Hypogonadism

Satellite

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2018
Messages
159
Is sodium d-aspartate a pro hormone?. I would rather not mess with my hormones atm

No it is an amino acid.
However, it increase excitation, so that is why it is used as a test booster.
Test increases GABA and dopamine, so it offers a nice counterbalance.

Sodium D-Aspartate (SDA) does signal your testes and HPTA to produce as much testosterone as your body is naturally capable of doing.
The study done on it shows that it increases testicular output in men who are already in the normal range of testosterone by 40%.

So it can boost you into the higher end range of test, which is rare for natural test boosters.
Natural test boosters usually only help people with low T get into the normal range.

Any form of Aspartic Acid is neurotoxic in high doses though.
Unfortunately, the study done used 3 gram doses on an empty stomach in the morning, which is a high dose.

So I only use a half scoop twice a day, or just 3/4 scoop in the morning to keep the dose lower.
It still works great that way for me.

What I have also done is bought the supplement and threw out the SDA and kept the other powder with the anti estrogens/androgen receptor booster, etc.
Then I used tongkat ali and raw pine pollen powder from raw forest foods instead to boost the testes as it does the same thing as the SDA.
The anti-estrogen/androgen receptor booster increases the absorption of the tongkat ali and pine pollen and shifts me to androgen dominance.
So the results are pretty much the same, maybe even better as pine pollen has all 4 male sex hormones.
So I am not just getting my testes on full force, I am also supplementing with a plethra of androgens that get absorbed well.
The end result is a powerful increase in masculinity in addition to excellent functioning of my sexual reproduction organs.
Oh and the ladies love it wink.
 

Satellite

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2018
Messages
159
Nice, is sodium aspartate also toxic as the acid ?

Yes.

Any form of Aspartic Acid is neurotoxic in high doses though.
Unfortunately, the study done used 3 gram doses on an empty stomach in the morning, which is a high dose.

So I only use a half scoop twice a day, or just 3/4 scoop in the morning to keep the dose lower.
It still works great that way for me.

What I have also done is bought the supplement and threw out the SDA and kept the other powder with the anti estrogens/androgen receptor booster, etc.
Then I used tongkat ali and raw pine pollen powder from raw forest foods instead to boost the testes as it does the same thing as the SDA.
The anti-estrogen/androgen receptor booster increases the absorption of the tongkat ali and pine pollen and shifts me to androgen dominance.

So the results are pretty much the same, maybe even better as pine pollen has all 4 male sex hormones.
So I am not just getting my testes on full force, I am also supplementing with a plethra of androgens that get absorbed well.
The end result is a powerful increase in masculinity in addition to excellent functioning of my sexual reproduction organs.
Oh and the ladies love it wink.
 

Satellite

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2018
Messages
159
But if a weird one but is the cause of a dry glans low estradiol or high estradiol?

Sorry, but I am not quite clear on what you are asking.
Can you restate it, please?
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
What you say does make sense and can indeed be explained in the Ray Peat lens.

Estrogen, tryptophan cause growth but via the stress pathway and Ray speaks about this.

I am not so sure that gaining strength and muscle is hard in an androgenic environment though. It's easier in the long run. This is precisely why most people who are professional in any sport use steroids or other anabolic drug. There absolutely are really fat really strong people especially in powerlifting for sure.

That said you definitely cannot get quite as strong without getting fat, but you can get quite far, a lot farther than most people may think. Actually it is the leaner strong people that achieve the strongest Strength/Body weight ratios and still achieve incredible feats of strength surpassing what most gym bros ever get to. I am not sure the # offhand, but aren't there 160 lb people with a 700+ deadlift record?

I guess what I'm saying is there are two growth pathways. One is stressful, the other is not. I would agree that optimizing the non-stressful pathway is definitely a lot harder, and few achieve it outside of taking drugs, which is why most take that route. I think it involves something you alluded to, which is being able to eat lots of calories in a lean state. And you may not necessarily break any world records using the non-stressful pathway, but keep in mind that there are low weight-class powerlifting competitions in which people achieve extraordinary feats of strength without getting fat. I remember when I used to post on the bodybuilding.com forums and there was this one dude that had a 405 lb bench press (raw) and he only weighed 150 lb. Okay, reflecting on what I say, non-stressful isn't the word I'd use. Stress that is within your bodys' tolerance to handle, is the better word to use here, since a 700 lb deadlift is going to be somewhat stressful, even for the strong guy.

It sounds like we mostly agree. I guess TL;DR what I'm trying to say is I think I basically agree with you that the estrogen pathway to growth usually leads overall to more muscle (but also fat) and strength, but also all sorts of other metabolic dysfunction (that to me, isn't worth the gains in strength). I've always been in love with powerlifting, I used to do it, but I used to use the stress-pathway to get stronger, and this go around once I fix my metabolism I plan to get back into lifting, but using the anabolic pathway to grow and get stronger instead. The trick is to lift hard enough to induce anabolism, but not induce lactic acid buildup in the body. I am thinking once I perfect my diet I will shift my focus on building an ideal workout routine to achieve just that. Being able to perform a 1,000-1,200 lb squat would be awesome, but virtually everyone who can do that weighs 300-400 lbs and have massive metabolic disorders. I'd settle for a 600-700 lb squat but be lean and healthy. A 600 lb squat is more than 99.99% of the population can do anyway lol.
 
