best test booster
- Thread starter yoktonks
- Start date
LOLL brother, you will NEVER push your test "through the roof" with a test booster... im sorry but thats beyond laughable... do you have low test? if you think your going to get much of anything from a test booster, you are going to be pissed about wasting your money and time on such garbage bro...
Alls l know is he wants that shit through the roof boy.. gear booster or whateves
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are you talking about a natural herbal test booster? If so, don't expect much of anything in terms of results from them. Even the good ones are not going to "push your test through the roof". You may get some increase but it is not enough to translate into actual gains any different than normal.
Let me know your stats, goals, and experience and I can help set something up that will work for you
(PM me for a price list for Biotech Labs and 10% discount)
Saw Palmetto will be a waste of your money. As well as any OTC products labeled test booster. Here's one... actual testosterone. Actually cheaper than any commercially available OTC bs product out... and guaranteed to work.
MaxxPursuit
Senior Member
Theres no off the shelf test booster that is worth it. All wastes of money..
Cream rub... just kidding sounds like you want to be a Viking.
i hope you are getting a more clear understanding from the responses bro... you need to stick around here and learn, learn, learn otherwise you are going to end up learning many hard lessons that could be EASILY avoided...
50 points would be a huge benefit from a booster for sure... i agree...
I have tried Delta xt since I was able to buy it at dealer pricing through a friend. It was not bad, but there is much better stuff like sarms and when you are ready gear. you will find info about both here. Seems lots of guys are even combining gear with sams and getting good results.
Check out some ostarine it seems to be a good price for 2 months worth. Personally I have only done LGD, its more expensive, but gives better strength gains.
Check out some ostarine it seems to be a good price for 2 months worth. Personally I have only done LGD, its more expensive, but gives better strength gains.
SpikedEggnog
Active member
I'm not sure if anyone had covered this before, or if anyone cares to consider this, but there is no evidence that elevation of testosterone within the physiological range has any effect on muscle anabolism.
When you take testosterone in great amounts, in supraphysiological doses, there is an exponential incline in dose dependent anabolic reactions to testosterone. Conversely, if you gain an extra 300 units within the physiological range, you are not likely to make any significant gains you wouldn't have without that supplementation. Clinically, even an astronomical boost of 300 units, is insignificant.
In fact: There is no data showing that test boosters, even those that actually cause a measurable increase in serum testosterone, have ANY anabolic effect.
When you take testosterone in great amounts, in supraphysiological doses, there is an exponential incline in dose dependent anabolic reactions to testosterone. Conversely, if you gain an extra 300 units within the physiological range, you are not likely to make any significant gains you wouldn't have without that supplementation. Clinically, even an astronomical boost of 300 units, is insignificant.
In fact: There is no data showing that test boosters, even those that actually cause a measurable increase in serum testosterone, have ANY anabolic effect.
Last edited:
Well, you may be right, with a very significant caveat. Some people have a normal test level of 200-250. Some of those people are MASSIVE. That is simply how their hormonal axis equilibrated, and it's possible that individuals with very high anabolic receptor rating have physiologically lower testosterone. For that person, going from 200 to 500 wouldn't do jackshit.
In a clinical setting, real world clinic, you get two types of people classically diagnosed with low test range. One is a person that suspects low test due to signs and symptoms, and the other is totally an incidental finding in a routine panel. The incidental cases are more than 90% the volume of low test diagnosis.
So to sum up, if you are clinically deficient, there is a remote chance that'll help, but even in that case, I argue it wouldn't at all, unless proven wrong by actual data. That has yet to occur.
as i told you earlier, what i like to say when facts like this are written... "now THAT is a bitch slap of reality" I don't even have to add anything to this as it was summed up so perfectly...
Similar threads
