The Scoop on “Anabolic/Androgenic Ratios”

Steroids, though illegal for recreational use, hold merit for medicinal purposes via prescription and under the supervision of a doctor. In fact, a lot of research and some of the best compounds available today exist due do medicinal scientist’s attempts to harness all of the muscle building components of AAS, but none of the androgenic “side-effects”. Such drugs have been utilized to stave off muscle wasting in burn victims, those afflicted with cancer or AIDS, and even as potential treatment for those with muscle dystrophy. As a result, scientists developed what they called the “myotrophic–androgenic index” and what bodybuilders and other recreational users of AAS call the “anabolic-androgenic ratio”.


The “androgenic side-effects” is typically the term associated with the development characteristics typical of men, or the “Secondary Sex Characteristics” as labeled by the scientific community. Such traits (and side effects) are as follows:

These ratios were defined by scientist (Eisenberg and Gordan (1950) via the measured ratio of growth in rats (not humans) of the levator ani muscle (anabolic) versus growth in the seminal vesicles (androgenic). The problem with these studies is that the levator ani muscle is not a skeletal muscle, but is analogous to a human pubococcygeus muscle (PC muscle) which is a hammock-like muscle, found in both sexes, that stretches from the pubic bone to the tail bone and in humans, envelopes the rectum. Other scientists  such as (Hershberger),set out to define anabolic androgenic ratios of other compounds but utilized the ventral part of the prostate as a gauge for androgenic activity.

In 1968, Kruskemper (1968) discusses the many failings of the procedures used for determining the myotrophic–androgenic index. For example, the seminal vesicles react much slower to certain androgens, so for tests over short periods of time, data might be skewed towards a higher myotrophic (anabolic) effect vs the androgenic effects.

In the past two decades, scientists still argue on whether or no the levator ani muscle is a fair indicator of skeletal muscle tissue or which part of the prostate should be used to gauge androgenic activity. The takeaway from this reading should be that many of the “anabolic androgenic ratios” we see flying around bodybuilding and steroid forums are the result of numerous rat studies, that differ in the tissues types used to define anabolic vs androgenic activity. In addition, the concentration of androgen receptors may differ in rats vs humans within specific tissue types. Though this is the best and most peer-reviewed information we have, we should take them with a grain of salt. Below is an example of the typical anabolic androgenic ratios you might find floating around on a steroid-related website:

Anadrol 50:
Androgenic/ Anabolic Ratio: 45:320

Anabolic/Androgenic Ratio: 322-630:24

Anabolic/Androgenic Ratio: 100:100

Andropen 275:
Anabolic/Androgenic Ratio:100:100

Anabolic/Androgenic Ratio: 125:37

Anabolic/Androgenic Ratio: 90-210:40-60

Anabolic/ Androgenic Ratio: 100:50

Anabolic/Androgenic Ratio:1,900/850

Anabolic/Androgenic Ratio:62:25

Androgenic/Anabolic Ratio: 37:125

Oral Turnibol:
Anabolic/ Androgenic Ratio: >100:>0

Parabolan (Tren):
Anabolic/Androgenic Ratio: 500/500

Anabolic/Androgenic Ratio: 88:44-57

Androgenic: Anabolic Ratio: 30-40/100-150

Testosterone Cyp, Enanthate, Prop, Suspension, and Sustanon
Anabolic/Androgenic ratio:100/100

Androgenic/Anabolic Ratio: 30:320


More Testosterone Means Less Empathetic

Historically and arguably in modern times, it made sense for men to be more selfish and less empathetic. Recently, studies have been done concluding a strong link between the ability to empathize, and testosterone. In this study, empathy was measured on 20 healthy female participants who were given a “single dose” of testosterone on 2 days, and tested 4 hours post administration. Because facial mimicry has been proven an accurate, and non-invasive gauge of empathy, the women’s facial expression following exposure to a sad or angry face was observed. Women administered the testosterone were significantly less likely to respond by mimicking the facial expression shown, suggesting feelings of empathy had been blunted by the testosterone.

In a similar study, it was shown that empathy was followed by a spike in oxytocin, and guess which hormone has been proven to blunt the effects of oxytocin? Testosterone. So it makes sense that men, who have more testosterone, are less empathetic than women.

Since empathy often leads to feelings of wanting to help, it makes sense for men, who are historically the providers and protectors of the tribe/clan/family etc, to have evolved a resistance to feeling empathetic. Oftentimes, feeling empathetic can lead to wanting to help someone, and helping someone can often lead to sacrificing resources, or putting ones-self in unnecessary danger. In addition, it doesn’t make sense for a man to have second-thoughts about killing an attacker or hunting prey, because a sense of empathy overwhelmed him and he changed his mind subjecting himself to danger, or the inability to provide, respectively. For women, historically the nurturers and caretakers, evolving a strong sense of empathy was paramount to ensuring that a child was not abandoned and was able to survive to one day reproduce and continue the genetic lineage.