zatara said:MikeS said:I sometimes wonder just how young people making statements like that might be? I've seen them before - "get on TRT after 30/40", "you'll be in a nursing home by 40 if you don't start on TRT" (all right, I might have made up that second one).
Only someone in their teens or first half of their twenties can possibly think that you start feeling old and weak already at 40, let alone 30 - assuming you don't have a medical condition (which low T at that age would probably qualify as) or are lazy as fuck.
At 40 my joints are significantly more prone to minor injuries and pains than they were just five years ago (which is why I now do more calisthenics than lifting) and my sex drive is not quite as 24/7 turbo boosted as when I was a teenager, but other than that I feel damn fine and my body looks and is more fit than it has been at most points in my life (and I wasn't particularly lazy when I was younger).
Kids, life doesn't end at 40.
I'm in my very late 20s. I've played competitive rugby to a varying level since I was a teenager, and I've noticed both a drop-off in speed and an increase in recovery time already, personally. This is completely in-line with what sports science would predict. By the time I'm 35 (or 40) theres no way I'll be capable of sustaining a similar level of performance without substantial chemical assistance. And even with that there will be big changes required.
Its possible that you might be a very rare exception, but in general peak exercise performance has started to drop-off for almost all men by age 30. By age 35 there will have been a large decrease in performance in both strength and cardio. There are a vanishingly small number of men who at age 40 can out-lift, out-run, and out-compete their 26 year old self.*
To be clear, I'm not saying life ends at 35. I'm saying that going on TRT from that age on-wards makes sense for a lot of men, because its likely most mens natural test levels will have started to dip noticeably by that stage.
*presuming their training has been consistent across the years. If they were a 26 year old lard ass and only started training in their 30s this obviously doesn't apply.
True, if you plan on a competition level in sports then I'm certainly not going to argue that I at 40 would be able to compete with guys 15 or 20 years younger in equivalent shape (ie. equivalent activity levels).
But staying in great shape for every day benefits should certainly be possibly for most people my age and higher, provided they don't have genuinely low T levels (I doubt I'm higher than mid range, based on the athletic but far from heavily muscled physique I've been able to build over many years of lifting. My FFMI is just under 22, the line between above average and excellent. With recent diet and exercise changes I hope to be able to put on a few more kilos of lean mass, but more than that is probably not realistic without a T "boost").
Some people can obviously also potentially be in even better shape than when they were younger if they happen to be more active at a later age than when they were younger. I walk substantially more now for instance - 5-10 km on an average day, unless there's a snow storm - including mountain hikes, and other workouts are at roughly similar intensity and frequency as when I was much younger.
But yes, I also did lift heavier at 18 - after three years of working out - than I did even before my joints started complaining a few years ago, after 20+ years of working out.
I still consider myself in overall better shape now though. And the leanest I've been since my early twenties.