Labcorp to Lower Testosterone Ranges

[a_crossfitter]

Great, the new norm is a lower T male population!

IS: 348-1197 ng/dL
WILL BE: 264-916 ng/dL

Full details here.

https://www.labcorp.com/assets/11476

 

[Vince Carter]

one might infer that they're seeing more low t guys and that that population is driving the numbers that they see downward, we know a lab range is what the lab sees from the population that it tests.

 

[a_crossfitter]

You are correct Vince; however, this isn't good at all for patients treated by physicians who go strictly by the lab ranges....

 

[Pacman]

Great, the new norm is a lower T male population!

IS: 348-1197 ng/dL
WILL BE: 264-916 ng/dL

Wow. This is likely due to the general decline in average T over the past few decades. They are solving this in the wrong direction. This reminds me of that Onion video regarding obesity:

 

[Vince]

It's going be even harder for men to get good TRT treatment.

 

[Will Brink]

one might infer that they're seeing more low t guys and that that population is driving the numbers that they see downward, we know a lab range is what the lab sees from the population that it tests.

I'd say that's precisely the reason but few will fail to understand that and assume those are the scientifically validated ranges men should be in, vs a reflection of the current state of men as T levels decline. Might be worth inquiring why they changed them to be lower, what studies, id any, they are basing that on.

 

[Vince Carter]

I only considered the lower high end and not the revised down 264...you're right this may complicate guys getting treatment at least from a GP/Endo/Uro.

 

[KSPhD]

I never understand why population norms are provided. The population as a whole is largely obese, insulin resistant, inactive with a poor diet. The ranges for high's and low's should be determined by the healthy population, not the population as a whole. I can already here the stupidity come down from this change "well you are within range"... Frustrating.

 

[johndoesmith]

Probably from this study: https://www.endocrine.org/news-room...defines-normal-ranges-for-testosterone-levels

It's a bunch of bullshit. Labcorp had the best range that I knew of. Doesn't start too low and doesn't top out too low like some of those 827ng/dl ranges.

 

[Sean Mosher]

Straight from the article: 264 for a 20 year old can be considered normal and in range.....wow......

"The harmonized normal range for testosterone in a non-obese population of European and American Men, 19-39 years, is 264-916 ng/dL."

 

[CoastWatcher]

Probably from this study: https://www.endocrine.org/news-room...defines-normal-ranges-for-testosterone-levels

It's a bunch of bullshit. Labcorp had the best range that I knew of. Doesn't start too low and doesn't top out too low like some of those 827ng/dl ranges.

Here in Canada, a number of doctors, including my own, openly discussed the fact that the LabCorp ranges were, indeed, the best, most flexible ones that they'd encountered in North America. It's very frustrating.

 

[johndoesmith]

Here in Canada, a number of doctors, including my own, openly discussed the fact that the LabCorp ranges were, indeed, the best, most flexible ones that they'd encountered in North America. It's very frustrating.

I guess we'll do what your doctor does, use the ranges we think are appropriate. Normally, that'd be improper, but know we KNOW Labcorp isn't changing the assay or methodology, but they're just arbitrarily changing the range due to a study. If they said "we no longer have a testosterone immunoassay, only LC/MS-MS testing available" that'd warrant a reference range change.

This? This is completely baseless.

 

[CoastWatcher]

I guess we'll do what your doctor does, use the ranges we think are appropriate. Normally, that'd be improper, but know we KNOW Labcorp isn't changing the assay or methodology, but they're just arbitrarily changing the range due to a study. If they said "we no longer have a testosterone immunoassay, only LC/MS-MS testing available" that'd warrant a reference range change.

This? This is completely baseless.

The experienced doctor, one who has managed hypogonadal patients, will find this frustrating, particularly when insurance companies begin second-guessing treatment decisions. However, it's the doctor who sees few (if any) men suffering with low testosterone who are going to send their patients off with no help for their issues...those doctors are going to be compounding the problems their patients face.

