Running and/or high intensity training lowers testosterone

joejccva71

I just wanted to add one thing... The OP mentioned running 2 hours a day to train for a 5k or 10k....He knows nothing about running but he does know other stuff. OP if you run 2 hours a day then your likely training for a much longer race.

It was a subjective statement bro for the simple reason to get a point across. Nothing more.

Jeff92se

I just wanted to add one thing... The OP mentioned running 2 hours a day to train for a 5k or 10k....He knows nothing about running but he does know other stuff. OP if you run 2 hours a day then your likely training for a much longer race.

Right. It only takes a maximum of about 30-35 min to run a 5k. Especially if you trained for it.

CarsonRuns

I just wanted to add one thing... The OP mentioned running 2 hours a day to train for a 5k or 10k....He knows nothing about running but he does know other stuff. OP if you run 2 hours a day then your likely training for a much longer race.

To take it even a step further, there are very few runners at any level that will train 2 hours a day. Maybe an elite marathoner in base building phase. That's 14 hours a week, which is pretty hefty. At 6:00 m/m pace, that's 140 miles a week.

Now, a 2 hour run once a week for a mid level runner is pretty much encouraged, regardless of the distance you are training for (except maybe anything under a mile race).

Jacwhite22

So in the picture I posted on the first page you would prefer your guy have the build on the left as opposed to the build on the right?

Testosterone lowering or not....

To me, in regards to sexiness:

Runners' bodies > bodybuilders' bodies

::drool::

I may be biased though, since I am in fact a runnin' fool.

Jeff92se

So in the picture I posted on the first page you would prefer your guy have the build on the left as opposed to the build on the right?

Testosterone lowering or not....

To me, in regards to sexiness:

Runners' bodies > bodybuilders' bodies

::drool::

I may be biased though, since I am in fact a runnin' fool.

Not sure as he didn't quote your pic. But I don't think that sprinter was a bodybuilder so.....

markymarrkk

I enjoyed this Thread..... being offended about this post totally makes you sound like a little Biaatch

recriger

I just wanted to add one thing... The OP mentioned running 2 hours a day to train for a 5k or 10k....He knows nothing about running but he does know other stuff. OP if you run 2 hours a day then your likely training for a much longer race.

Kinda unfair.
One of the sentences in the original post is something like "..shows that TOO MUCH training is not necessarily a good thing". If i were to run 2 hours a day in training for a 5k, personally I would consider that to be "too much". So the statement above seems to be exactly what the OP is trying to point out in part. So if the OP is pointing out that 2 hrs for a 5k is too much, according to the above, he does know at least a little about running as well.

jacksonpt

I just wanted to add one thing... The OP mentioned running 2 hours a day to train for a 5k or 10k....He knows nothing about running but he does know other stuff. OP if you run 2 hours a day then your likely training for a much longer race.

Kinda unfair.
One of the sentences in the original post is something like "..shows that TOO MUCH training is not necessarily a good thing". If i were to run 2 hours a day in training for a 5k, personally I would consider that to be "too much". So the statement above seems to be exactly what the OP is trying to point out in part. So if the OP is pointing out that 2 hrs for a 5k is too much, according to the above, he does know at least a little about running as well.

I think "too much" is relative to the body, not to the event being trained for.

CarsonRuns

I just wanted to add one thing... The OP mentioned running 2 hours a day to train for a 5k or 10k....He knows nothing about running but he does know other stuff. OP if you run 2 hours a day then your likely training for a much longer race.

Kinda unfair.
One of the sentences in the original post is something like "..shows that TOO MUCH training is not necessarily a good thing". If i were to run 2 hours a day in training for a 5k, personally I would consider that to be "too much". So the statement above seems to be exactly what the OP is trying to point out in part. So if the OP is pointing out that 2 hrs for a 5k is too much, according to the above, he does know at least a little about running as well.

I'm pretty sure that was an exaggeration. As I stated previously, 2 hrs a day is unrealistic except for the most elite runners. Any mere mortal that attempts to run for 2 hours a day, every day is going to be hurt before they have testosterone issues. Again, 2 hour runs, one or two times a week, are not that out of the ordinary for runners that typically finish in the top 10% of medium sized races, regardless of distance.

recriger

I just wanted to add one thing... The OP mentioned running 2 hours a day to train for a 5k or 10k....He knows nothing about running but he does know other stuff. OP if you run 2 hours a day then your likely training for a much longer race.

