Posted on 19 Comments

Anabolic Steroids and Muscle Growth

Since at least the 1970’s and probably much earlier than that, anabolic steroids have been part of sport.  Testosterone was first synthesized in the 30’s and there are rumors of bodybuilders using it fairly early in the game.    Even then, many like to downplay the impact of the drugs, claiming they only help a little.    And, well, I disagree. So today I want to look at what is a somewhat unusual topic for me, the topic of anabolic steroids and muscle growth.

I am Not an Anabolic Steroid Expert

Ok, let me start this with a disclaimer: I am not a steroid guy. I know enough to be a little bit dangerous and can throw around big words like leutinizing hormone and steroidogenesis but that’s about it.  I’ve read most of the major books (and I have both Duchaine’s Ultimate Steroid Handbook and USHII so nyah nyah) because it interests me on some level but that’s it.   Here is some old school “knowledge”

Ultimate Steroid Handbook 1 and 2 and the World Anabolic Review

Yeah, fine, I probably know more about them than the man on the street but I’m no expert.  People have entreated me to become such and write about the topic but I don’t see it happening.  There are plenty of people out there who have forgotten more about the use and effects of anabolic steroids than I will ever possibly know.  So I’ll leave that topic to them.

So why am I writing about steroids?

I got out of college in 1993, where in addition to my studies (UCLA, kinesiology), I had made it part of my obsession to read all of the muscle magazines every month. What if one of them held the true true secret? I couldn’t afford not to read them. It was all the same stuff, Muscular Development, Ironman, M&F, Flex and the always hilarious Muscle Mag International which would publish the stupidest stuff you can imagine.  And they were all more less the same (really just supplement ads with pretty pictures).

The routines were asinine, ghost written and having nothing to do with what the pros were actually doing.   And since the goal of most of those magazines was to sell supplements to the gullible the drug issue was never addressed.  More explicitly it was ignored.  In many cases, guys who were obviously on steroids claimed to be natural.  The whole thing was one big smoke screen.

Muscle Media 2000

But in 1993, things changed, that’s when Muscle Media 2000 started. Bill Phillips, who had originally published an anabolic steroid newsletter saw the money in the industry and launched the magazine. I read it for years and years before it went full potato and I stopped.

While it was mostly a supplement catalog (ah, Phosphagain, HMB that feels like deca, CLA), there were also some gems in it. Dan Duchaine for one. Even when he was wrong he was still brilliant. His writings and Bodyopus diet would set me on the path of whatever my current job description is exactly.

In any case, in my dotage, I started wanting to back to the things of my youth.  Trust me, you’ll get there.  You’ll hit your late 30’s and early 40’s and try find all of the books, magazines, music and movies of your youth.  But you’ll have a much easier time of it because it was all digital for you.  I listened to music on cassette tapes.

Anyhow, someone on my Facebook group happened to have some back issues of MM2k that he was nice enough to send me (for some cash). And as I was reading through them, I was reminded of something that happened about three weeks ago because in a 1996 research review they looked in detail at a study I had talked about.

Someone Was Offended

On a podcast or another (Kinobody maybe), I had made a comment about the fact that studies showed clearly, that anabolic steroids build muscle and strength without even training.  I made a similar comment in the Webinars I did for the UK Epic Fitness Summit mentioning that these are studies people kind of don’t want to believe.

Let me state that clearly: studies clearly show that just taking anabolic steroids, without lifting a single weight, build muscle.  This is not debatable.

And someone took issue with it.

He came onto the my Facebook group and proceeded to show me everything that is wrong with reading comprehension in 2015.

My statement, exactly was “Steroids build muscle without training.”  Nothing more and nothing less.

But he appears to have heard “Steroids make you a competitive bodybuilder” or “Steroids build more and more muscle forever.”    And I said neither of those things.

No amount of explanation would make it clear to him that what I had said and what he had heard weren’t the same thing.  His arguments revolved around people who use steroids and still don’t look good and how just taking drugs can’t give you symmetry or whatever.

