Hormone Levels and Physical Strength
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 1:54 pm
The publicity about steroids and similar "performance" drugs over the past few years, has made it clear that excess doses of testosterone and compounds resembling it, can produce muscle size and strength considerably greater than average. A number of records set in various sporting activities in the last three decades are considered suspect by many people knowledgeable about sports, because of the wide use of both detectable and undetectable drugs.
So it might seem that physical strength correlates with high levels of testosterone or substances that have the same effect as that hormone, and that individuals who have low testosterone levels must be weaker than average, and consequently unsuitable for tasks requiring physical strength. However, it seems striking that, when you look into the history of how eunuchs have been employed in various societies; they have worked as guards--there is even a book dealing with that subject--and have also served as soldiers. In biographies of Zheng He (Cheng Ho), he is described as having been inducted into the Chinese army after his orchiectomy, and it is inferred that taking eunuchs into the army was a common practice. Some eunuchs reached high positions in the Byzantine military, and they would presumably have been promoted from lower-ranking positions in which they were involved in combat. I can't remember where I saw it, but I think I read somewhere that, in addition to being employed as guards, eunuchs served as policemen, either in medieval Islamic societies or in Byzantium.
Both guard duty and military service involve the use of force, and it seems unlikely that individuals who were notably weaker than average, would have been employed as goards or soldiers. Police work frequently requires the use of physical force, and, prior to the invention of firearms, military combat was often hand-to-hand, and physical strength was a big advantage. Even today, when soldiers can use firearms and other weapons to attack from a distance, physical fitness is still considered a requirement for military service.
Taking this into account, my observation would be, that, in past societies in which eunuchs were more numerous than today, and were recognized as a distinct gender type, they must not have been considered substantially weaker than the average individual, despite the fact that they lacked the male glands associated with development of strength. And I wonder if removal of the testes actually brings about any substantial decrease in physical strength. Perhaps a male with average testosterone levels, doesn't have significantly greater muscle strength than a person with lower levels, even though excess doese of the hormone can bring about the development of significantly larger muscle mass. The lowering of basal metabolism which is brought about by reduction in hormone levels, probably compromises endurance and stamina to some extent, but I wonder if it actually has much effect on muscle strength.
So, the question I would ask, is whether those whose hormone levels have been reduced, either by orchiectomy or by taking testosterone-reducing drugs, have noticed any significant loss of muscle strength, and whether development of muscle mass through exercise programs is more difficult than before the reduction of hormone levels? I know that some members have commented on the message boards about greater fatigue with low hormone levels, but I don't recall much comment about muscle weakness. My impression is that those who, like sag111 with his backwoods hiking, were doing activities requiring physical exertiion prior to lowering their hormone levels; simply continued doing the same things afterward, and didn't notice much difference other than more fatigue than when their testosterone levels were higher.
Women, who have much less testosterone than men, are typically considered to have less physical strength than men, but I think this is largely because they are, on average, smaller and lighter, and they have less upper body strength, due to their narrower shoulders and less muscle mass in the chest area. According to what I have read, the difference between female performance on tests of physical strength and male performance on the same tests, for individuals of the same weight, has decreased in recent years.
So it might seem that physical strength correlates with high levels of testosterone or substances that have the same effect as that hormone, and that individuals who have low testosterone levels must be weaker than average, and consequently unsuitable for tasks requiring physical strength. However, it seems striking that, when you look into the history of how eunuchs have been employed in various societies; they have worked as guards--there is even a book dealing with that subject--and have also served as soldiers. In biographies of Zheng He (Cheng Ho), he is described as having been inducted into the Chinese army after his orchiectomy, and it is inferred that taking eunuchs into the army was a common practice. Some eunuchs reached high positions in the Byzantine military, and they would presumably have been promoted from lower-ranking positions in which they were involved in combat. I can't remember where I saw it, but I think I read somewhere that, in addition to being employed as guards, eunuchs served as policemen, either in medieval Islamic societies or in Byzantium.
Both guard duty and military service involve the use of force, and it seems unlikely that individuals who were notably weaker than average, would have been employed as goards or soldiers. Police work frequently requires the use of physical force, and, prior to the invention of firearms, military combat was often hand-to-hand, and physical strength was a big advantage. Even today, when soldiers can use firearms and other weapons to attack from a distance, physical fitness is still considered a requirement for military service.
Taking this into account, my observation would be, that, in past societies in which eunuchs were more numerous than today, and were recognized as a distinct gender type, they must not have been considered substantially weaker than the average individual, despite the fact that they lacked the male glands associated with development of strength. And I wonder if removal of the testes actually brings about any substantial decrease in physical strength. Perhaps a male with average testosterone levels, doesn't have significantly greater muscle strength than a person with lower levels, even though excess doese of the hormone can bring about the development of significantly larger muscle mass. The lowering of basal metabolism which is brought about by reduction in hormone levels, probably compromises endurance and stamina to some extent, but I wonder if it actually has much effect on muscle strength.
So, the question I would ask, is whether those whose hormone levels have been reduced, either by orchiectomy or by taking testosterone-reducing drugs, have noticed any significant loss of muscle strength, and whether development of muscle mass through exercise programs is more difficult than before the reduction of hormone levels? I know that some members have commented on the message boards about greater fatigue with low hormone levels, but I don't recall much comment about muscle weakness. My impression is that those who, like sag111 with his backwoods hiking, were doing activities requiring physical exertiion prior to lowering their hormone levels; simply continued doing the same things afterward, and didn't notice much difference other than more fatigue than when their testosterone levels were higher.
Women, who have much less testosterone than men, are typically considered to have less physical strength than men, but I think this is largely because they are, on average, smaller and lighter, and they have less upper body strength, due to their narrower shoulders and less muscle mass in the chest area. According to what I have read, the difference between female performance on tests of physical strength and male performance on the same tests, for individuals of the same weight, has decreased in recent years.