I have heard time and time again that T levels are indicative of strength since muscle size is often associated with absolute strength in all respects. Since we know that strength and size are not 1:1, but are relative to each other, does testosterone influence really indicative strength implementations alone?

What I am saying is, if one can be stronger(but smaller in muscle size), is it correct to assume one can be stronger but have LESS testostetone than another?

I know it is responsible for muscle size, but we already covered that muscle size is not always the best, fullest measure of total strength. Strength is also neuro-connected, which doesn't rely 100% on test levels alone.

I ask this because I cry watching things that emotionally touch me, and I know other males, like me, who do not. I am also flabby, out of shape, and have more relative body fat than muscle mass. However, I have easily overpowered men with larger muscles than me and even in better shape, more "macho", refined in workouts, toned, etc.

I assume that I would have to have less test than these bigger guys with chiseled jaws, toned arms, low BF, less emotional. But why am I stronger?

To sum it up, is testosterone alone 100% correlated with strength? If so, why am I stronger with less?


1 Answer 1


I don't believe your assumptions are correct.

Testosterone is associated with the ability to grow faster, recover faster, and exert oneself more. It is related to but neither indicative of nor correlated with strength. (The same goes for muscle size.) There's no reason why someone of lower testosterone couldn't be stronger than someone of greater testosterone. They're simply not that tightly associated: hormonal levels can fluctuate much more quickly than strength can.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.