And all he was arguing with were what he thought he had heard me say.    Basically all he proved was his own illiteracy and inability to understand basic concepts and words no matter how many times they were explained to him.

Mainly he seemed to be downright offended at the suggestion that it was the drugs and not his impressive work ethic responsible for his gains and physique. Of course I had never suggested anything of the sort to begin with.

Once again, I said only what I said which was that “Steroids build muscle without training.”  I gave him the appropriate links to Pubmed so he could go look himself.  It didn’t matter because facts never do when emotion is on the line.  He was determined to keep arguing against what he thought I said rather than what I had actually said.  Finally I just booted him.  I can only stand so much stupid.

The Dirty Little Secret of the Industry

But this is one of those dirty little things, one I’ve talked about with a good buddy of mine: guys go on drugs  and then want to really downplay the effects of them.  They’ll say that they only help a little.  They’ll say that it’s just their ass busting training getting all of the work done.  Nevermind that when they go on drugs, their lifts take a quantum jump along with their muscle mass.  Or that those same lifts crater and they shrink despite the same hard training.

Still, they say, the drugs only help a little.  Sure.

Now don’t misread me.  I know that these people probably are training hard as hell and nothing I said discounts that.  My issue is with pretending that the drugs only help a little and it was mainly the training driving the results.  I mean when you can find pictures of bodybuilders who were 280 on drugs and who barely look like they lift when they come off…..dude, it’s the drugs.

As an example, here’s Kevin Levrone both on and off drugs.

Kevin Levrone On and Off Anabolic Steroids

Don’t get me wrong, he was still pretty buff when he was off drugs.  But he was a different species of human when he was on.  This is not helping “A little”

So Just How Much Do They Help?

And that’s all just one gigantic leadin to the point of this article, to look at some of the studies on this topic to see what the real-world effects of anabolics are on size and strength, even without training. Most of this work comes from a group led by a Bhasin and I’ll provide links to the specific papers for people who want to delve. Most of the papers are free full text if you want to really get up your own butt or check my math.

The First Paper: Testosterone vs. Exercise

The first paper his group did came out in 1996 and is really the key one, it had the impressive title of “The effects of supraphysiologic doses of testosterone on muscle size and strength in normal men.” and was the paper reviewed in the MM2k that made me want to write this piece.

In the study he took 40 men and assigned them to one of four groups: placebo with no exercise, 600 mg testosterone with no exercise, exercise only, 600 mg testosterone with exercise. They were at least given a standardized diet although they weren’t in a metabolic ward so there is some potential self-reporting issues.

For perspective on this dose consider that Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) for men is usually in the realm of 150-200 mg of testosterone per week.  So these men were given roughly 3-4 times that much.  This is a lot of testosterone.

The training was a little weird, they did squat and bench only three times per week for 4 sets of 6 with varying intensity week to week and weights were increased at week 5. It wasn’t the greatest training program but it turns out to kind of not matter. Muscle size was measured by MRI and strength was tested directly for 1 repetition maximum. This went on for 10 weeks. Here are the results.

Changes in Muscle and Strength for Testosterone vs. Exercise

To nobody’s surprise the placebo group saw no changes in anything.  Exercise alone got the guys four and one half pounds muscle in 10 weeks which isn’t bad.  But steroids alone generated 6.6 lbs of LBM in the same 10 weeks.  That’s one high dose shot of long-acting testosterone per week to make more gains than training.   Yes, the combined group did best with the gains being close to what you’d predict by just adding the two together.

But it doesn’t change the point:

Steroids alone built more muscle than exercise alone along with just as much strength.

Let me add that, to my understanding, a single shot once per week is not an ideal dosing schedule due to the pattern of release of the drugs.   Rather, 300 mg twice/week would give far more stable testosterone levels and, I would surmise, better results still.