 

[madman]

Probably from this study: https://www.endocrine.org/news-room...defines-normal-ranges-for-testosterone-levels

It's a bunch of bullshit. Labcorp had the best range that I knew of. Doesn't start too low and doesn't top out too low like some of those 827ng/dl ranges.

This is what we deal with in Canada as the 2 main labs ranges for TT are LIFELABS 240-823 and DYNACARE 218-897, what a joke!

 

[user_joe]

EXACTLY! When it concerns my health I want to be nothing like what is "average" these days in America. Since I'm stuck with exogenous T I'm damn sure not concerned about some arbitrary numbers. Symptoms, lipids, blood pressure, hematocrit, etc are what's important. Fortunately my doc is on the same page.

I never understand why population norms are provided. The population as a whole is largely obese, insulin resistant, inactive with a poor diet. The ranges for high's and low's should be determined by the healthy population, not the population as a whole. I can already here the stupidity come down from this change "well you are within range"... Frustrating.

 

[Pacman]

Asking about the USA: Will this collectively agreed upon decreased "average" have an effect on the maximum legal dosage? Which is something like 200-250 mg a week, right? Can't doctors prescribe higher legally to their discretion as long as there is a medical justification to do so? Or will they be blocked by the FDA?

This really frustrates me, because there is so much fear mongering about steroids/drugs (most of the govt. funded "public education programs" are complete bullshit anyways) that it affects the people who actually need it!!

I never understood the max dosage. Isn't ~500+ mg a week considered a starting dosage? Why do they seem to cap it off at 200-250 mg? Am I misinformed?

 

[TMI]

Is the data supporting this range better or worse than the data supporting the prior range?

I would have liked if SHBG (and free T) was figured in to these results. The EMAS cohort (at least) included that:

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-lookup/doi/10.1210/jc.2011-2513

 

[madman]

Asking about the USA: Will this collectively agreed upon decreased "average" have an effect on the maximum legal dosage? Which is something like 200-250 mg a week, right? Can't doctors prescribe higher legally to their discretion as long as there is a medical justification to do so? Or will they be blocked by the FDA?

This really frustrates me, because there is so much fear mongering about steroids/drugs (most of the govt. funded "public education programs" are complete bullshit anyways) that it affects the people who actually need it!!

I never understood the max dosage. Isn't ~500+ mg a week considered a starting dosage? Why do they seem to cap it off at 200-250 mg? Am I misinformed?

The whole idea behind prescribed dosages by doctors is to use the least amount to get ones levels into a healthy range whether it be mid/normal for some or high/normal for others which improves ones symptoms of low t/with minimal side effects and of course monitoring blood work to keep you healthy. 100-150mg/week for most would allow one to achieve healthy let alone high FT levels and of course there are some outliers who may need 200mg/week but it is far from common. Any dosage above 200+mg/week would definitely put their levels well into the supra-physiological range and 500+mg/week is not trt and would be considered abuse of the hormone as those doses are used for body building purposes as in for the sole purpose of gaining muscle/increasing strength well beyond one's natty genetic potential.

 

[Systemlord]

Straight from the article: 264 for a 20 year old can be considered normal and in range.....wow......

"The harmonized normal range for testosterone in a non-obese population of European and American Men, 19-39 years, is 264-916 ng/dL."

So if I'm understanding this correctly a male at target weight for age and a TT of 264 ng/dL wouldn't be considered low, but a male 30 pounds overweight at 264 ng/dL would be considered low T?

This new range would explain Kaiser Permanente's lab ranges (240 - 871 ng/dL), which explains why my doctors was happy to see me at 531 ng/dL.

 

[CSI007]

At 348 I felt terrible, at 560 I felt better. At 284 I was ready to jump off a bridge.

This is a bad idea. Probably a result of "reducing" health care costs. Probably all part of ACA.