Kinda unfair.
One of the sentences in the original post is something like "..shows that TOO MUCH training is not necessarily a good thing". If i were to run 2 hours a day in training for a 5k, personally I would consider that to be "too much". So the statement above seems to be exactly what the OP is trying to point out in part. So if the OP is pointing out that 2 hrs for a 5k is too much, according to the above, he does know at least a little about running as well.

I think "too much" is relative to the body, not to the event being trained for.

I was looking a bit narrow, this is true I suppose. In my mind I was partially crossing definitions I believe. There were several other possibilities that weren't considered. Ex. If someone was capable of much longer runs like marathons, but chose to run a 5k for whatever reason 2 hours wouldn't be too much for training.

I was looking from the other end of the spectrum (I could possibly walk/crawl a 5k with prior notice). If the furthest I ever intended to run was a 5 or 10K, 2 hr runs would be more like "over kill" instead of "too much" from specifically the training point of view.

"CaronsRuns"- Any person that can run that kind of distance is a much stronger person than I, in more than 1 sense. As one of the mere-ist of mere mortals I am perfectly capable of hurting myself before I even start running, I can forget about running far enough to develope any testosterone issues from it.

andrea9873

I'm glad I am not a man.

I lol when I see the big out of shape guy with a beer belly lifting weights...and now you are pretty much giving 'that guy' an excuse

Jeff92se

I'm glad I am not a man.

I lol when I see the big out of shape guy with a beer belly lifting weights...and now you are pretty much giving 'that guy' an excuse

I think being overweight is one factor of lower testosterone also.

sjohnny

I think being overweight is one factor of lower testosterone also.

I read or heard somewhere about having more fat contributing to lower testosterone and increased estrogen in men. I can't remember where I came across this but it made sense at the time.

MassiveDelta

Ex. If someone was capable of much longer runs like marathons, but chose to run a 5k for whatever reason 2 hours wouldn't be too much for training.

Not accurate at all if someone was capable of running marathons but chose to run a 5k they wouldn't train. A 5k would be like a short warm up before morning coffee and bathroom routine.

glaqua

Interesting studies, but your conclusions aren't actually supported by the studies.

1. One of the major factors in endurance running performance is how much heat the body generates and how it is able to shed that heat. Active muscles produce heat, and more muscle produces more heat. In order to maximize their performance, these elite athletes need to keep their weight as low as possible, which also means less muscle bulk. Therefore, they train and diet in order to NOT build muscle, and not gain weight. (or perhaps only gain muscle where it will help their running speed)

This has nothing to do with the amount of testosterone in their bodies.

2. Athletic performance, whether in strength or endurance , is highly corelated to muscle fatigue. That is, fatigued muscles do not perform as well as rested, fresh muscles. When doing back-to-back workouts, in either order, you will find that the second workout will not show the same ability as when you perform it on fresh muscles.

Since strength building exercises are generally performed 'to failure', you will find that if you attempt HIIT right after strength training, your performance will not be good. By your logic, this means that clearly strength training lowers testosterone. Or maybe it means that work performed above anaerobic threshold consumes muscle glycogen, and depletion of muscle glycogen negatively affects athletic performance.

3. Nowhere in any of the studies does it state that the lowered testosterone is a bad thing. It is merely a data point. Doctors should be aware that if they are testing a subject for hormone levels, the amount of training the subject performs should be a factor in interpreting the results. The first study directly states that the levels found were within clinical norms. This means that if you were tested, and the results are within clinical norms, the appropropriate response is 'carry on, nothing to see here".

4. To test your conclusions, one could set up an experiment where a group of athletes performs high intensity training to exhaustion. We then give our test group an intravenous injection of testosterone, and our control group receives a placebo. both groups then proceed to do strength training, at or near previously achieved maximums. If testosterone is the Popeye's Spinach like you seem to imply, the test group should then be able to set new maximums, which the control group is pretty much useless.

