@anabolshop_team's testosterone vs creatine claims, fact-checked

What did @anabolshop_team actually say?

The creator made a direct numerical comparison: "5 grams of creatine every day for a year" yields roughly 2 pounds of extra muscle, while "a normal bodybuilding dose" of steroids produces around 20 pounds. They backed this up with a real-world example, showing their own testosterone reading at 485 ng/dL as a natural lifter, then contrasting it with enhanced bodybuilder Chase Irons, whose levels reportedly exceeded the lab test ceiling of 10,000 ng/dL. Their framing was that growing influencer honesty about steroid use helps viewers set realistic expectations.

The video is not subtle about what it's comparing. It's essentially a side-by-side argument: natural supplementation versus supraphysiologic androgen use. That's a legitimate conversation to have, and the creator at least presents it without directly selling anything in the clip itself.

Does the science back this up?

The creatine figure is in the right ballpark but probably undersells it. The steroid number is plausible but presented without meaningful context about risk, dose variability, or what "normal bodybuilding dose" actually means.

On creatine: a 2003 meta-analysis by Lemon and colleagues in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, and a widely cited 2012 review by Lanhers et al. in the European Journal of Sport Science, both put lean mass gains from creatine supplementation combined with resistance training at roughly 1 to 2 kg over 4 to 12 weeks compared to placebo. Over a full year with consistent training, 2 pounds is a conservative but defensible estimate. Some studies show more, particularly in untrained individuals.

On anabolic steroids: the landmark 1996 Bhasin et al. study in the New England Journal of Medicine showed men taking 600 mg of testosterone enanthate weekly without training gained about 7 kg (roughly 15 lbs) of lean mass in 10 weeks. With training, gains were higher. Twenty pounds over a year at a "normal bodybuilding dose" is within range, though that phrase is doing enormous heavy lifting here.

What did they get wrong (or right)?

They got the directional comparison right. Supraphysiologic testosterone produces dramatically more muscle than creatine. That part is not controversial in the literature. But the framing around "normal bodybuilding dose" is where this gets slippery, and the creator deserves pushback on it.

There is no clinically defined "normal bodybuilding dose" of anabolic steroids. Illicit use patterns vary wildly, often involving multiple compounds, cycling, and doses far exceeding what Bhasin et al. studied. Presenting a tidy "20 pounds" figure without acknowledging cardiovascular strain, lipid dysregulation, endogenous testosterone suppression, and potential for dependence is a significant omission. Research from Baggish et al. (2017, Circulation) documented measurable left ventricular dysfunction and adverse lipid profiles in long-term anabolic steroid users. The video says nothing about this.

The Chase Irons example is presented as proof of honesty being "a good thing," but a testosterone level above 10,000 ng/dL is not transparency theater. It is a clinical red flag that warrants medical discussion, not a TikTok data point.

What should you actually know?

Creatine monohydrate remains one of the most studied and safety-confirmed supplements in sports nutrition. The International Society of Sports Nutrition (Kreider et al., 2017, Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition) classifies it as safe for long-term use in healthy adults. Its gains are modest but real, and they come without suppressing your hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis.

Anabolic androgenic steroids used outside of supervised medical care, such as for diagnosed hypogonadism managed through a licensed provider, carry documented risks that this video does not mention. These include suppression of natural testosterone production, polycythemia, hepatotoxicity with certain oral compounds, and cardiovascular remodeling. A testosterone level exceeding 10,000 ng/dL is not a benchmark. It is the kind of finding that should prompt a serious clinical conversation.

If you are considering testosterone therapy for a legitimate medical reason, that is a different conversation from bodybuilding-dose steroid use. Conflating the two, as this video implicitly does, muddies an important distinction. Supervised TRT for hypogonadism typically targets physiologic replacement ranges, not supraphysiologic ones.

Bottom line on this video

The core comparison is directionally accurate but stripped of the clinical context that would make it responsible. Giving credit where it's due: the creator is honest that steroids are being used, which is more than most fitness influencers offer. But presenting a 20-pound muscle gain figure without mentioning what else comes with supraphysiologic androgen exposure is incomplete at best. Viewers adjusting their "own expectations for their goals" deserve the full picture.