Let me also note that despite being a supraphysiological dose of testosterone, 600 mg/week is still kind of a baby dose relative to what athletes actually use.  In some circles, one gram of testosterone per week is considered being natural and generic cycles may include several grams of testosterone per week.  And the industry always seem to include one crazy recommending up to a gram PER DAY.

So if a “relatively low” (relative to real world use) level of testosterone builds more muscle than just training, imagine what the real world doses are doing…Just imagine.

Now, this was a single study using a single dose of testosterone over 10 weeks.  What happens when you use different amounts or go longer?

The Second Study: Dose-Response to Testosterone

In a followup study titled “Testosterone dose-response relationships in healthy young men.” the same group gave men doses of 25, 50, 125, 300 or 600 mg of testosterone enanthate per week for 20 weeks.  Importantly, the men were told to do no training during the study.  These were the results

Testosterone Dose-Response

So what you see is that the two lowest doses had no effect and then there was a progressively greater increase in LBM gains with an increasing dose.  And that the 600 mg testosterone group gained 17.4 lbs of LBM in 20 weeks with no training whatsoever.  This is nearly a year’s worth of gains for a natural trainee doing everything right.  And it was still 4 lbs more gains than the previous study had generated in 10 weeks with steroids and exercise.  The drugs alone worked better.

Now some people reading this who know a little bit about anabolic steroids will be thinking “What about water weight?”  A known effect of anabolic steroids is an increase in water and this can certainly represent some of the “lean body mass” gains that show up.

So Bhasin looked at this too.  A followup analysis of the second study showed clearly that the increasing doses of anabolics were associated with muscle fiber growth in both Type I and Type II fibers and increased myonuclear number.  This second bit is interesting since there is some evidence that increased myonuclei number underly the muscle memory effect.

Basically, the LBM gains in this study was real growth.  And it occurred in healthy males doing no training.  The same research group also showed that   anabolics alone activate satellite cells, a crucial step in muscle growth.

Once again, this is with drugs alone and no training.

The Third Study: Hypogonadal Men

Hypogonadism, a testosterone level below the low normal range, is not uncommon in men.  And is ideally treated with Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT).  As above a typical dose is 150-200 mg of long-acting testosterone per week.

And while it’s not a perfect model for otherwise healthy individuals, one study found that a baby dose of 100 mg/week of testosterone enanthate increased muscle mass by 11 lbs in 10 weeks in hypogonadal men.  With no training, zero fat gain and a measured increase in both triceps and quadriceps size.  With a mere 100 mg/week, bringing testosterone from low back to normal.

I’d have loved to see what 600 mg/week did for these guys.

More Testosterone Means More Muscle

And finally, in another analysis, the same group made a prediction that basically shows that more testosterone means more growth.  That is, as the does goes up, so do the gains.

Much earlier Gilbert Forbes has done similar work although he was looking at the total steroid dose  over time and it’s relation to LBM gains.  But his results were right in line with this work, showing clearly that the greater the total steroid dose, the more muscle that was gained.

Forbes Model of Anabolic Steroids and Muscle Growth

When he looked at the total dose of anabolics taken over the duration of a cycle, more steroids means more growth up to about 10,000mg total which gave 20kg (45 lbs) of muscle gained.   That is a career’s worth of gains.

Perhaps more interestingly, if you look at the key, that gain was made with nothing but oxandrolone (anavar) which is usually considered a relatively weak drug to begin with.  And it didn’t matter.  The athlete who took 10,000 mg of it over some unindicated time frame gained more LBM than most can gain in an entire career of natural lifting.

The First Take Home Message

His illiteracy notwithstanding, the guy who came onto my FB group to complain really didn’t have a leg to stand on. I had stated that steroids will build muscle without training and all the science backs that statement. They build strength, muscle without any training whatsoever. Even when diet wasn’t optimized or possibly controlled they still do this.  They do it.  And they do it well, generating gains far in excess of what training alone can do over the same time frame.

