work a bit smarter/longer. We're all going to make it brah...
Yeah things are just derailing at this point...c'mon y'all
let's lift and eat
Personally, I like to understand someone's assertions (and relevant studies), especially if they are challenging something I have said.
However...that being said, and in line with what I have been saying...and coming from someone who is older than most people in this thread - and female...
.....you absolutely can make muscle and strength gains when older - basically the same way as you would when younger - you may just have to adapt a bit to factor in more recovery time. I know I have and as I say, I am older than most people who have posted in this thread.
0 -
griffinca2 wrote: »All, I'll let you know if age impacts any possible changes. I'm older than most (55+) and will be starting my recomp next week. I lost the 8-9 lbs I wanted to lose but am still carrying more body fat than I want and would also like some muscle definition.
The biggest impact with age is crappier recovery.
But there's various ways to optimise recovery. Also you can adapt programming to work around it.
Agreed - also, potential for orthopedic injuries and degeneration. Biggest risk there though is impact cardio. Second is overly repetitive cardio (not switching things up).
*nods* I have a knee issue (worn cartilage and some bone spurs) - and not from cardio - as I do not do it. I have to work around it/adapt. General recovery itself has never been an issue however (so far that is).0 -
griffinca2 wrote: »All, I'll let you know if age impacts any possible changes. I'm older than most (55+) and will be starting my recomp next week. I lost the 8-9 lbs I wanted to lose but am still carrying more body fat than I want and would also like some muscle definition.
The biggest impact with age is crappier recovery.
But there's various ways to optimise recovery. Also you can adapt programming to work around it.
Agreed - also, potential for orthopedic injuries and degeneration. Biggest risk there though is impact cardio. Second is overly repetitive cardio (not switching things up).
*nods* I have a knee issue (worn cartilage and some bone spurs) - and not from cardio - as I do not do it. I have to work around it/adapt. General recovery itself has never been an issue however (so far that is).
Ah, sorry
Glad your recovery's still ok 
Working around/adapting involves a whole other skillset - and mindset - imo. Like learning to attend to and interpret pain signals with more care, being more conscious of form, etc.
I'm probably not representative of most people here, so for me that means different things as far as the workouts I do, but I'm curious to know - have others approaching their middle years changed their approach to programming, rep ranges, etc.?
I'm thinking about maybe doing some Pilates to address stabilizers (bc of my special issues), and have become more interested in nutrition for health (at least in part to optimize recovery).0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions