I've searched the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) databases which has reports on millions of medical and biological studies and I have not found any reports of any studies reporting anything even remotely similar the ones Dr. Rouzier cites. I have found reports of numerous studies which show health problems with estradiol levels either too low or too high. These studies pretty much indicate that the ideal range of estradiol is about what we have previously seen, 20 to 35.
Life Extension seems to me to be an organization with no "axe to grind". They are very vehement in warning against the health problems that low estradiol in men can cause and have been for many years. This report from Life Extension Magazine cites some large studies including one published in The Journal of The American Medical Association that seem to me to make sense and set out the health problems potentially caused by estradiol levels in men both too high and too low.
Estrogen Balance and Aging Men - page 1 | Life Extension
By the way, Life Extension reports increased cardiovascular disease in men with LOW testosterone and recommends low testosterone in men be treated with TRT. The organisation seems to me to look to report the truth in an unbiased manner.
I see numerous seemingly unflawed studies are available with report an increased risk of stroke and had far higher incidences of coronary artery disease correlated with high estradiol in men, and by high they are referring to levels equal to a tiny fraction of the levels that Dr. Rouzier is recommending saying that such levels will greatly increase health. Anything and everything I can find indicates that Dr Rouzier is 100% wrong - dangerously wrong. I cannot understand how the doctor can be unaware of these studies or how he can just dismiss them.
I do think it is possible that estradiol levels a little higher than previously thought might be ideal. I agree with Gman86 that it could be a good idea to try and keep my E2 levels at the top of the normal range, or slightly higher, as long as no negative subjective symptoms are experienced. It seems clear to me that trying to get your E2 levels to 80 or 90 or 200 or 300 as Dr Rouzier speaks of is insanity.
Life Extension seems to me to be an organization with no "axe to grind". They are very vehement in warning against the health problems that low estradiol in men can cause and have been for many years. This report from Life Extension Magazine cites some large studies including one published in The Journal of The American Medical Association that seem to me to make sense and set out the health problems potentially caused by estradiol levels in men both too high and too low.
Estrogen Balance and Aging Men - page 1 | Life Extension
By the way, Life Extension reports increased cardiovascular disease in men with LOW testosterone and recommends low testosterone in men be treated with TRT. The organisation seems to me to look to report the truth in an unbiased manner.
I see numerous seemingly unflawed studies are available with report an increased risk of stroke and had far higher incidences of coronary artery disease correlated with high estradiol in men, and by high they are referring to levels equal to a tiny fraction of the levels that Dr. Rouzier is recommending saying that such levels will greatly increase health. Anything and everything I can find indicates that Dr Rouzier is 100% wrong - dangerously wrong. I cannot understand how the doctor can be unaware of these studies or how he can just dismiss them.
I do think it is possible that estradiol levels a little higher than previously thought might be ideal. I agree with Gman86 that it could be a good idea to try and keep my E2 levels at the top of the normal range, or slightly higher, as long as no negative subjective symptoms are experienced. It seems clear to me that trying to get your E2 levels to 80 or 90 or 200 or 300 as Dr Rouzier speaks of is insanity.