Will steroids keep building muscle forever so you gain and gain?  Probably not although the one longer study is suggestive. At some point you’d have to take more to keep growing and this is consistent with real world use.  Duchaine once wrote that all of the complex stacking and cycling was irrelevant.  That at the end of the day it came down to just taking more.  I think he was right. Just go fool around with weights a little bit and keep upping the dosage when you plateau.

Does any of this mean just taking drugs will make someone a stage ready bodybuilder or give them symmetry or balance? Of course it won’t.  But I never said that even if that’s what this guy heard. Our hypothetical non-training steroid using bodybuilder would at least need some fat burners to get contest lean.

Throw in some clen, thyroid and GH (or go nuts with DNP) and you can get ripped without having to even diet too hard. That still won’t make up for poor muscle bellies, symmetry and all of that but you get my point. A guy with 600 mg/week of anabolics and some basic fat burners will outgain and out lean a guy busting his ass in the weight room and watching his diet.  It’s not even an arguable point.

Does this mean that it will make them a great athlete without training?  Of course not.   This is especially true when you’re looking at performance rather than just muscle mass per se.  Performance has an immense number of other factors that steroids can’t necessarily help. Which is what led one person in the field to conclude that drugs only help a little.

I mean, he’s still wrong because his “little” (about a 10% difference in performance) is the difference in first and 40th-100th places in most sports.   Importantly,  anabolic steroids allow people to train more, at a higher intensity, more frequently and grow, gain strength and recover significantly than if they are not being taken.  This is also non-debatable and clearly the idea that they only “help a little” is nonsense.

Issurin wrote in one of his books that steroids will make an athlete adapt positive to any kind of training and that you could only learn about training by looking at non-drug using athletes. He’s probably right.  They sure as hell make you bigger and stronger without training so you have to figure that anything done beyond that will improve almost no matter what.

The Second Take Home Message

To deny that steroids build muscle, strength, etc. without training is simply not supported by the science.  They work. Well.  And the 600 mg/week used in these studies is still a moderate dose by today’s standards. Guys are using multiple times that with multiple drugs and if you want to know why naturals are stuck in the 180s if they are lucky and the top pros are up at 280 and ripped, well…now you know.

More is better, that’s what more means.

And guys now just take more along with a lot of other ancillary drugs that add further to the effect.

Does this mean that guys who are using don’t train hard or work hard? Absolutely not and that’s usually where people get into trouble with this. They equate the statement of “Drugs work without training” as “You guys don’t train hard.” Those aren’t synonymous statements.  But more people in the world really need to buy Hooked on Phonics because their reading comprehension is simply appalling.

Drugs just enhance the training process, clearly by a lot more than most people want to admit or recognize. It can at least double the gains in muscle that training produces and longer periods of just drugs still beat both in terms of LBM and strength gains.

As well, the effect of these drugs explains why so much bullshit training and diet advice sure seems to work just fine for guys.  With enough drugs, the training barely matters.  With enough drugs, the diet barely matters.  Pro bodybuilders found this out the hard way when contests decided to test and nobody could get into shape.   The drugs covered up all the mistakes.

It’s also why taking advice from guys who are juicing about training and diet is generally a poor idea.  So long as they take enough drugs, the rest of it truly barely matters.  When they plateau or stop growing or getting leaner, the solution is not more intelligent training or dieting.  It’s taking more drugs.

And the bottom line is that when it comes to anabolic steroids and muscle growth, they work incredibly.  At even moderate (by real-world standards) doses they build more muscle than training alone.  That may not make you a great bodybuilder or athlete but my original statement that anabolic steroids build muscle without training still stands.

Similar Posts:

Facebook Comments

19 thoughts on “Anabolic Steroids and Muscle Growth

  1. On the one hand it’s a little depressing because at the age of 52, I’m busting my ass training and could get a better result with some t therapy which at my age is easy to get.

    On the other hand I actually enjoy training more than anything else in my life so who cares if I can’t bench 400 pounds.

