Do androgens not build muscle?

[DAAS]

So if anabolic means builds muscle to androgens not build muscle tissue?

[wmaousley]

Androgen supplements alone may increase the size of your muscles, but they're not likely to improve the quality of muscle mass without putting in some time at the gym. A new study shows that male hormones, or androgens, aid in making muscles bigger, but they doesn't necessarily make muscles pack any more punch.



Many body builders take androgen supplements in hopes of building muscle mass, but researchers say these findings lead to new ways to help people such as seniors and those with chronic illnesses maintain muscle strength and physical function.



In the study, presented in Philadelphia this week at the 85th Annual Meeting of The Endocrine Society, researchers examined the effects of androgens on a group of young men with HIV and a group of older adults over 60.



The young men were randomly assigned to receive either 600 mg/week of nandrolone (a form of androgen) alone or in combination with strength training, such as weight lifting. The older adults were randomly assigned to get 20 mg per day of the androgen oxandrolone or a placebo. Both treatments lasted 12 weeks.



At the beginning and end of treatment, researchers measured how much weight the participants could maximally lift using leg press, leg extension, and leg flexion machines. They also measured the size of the participants' thigh muscles and lean body mass of the lower body using MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) to see how the size of the muscle changed over time.



They found that taking androgens alone increased muscle mass and maximum strength in both groups. But those gains were only modest, and the quality of the muscle did not improve because the muscle size and strength increased at the same rate.



"The results of androgen therapy alone on muscle and strength are not necessarily bad, but they are not optimal," says researcher E. Todd Schroeder, PhD, of the University of Southern California, in a news release. "The men did improve their strength, but it was proportional to the muscle mass they added."



But those who used androgens along with strength training saw more significant gains in both muscle mass and muscle quality. Their muscles not only got bigger, but they also got a greater increase in strength not attributable to size alone.



"It is clear from our studies and others that resistance training is critical for increasing muscle quality, but the effects can probably be augmented with androgens," says Schroeder. "In addition, not everyone can do resistance training, and a short course of androgens can help get people stronger and more functional."

[Turkish Juicer]

^^^ Nice copy & paste skills there champ. The article says a lot but doesn't necessarily answer OP's question. What is the source?

[Atomini]

So if anabolic means builds muscle to androgens not build muscle tissue?

At first I didn't quite understand your question but now I do, and I think I can best explain it like this,

I just want to clarify that anabolic steroids do not actually build muscle tissue. They simply send the signals to the cells to tell the cell to begin the repair and growth process. The actual 'building' of the contractile muscle proteins (myosin and actin protein filaments) actually happens inside the cells. But as far as your actual question goes, here is the general idea:

All anabolic steroids are also androgenic steroids, but not all androgens are anabolic.

There's a reason as to why we call them "androgenic anabolic steroids" (AAS), and that is because these are two expressive traits/features of anabolic steroids that every anabolic steroid expresses. All anabolic steroids must possess some measure of binding affinity for the androgen receptor (after all, the androgen receptor in muscle cells is the receptor that all anabolic steroids bind to in order to initiate muscle growth signals to the cell), and so they therefore as a result must contain some measure of androgenic activity in the body (after all, all anabolic steroids must have some binding affinity for the androgen receptor, which exists not only in muscle tissue but in many different tissues and cells across the body). This is what the whole anabolic steroid development boom of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s was all about - chemists, scientists, and doctors were scrambling to find and develop the 'perfect' steroid whereby it would allow the user to exerpience all of the anabolic (tissue building) effects while experiencing none of the androgenic (masculinizing) effects. Unfortunately, such a 'perfect' anabolic steroid was never found to exist, because you can never completely separate Testosterone 's anabolic traits/features from its androgenic traits/features. The only anabolic steroid that has ever come the closest to the idea of a 'perfect' anabolic steroid is Anavar (Oxandrolone), where chemists succesfully produced an anabolic steroid that possesses an androgenic strength of 24 and an anabolic strength of 322 - 630 (as small as three times the strength of Testosterone and as strong as six times the strength of Testosterone). However, Anavar is still not perfect because it still does exhibit some measure of androgenic strength, albeit very small (commonly referred to as 'mild') in relation to Testosterone. But the fact of the matter is that all anabolic steroids ARE also androgenic steroids.

However, an example of androgenic steroids that are not always anabolic is Dihydrotestosterone (DHT). DHT is actually considered to be an extremely powerful anabolic steroid, but the problem is that it isn't anabolic in muscle tissue at all. This is due to the fact that within muscle tissue, there exists 2 enzymes that are present in very large quantities called 3-alpha hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase, and 3-beta hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase. These two enzymes sit around in muscle tissue just waiting for DHT to enter. Once DHT comes anywhere near muscle tissue, these two enzymes bind to DHT and reduce it into 3-alpha androstanediol and 3-beta androstanediol - two hormones that are completely inactive in muscle tissue.

So, while a strong androgen like Dihydrotestosterone is actually considered an extremely strong anabolic steroid, it actually isn't anabolic in muscle tissue at all because it is rendered completely inactive as soon as it enters muscle tissue. Many chemists, scientists, and doctors have said that if Dihydrotestosterone remained metabolically active in muscle tissue that it would provide muscle growth to an extreme level. This is also one of the reasons as to why many DHT-derivative anabolic steroids (such as Anavar, Anadrol , Winstrol , etc.) are actually very anabolic in reference to Testosterone, because their modifications allow them to bypass the two enzymes that would normally disable Dihydrotestosterone by way of metabolic reduction.

Anyhow, i'm kind of drifting away from the main point there. The idea in general is that anabolic and androgenic effects are two effects that cannot be completely separated from any anabolic steroid, as it is in the nature of anabolic steroids to possess androgenic traits. Through chemical modification it is possible to allow greater pronounced anabolic effects while reducing the androgenic effects, making them less prominent, but it is impossible to ever separate the two as they are both intrisically tied together in terms of how anabolic steroids work and express themselves in the human body.

Hope that answers your question.

[Turkish Juicer]

^^^ Excellent!

Thank you!

[wmaousley]

^^^ Nice copy & paste skills there champ. The article says a lot but doesn't necessarily answer OP's question. What is the source?

Sure it does, but your's doesnt