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.
No, a man presenting with a total testosterone of 264, as measured by LabCorp, would be "in range" (without regard to body fat).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.
So the big question here is, with these new ranges are our TRT providers gonna keep us all under 916 now?
You're right about hospital ranges for testosterone; I've noticed the same thing here in Toronto. But to think, 149 is "normal"...Not surprising they are lowering the reference range just based off statistics. The first time I had my testosterone checked, through my PCP, it was sent to the lab at the hospital he is affiliated with. Since this was a hospital, and I'm guessing the patients they see are normally very ill or on death's door, the reference range was 139-816. Mine was 149 ng/dl so "in range" for him so all was good. It was about a year from this point until I was on TRT, so this reference range caused me to lose quality of life for much longer than needed.
We are seeing multiple threads on this topic, the initial one some days ago. They are being merged.