  2. Glad to see you writing again Lyle. First time commenter, long time lurker of your site. After being diagnosed with low testosterone at 44, I’ve been on TRT for 8 months. I’ve noticed considerable muscle, endurance, and strength gains on baby doses of 140 mg/week with cardio and 2 weight training days a week.

    I’ve been very happy with the results, but it has not made me look like the “Greek God” I imagined TRT would. I found the study to be very informative, especially the comparison of LBM gains to the different dosage amounts.

    Like you mentioned in the article, TRT programs are designed to get you into the high end of the normal range, but it would be very interesting to see what 600 mg/week would do.

  3. Great article, Lyle. I ran across the ’96 study while reading one of Brad Pilon’s books. I was a bit shocked that the guys on steroids and no training gained more than the guys who trained drug-free. I wasn’s aware of the other ones you have cited here. Just shows that steroids are a major game-changer, regardless of whether or not people are willing to admit it.

  4. Lyle have you ever come across information supporting that TRT levels of test will increase one’s gains, if they were not already deficient. Some ‘gurus’ suggest it will because you will have constantly high levels rather than peaks and troughs throughout the day. I understand this BUT the studies I have seen seem to indicate NO additional muscle or strength at 125mg/week in those who already have normal levels. So it appears the gurus are wrong but don’t accept this.

    Do you have any additional information one way or the other?

  5. Same comment I made on FB: This isn’t something I ever pay that much attention to. usually within the normal range, small changes don’t do much. Correcting a deficiency, yes. Going big, yes. Farting around in the middle, no so much.

  6. I would like to hear you talk about a GH peptide, a guy at my gym says that they are way better and will help build a bit of muscle along with other things but will keep me in a aesthetic point of view and not some 250lb monster,he said they dont really have side effects and all they do is give you a bit more of the natural growth hormone. Also saying that they are legal where i live, he also said quite a few other things.

  7. Still not really a drug guy but raising GH by itself does very little.

  8. Lyle,

    A nice trip down memory lane with muscle media 2000.

    The articles by dan duchaine were awesome.

    Bill Phillips was certainly a brilliant marketer and I am grateful to muscle media for exposing me to authors like Duchaine.

    It is evident that drugs are the key variable in determining the ultimate landing point for muscle size in non-natural competitors.

    The effects of drugs are simply mediated and moderated by a number of other variables (i.e dose, types, training, genes, diet etc).

    People get confused when you isolate one variable in an equation and think that you mean this is the only variable in the equation.

    It is the most important, but that then does not mean other variables are unimportant.

    paul d

  9. This is such an interesting article; thanks Lyle.

    Your comment above also makes a lot of sense, and helps to avoid overthinking: ‘usually within the normal range, small changes don’t do much. Correcting a deficiency, yes. Going big, yes. Farting around in the middle, no so much.’

  10. As always Lyle, your article is well written and IMO correct.

    Within 2 months I am hopeful my forthcoming book THE Definitive Testosterone Replacement Therapy Manual will offer men an excellent resource guide on using TRT productively, long term and in the context of health and longevity.

    You are 100% correct on the accepted research but there is extremely limited data on advanced athletes/bodybuilders to truly understand if an increased dosage over time is the only way to continue to build more and more muscle. Was DD right? Maybe and maybe not. A lot of factors to consider primarily the genetic component.

    My contention is that a standard T dosage of between 150-300mgs per week for life (once a man’s natural levels are suboptimal) will allow most men to continue to improve their physique assuming diet, training and lifestyle is conducive to such. Anecdotally there are thousands of men around the world who are the living embodiment of this belief.

    The issues that come with the usage of AAS are when synthetics aka Anabolics are also used in supraphysiologic dosages. This causes severe endocrine disruptions and usually the unwanted and negative side effects espoused and hyperbolized in the popular media.

    When using T, it is important one is under the care and guidance of a progressive TRT dispensing physician to achieve balance between T and E so the patient has extraordinary results and excellent long term health.