Last edited:

Satellite

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2018
Messages
159
What you say does make sense and can indeed be explained in the Ray Peat lens.

Estrogen, tryptophan cause growth but via the stress pathway and Ray speaks about this.

I am not so sure that gaining strength and muscle is hard in an androgenic environment though. It's easier in the long run. This is precisely why most people who are professional in any sport use steroids or other anabolic drug. There absolutely are really fat really strong people especially in powerlifting for sure.

That said you definitely cannot get quite as strong without getting fat, but you can get quite far, a lot farther than most people may think. Actually it is the leaner strong people that achieve the strongest Strength/Body weight ratios and still achieve incredible feats of strength surpassing what most gym bros ever get to. I am not sure the # offhand, but aren't there 160 lb people with a 700+ deadlift record?

I guess what I'm saying is there are two growth pathways. One is stressful, the other is not. I would agree that optimizing the non-stressful pathway is definitely a lot harder, and few achieve it outside of taking drugs, which is why most take that route. I think it involves something you alluded to, which is being able to eat lots of calories in a lean state. And you may not necessarily break any world records using the non-stressful pathway, but keep in mind that there are low weight-class powerlifting competitions in which people achieve extraordinary feats of strength without getting fat. I remember when I used to post on the bodybuilding.com forums and there was this one dude that had a 405 lb bench press (raw) and he only weighed 150 lb. Okay, reflecting on what I say, non-stressful isn't the word I'd use. Stress that is within your bodys' tolerance to handle, is the better word to use here, since a 700 lb deadlift is going to be somewhat stressful, even for the strong guy.

It sounds like we mostly agree. I guess TL;DR what I'm trying to say is I think I basically agree with you that the estrogen pathway to growth usually leads overall to more muscle (but also fat) and strength, but also all sorts of other metabolic dysfunction (that to me, isn't worth the gains in strength). I've always been in love with powerlifting, I used to do it, but I used to use the stress-pathway to get stronger, and this go around once I fix my metabolism I plan to get back into lifting, but using the anabolic pathway to grow and get stronger instead. The trick is to lift hard enough to induce anabolism, but not induce lactic acid buildup in the body. I am thinking once I perfect my diet I will shift my focus on building an ideal workout routine to achieve just that. Being able to perform a 1,000-1,200 lb squat would be awesome, but virtually everyone who can do that weighs 300-400 lbs and have massive metabolic disorders. I'd settle for a 600-700 lb squat but be lean and healthy. A 600 lb squat is more than 99.99% of the population can do anyway lol.

Yes, I think we agree fundamentally, but may differ on what we consider good stress and bad stress.
The issue is with the word stress.
Various meanings can be applied to it, so it needs to be defined.

You said, "Estrogen, tryptophan cause growth but via the stress pathway and Ray speaks about this."

I agree with Peat that the long-term effects of this type of biological state are negative.
However, I contend, based off the reasons I stated earlier, that efficiency is arguably more stressful.
Since the growth is arguably forced to occur a specific way that may not be aligned with the natural order of homo sapiens.

Using my Sumo wrestler example, arguably their way is the least stressful.
They do nothing but eat, and then wrestle once in a while.
The wrestling is intense, but a short duration, so the body does not constantly get damaged.

Football players, on the other hand, take the "less stressful" path, yet arguably could not get as muscular as a Sumo wrestler.
The body will simply just not grow if it is under-fed (thinks it is starving and food is scarce).
We know that we won't die, but our bodies are hard-wired to behave otherwise, it cannot rationalize like our mind does.
Thus, why we have to use supplements, food, etc. to create the specific biological state we want.
While I agree that the anabolism from the androgenic pathway is better long-term for overall health, it may be more stressful in the short-term.
But as we both said, it really comes down to what type of stress we are inducing, and if we have the capacity to recover from it.

I tend to agree with Kelly Baggett that the ideal lifestyle is one where you zig-zag between over-eating and under-eating.
In other words, eat like a Sumo to grow (for 10 days) while, as you said, using just the right amount of stimulation to cause anabolism without causing too much stress, then switching it up and under-eating very short-term (4 days max) to keep body-fat in check.
Long-term under-eating is far more stressful than over-eating and having a bit higher body-fat IMHO. (Starvation vs slightly over-fed.)
The zig-zag approach works really well for me, not just because I can stay lean without having to diet a specific way for too long, but because it does so in a natural cyclical way and my cells can die off and then regenerate new ones each cycle.

But back to the original discussion, I tend to think none of it is really as important or relevant as uncoupling proteins properly.
You simply cannot regenerate new cells without it, which IMHO is the single most important function of our bodies, biologically speaking.
Then the next would be determining one's stress threshold and learning the ideal stress:recovery ratio that works for you.
 

Satellite

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2018
Messages
159

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom