Changes in Muscle Mass, Muscle Strength, and Power but Not Physical Function Are Related to Testosterone Dose in Healthy Older Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of graded doses of testosterone on physical function and muscle performance in healthy, older men. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. SETTING: General clinical research center. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling healthy men aged 60 to 75 (N=44). INTERVENTION: Monthly treatment with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist plus 25, 50, 125, or 300 mg/wk of intramuscular injections of testosterone enanthate for 20 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: Skeletal muscle mass (SMM) was estimated using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Leg press strength was measured by one repetition maximum, leg power by Nottingham Leg Rig, and muscle fatigability by repetitions to failure in the leg press exercise. Stair climbing, 6-meter and 400-meter walking speed, and a timed-up-and-go (TUG) test were used to assess physical function. RESULTS: Significant testosterone dose- and concentration-dependent increases were observed in SMM (P<.001) and maximal strength (P=.001) but not muscle fatigability. Leg power also increased dose-dependently (P=.048). In contrast, changes in self-selected normal and fast walking speed over 6 or 400 meters, stair climbing power, and time for the TUG were not significantly related to testosterone dose, testosterone concentrations, or changes in muscle strength or power, or SMM. CONCLUSION: Testosterone administration was associated with dose-dependent increases in SMM, leg strength, and power but did not improve muscle fatigability or physical function. The observation that physical function scores did not improve linearly with strength suggests that these high-functioning older men were already in the asymptotic region of the curve describing the relationship between physical function and strength.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".