  11. All true but not really my point. No, there isn’t research on athletes or advanced guys but look at reality: guys are a full 60 lbs heavier at contest leanness since Arnold’s day, with guys hitting 280 on contest shape.

    Training and nutrition aren’t changed but drug use has. And it’s not just anabolics, GH, IGF-1, peptides, lord knows what is being used at the top these days. Drugs work and they work amazingly well and my main point was that this idea that they ‘only work a little’ that athletes use to rationalize that it’s just their work ethic is just that (again not denying that many bust their balls but the drugs work a LOT).

    When 600 mg/week for 20 weeks will put on nearly a years worth of gains for a hard training male (maybe 20-25 lbs if he’s lucky) without training, clearly drugs work amazingly. That’s my only point.

  12. Hi Lyle,

    Really interesting read, thanks.

    What would likely happen to the group who were on the testosterone and training once the study was over and they ceased taking the testosterone? Assuming they continued a training regimen and ate a healthy diet could they hope to maintain much of the LBM gains made during the study?

  13. Muscle media 2000 was the mag back then. Remember the steriod star profile on the back?
    Laurabolin 50 anyone? Haha

  14. This article is really interesting of the implications of steroids. This shows how appealing steroids are for those not in sports and those in. Someone could build more muscle mass without really trying and that could mean a lot of money. It sure is appealing and I see why it is tempting to all athletes.

  15. I can only speak of my personal experience and I don’t think people should use me as any form of benchmark. I’m currently 5 years drug free and 237.5lbs (as mentioned before) at 13% BF just starting my cut for the summer. I started training, after a 5 year off period, in January 5 months ago. At that time I was almost 290lbs and obese. 33-35% BF. Maybe this speaks to the long term effects of steroids? The fact that I lost 60lbs of fat and gained over 10lbs of lean mass in a few months? I believe so.

    However, I am one of those genetically gifted people. At 14 years old I started lifting weights and it took me a couple months to hit a 300lb bench press.

    So, a few years ago I decided to take steroids. Within 1 year I was over 300lbs at about 15% BF eating 7-10k calories per day. I responded extremely well to steroids.

    I’m saying all this so you have an idea of the individual making this comment. My experience with steroids was that more was NOT better. I tried taking 75mg/day of trenbolone and it felt like I was going to die. The most testosterone I was ever able to take was 800mg and that was for a week before my blood pressure went so high my ears were ringing constantly. I personally make substantial gains, at one time 15lbs in a week, off of 75mg tren every other day.

    I can’t imagine people taking grams of testosterone per week. My head would have exploded.

    Just one persons input. I personally don’t think pros are taking huge doses. I think there are some of us that are genetically predisposed to make huge gains off small amounts.

  16. Hi Lyle great article!

    When I was in my mid 20’s I did a short cycle of testosterone and noticed some decent gains both in strength and size but nothing to make me want to keep doing it, now 20 years later I have been on TRT and it has made a world of difference much more noticeable now than it was when I was in my 20’s, so yes drugs can have a significant impact and for me they have been a lifesaver in the gym, I can now keep up decently with my 19-year-old son both strength wise and endurance.

  17. Hi Lyle,

    Great read mate and some very interesting points.

    I have been using anabolic steroids for years (mainly Anavar and Dianobol) and have just approached my six month clean. I am a big believer that steroids only compliment training and effort is required in order to maximize their results.

    Thanks for the detail and level of research that has gone into this.


  18. Since I can’t post in the I thread.

    There are a few items missing from the list,.

    Derek Hansen, Jimmy Moore

    There are two more, one is about. hm, a panned with some runners and one is about two hours long? I don’t really remember but can look up if Lyle won’t remember.

  19. Wasn’t the point of the article. The point of the article is that steroids build muscle without training, often more muscle than with training depending on dose. Anavar is mild at best (a girl’s drug).

Comments are closed.