Now, the only studies related to this that I could quickly find tell me that testosterone (and other steroids in general) perform their magic during recovery, by helping to build more muscle at a faster pace. They might have an affect in how much agression you bring to a training session, but that would be overshadowed by how much muscle energy (glycogen) you bring to a session.

5. Even though you are not taking personal shots, and even though marathoners do not tend to have bulky muscles, I have a hard time describing someone who can maintain a running pace of 4:46/mile for 2 hours as "pretty weak".

TL;DR: Conclusions not supported by data, OPs post is more troll than infomercial

iplayoutside19

Another scientific study taken out of context? No way.

I'm coming off some injuries that could have been prevented had I reverted back to my previous life style of drinking beer, watching TV, and playing video games. In discussions with another MFP member over how I've injured my self doing things that were fun I was given this quote: "Exercise hurts, being obese KILLs." If lower testerone is the only side effect/injury I get from biking, running, swimming or anything else that I do..I'll take it.

LorinaLynn

I'm more amazed at how defensive guys are about a little hormone level... because, well... this:

3. Nowhere in any of the studies does it state that the lowered testosterone is a bad thing.

skullshank

weird....for some reason i always feel like ravaging my wife after a good cardio session...



or after anything for that matter. :laugh:

iplayoutside19

I'm more amazed at how defensive guys are about a little hormone level... because, well... this:

3. Nowhere in any of the studies does it state that the lowered testosterone is a bad thing.

I think it has more to do with this little bait in the OP:

is why marathon runners are pretty weak,

If you're going to say stuff like that, expect to get lit up.

The whole "My activity is better than your activity" Arguement is pretty weak.

joejccva71

Interesting studies, but your conclusions aren't actually supported by the studies.

1. One of the major factors in endurance running performance is how much heat the body generates and how it is able to shed that heat. Active muscles produce heat, and more muscle produces more heat. In order to maximize their performance, these elite athletes need to keep their weight as low as possible, which also means less muscle bulk. Therefore, they train and diet in order to NOT build muscle, and not gain weight. (or perhaps only gain muscle where it will help their running speed)

This has nothing to do with the amount of testosterone in their bodies.

2. Athletic performance, whether in strength or endurance , is highly corelated to muscle fatigue. That is, fatigued muscles do not perform as well as rested, fresh muscles. When doing back-to-back workouts, in either order, you will find that the second workout will not show the same ability as when you perform it on fresh muscles.

Since strength building exercises are generally performed 'to failure', you will find that if you attempt HIIT right after strength training, your performance will not be good. By your logic, this means that clearly strength training lowers testosterone. Or maybe it means that work performed above anaerobic threshold consumes muscle glycogen, and depletion of muscle glycogen negatively affects athletic performance.

3. Nowhere in any of the studies does it state that the lowered testosterone is a bad thing. It is merely a data point. Doctors should be aware that if they are testing a subject for hormone levels, the amount of training the subject performs should be a factor in interpreting the results. The first study directly states that the levels found were within clinical norms. This means that if you were tested, and the results are within clinical norms, the appropropriate response is 'carry on, nothing to see here".

4. To test your conclusions, one could set up an experiment where a group of athletes performs high intensity training to exhaustion. We then give our test group an intravenous injection of testosterone, and our control group receives a placebo. both groups then proceed to do strength training, at or near previously achieved maximums. If testosterone is the Popeye's Spinach like you seem to imply, the test group should then be able to set new maximums, which the control group is pretty much useless.

Now, the only studies related to this that I could quickly find tell me that testosterone (and other steroids in general) perform their magic during recovery, by helping to build more muscle at a faster pace. They might have an affect in how much agression you bring to a training session, but that would be overshadowed by how much muscle energy (glycogen) you bring to a session.

5. Even though you are not taking personal shots, and even though marathoners do not tend to have bulky muscles, I have a hard time describing someone who can maintain a running pace of 4:46/mile for 2 hours as "pretty weak".

TL;DR: Conclusions not supported by data, OPs post is more troll than infomercial

If am trolling with my original post, then by all means report it cause trolling is a violation of the ToS on MFP.