1100 ng/dL of testosterone has already been established as not qualifying as supraphyiological given that it is observed in healthy non-TRT men. Supraphyiological indicates that the TT achieved is one not seen in nature (physiological).Going to more frequent injections reduces the spread between peak and trough serum testosterone. When troughs are too low and/or too long there is some risk of feeling hypogonadal again. Therefore it's typical to dose the testosterone to obtain adequate trough levels. But with infrequent injections the peak levels become unnecessarily high, potentially causing side effects; effectively one is overdosing in part of the injection cycle. This problem is solved by injecting frequently relative to the ester half-life. This raises trough testosterone, which in turn allows lower dosing.
Here's an example with some representative numbers: Suppose a guy injects 100 mg testosterone cypionate once per week, which is the lowest dose he can use without feeling hypogonadal before the next injection. His trough testosterone is 450 ng/dL. His peak testosterone is 1,100 ng/dL. The peak is supraphysiological, pushing up his hematocrit and causing other problems. He switches to daily injections at the same dose rate, about 14 mg cypionate per day. Now he has very little variation in serum testosterone, and his level is about 800 ng/dL all the time. He recognizes that this is higher than necessary for him—after all, his lower threshold for symptoms was 450 ng/dL. So he reduces his dose to 70 mg per week, injected as 10 mg daily. Now he finds his serum testosterone is stable at 600 ng/dL, and it works well for him.
He was just giving an example man lol1100 ng/dL of testosterone has already been established as not qualifying as supraphyiological given that it is observed in healthy non-TRT men. Supraphyiological indicates that the TT achieved is one not seen in nature (physiological).
Supraphyiological for one’s idiosyncratic physiology is the counter argument, but lacks merit as nothing substantiates the generalized claim that an individual with a natural peak TT of 450 ng/dL will experience side effects at 1100 ng/dL. This speculation is not generalizable.
You have not been privy to previous discussions.He was just giving an example man lol
I'm low shbg and sweet spot is 400-600
You have not been privy to previous discussions.
I’m low SHBG and my sweet spot is an oscillation between 800-1200 ng/dL.
1100 ng/dL of testosterone has already been established as not qualifying as supraphyiological given that it is observed in healthy non-TRT men
But it is, in fact, seen in nature. Thus, the level is not considered supraphyiological. Now, the next counter is to discuss free testosterone being above physiological ranges when TT reaches that high in lower SHBG men. That’s a fair point, but we circle back to the dilemma wherein no evidence, anecdotal or clinical, suggests that moderately supraphyiological levels of free T lead to long-term morbidities. We do know, however, that some men feel better in lower physiological ranges, such as @eli and @Cataceous, while others such as @S1W @madman and @Gman86 feel better with larger dosing protocols (myself included).The only times I have seen this kind of TT naturally, they were accompanied by sky high SHBG, leading to measured mid range or even low FT. Almost always also accompanied with a keto type diet\carb restriction.
Yeah what is your dose and free t?You have not been privy to previous discussions.
I’m low SHBG and my sweet spot is an oscillation between 800-1200 ng/dL.
But it is, in fact, seen in nature. Thus, the level is not considered supraphyiological. Now, the next counter is to discuss free testosterone being above physiological ranges when TT reaches that high in lower SHBG men. That’s a fair point, but we circle back to the dilemma wherein no evidence, anecdotal or clinical, suggests that moderately supraphyiological levels of free T lead to long-term morbidities. We do know, however, that some men feel better in lower physiological ranges, such as @eli and @Cataceous, while others such as @S1W @madman and @Gman86 feel better with larger dosing protocols (myself included).
But it is, in fact, seen in nature. Thus, the level is not considered supraphyiological. Now, the next counter is to discuss free testosterone being above physiological ranges when TT reaches that high in lower SHBG men. That’s a fair point, but we circle back to the dilemma wherein no evidence, anecdotal or clinical, suggests that moderately supraphyiological levels of free T lead to long-term morbidities. We do know, however, that some men feel better in lower physiological ranges, such as @eli and @Cataceous, while others such as @S1W @madman and [B][I][B][I]@Gman86[/I][/B] feel better with larger dosing protocols (myself included).[/I][/B]
But it is, in fact, seen in nature. Thus, the level is not considered supraphyiological.
the next counter is to discuss free testosterone being above physiological ranges when TT reaches that high in lower SHBG men.
but we circle back to the dilemma wherein no evidence, anecdotal or clinical, suggests that moderately supraphyiological levels of free T lead to long-term morbidities.
As highlighted by @bixt, this is not the definition of "physiological" we use in science and medicine. Rather, the standard for "normal" is having your numbers within two standard deviations of the mean, plus or minus. The situation I described, with normal SHBG and total testosterone of 1,100 ng/dL, results in free testosterone that's more than three standard deviations above the mean. Statistically speaking, we're talking about one in a thousand men possibly at such a level, and even that's dubious. In any case, if the level of testosterone is supraphysiological for 99.9% of all men then it's supraphysiological, period.But it is, in fact, seen in nature. ...
As far as @readalot post, there were counter arguments providing that cast doubt on the transferability of the research.So by your definition a guy with a prolactinoma secreting 200ng/dl of prolactin is not considered supraphyiological either, as "its seen in nature"
Now this combination I have not seen in nature. So, that would be fT of 40 or 50 or 60. You are also in the same breath talking infrequent (weekly) dosing, so those levels are at trough!!! How about at day 2, 3 or 4? fT of > 60??
Have you paid no attention at all to @readalot in his posts just the other day? Im actually hoping secretly you are right as I run big doses, but I think the evidence points the other way.
To clarify, this statement was made in reference to men on TRT as the counter argument is always that men on TRT tend to have lower SHBG and higher free T.Now this combination I have not seen in nature. So, that would be fT of 40 or 50 or 60. You are also in the same breath talking infrequent (weekly) dosing, so those levels are at trough!!! How about at day 2, 3 or 4? fT of > 60??
Indeed, the men reaching these TTs naturally would be considered outliers. However, normal being within two SDs from the mean does not inherently preclude individuals more than two SDs more being considered physiological. Rather, these individuals are considered outliers. After all, statistical means are derived from humans across the spectrum, meaning outliers at both tail ends are included in determining this mean.As highlighted by @bixt, this is not the definition of "physiological" we use in science and medicine. Rather, the standard for "normal" is having your numbers within two standard deviations of the mean, plus or minus. The situation I described, with normal SHBG and total testosterone of 1,100 ng/dL, results in free testosterone that's more than three standard deviations above the mean. Statistically speaking, we're talking about one in a thousand men possibly at such a level, and even that's dubious. In any case, if the level of testosterone is supraphysiological for 99.9% of all men then it's supraphysiological, period.
If it were any other hormone then discussions of one-in-a-thousand outliers would focus on the possible pathologies. We wouldn't a priori be trying to rationalize the condition as normal and healthy. But because it's testosterone it gets a pass, is that right?Indeed, the men reaching these TTs naturally would be considered outliers. However, normal being within two SDs from the mean does not inherently preclude individuals more than two SDs more being considered physiological. Rather, these individuals are considered outliers. After all, statistical means are derived from humans across the spectrum, meaning outliers at both tail ends are included in determining this mean.