Systemlord
Member
I'm on Jaetnzo @237 mg twice daily, or 3318 mg per week.Because the oral testosterone need hundreds of mg, it requires a specially formualted tablet to get absorbed by the lymphatic system.
I'm on Jaetnzo @237 mg twice daily, or 3318 mg per week.Because the oral testosterone need hundreds of mg, it requires a specially formualted tablet to get absorbed by the lymphatic system.
I'm concerned about this patient's relatively low estradiol and excessive vitamin D.Look at this patient's bloodwork. You ever seen a Total T> 1500 and Free T> 350 with an LH of 5.4 and FSH of 8.9? Remarkable.
The clinical trial is being published on Monday on Maximus' website.
In terms of duration of action this product seems to lie between Natesto and oral testosterone undecanoate, perhaps better explaining why HPTA function can be preserved with the aid of enclomiphene.An oral lipidic native testosterone formulation that is absorbed independent of food - PubMed
This novel oral lipidic native testosterone formulation has potential advantages over oral TU of dosing independently of food and a lower risk of supraphysiological DHT levels. Significance statement There is no licensed oral testosterone because of challenges in formulation, and the oral...pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
That's good to know. I'm surprised I missed the news.On September 29, 2023, the FDA included enclomiphene on its 503A bulks list, which makes it clear that it is legal to compound.
...
This still comes across as splitting hairs, because the esters do yield bioidentical testosterone. Not to mention that guys do regularly inject straight testosterone (suspension or oil base), although the pharmacokinetics make it less practical for TRT....
The point wasn't to fear monger but to dispel the myth that injectable testosterone is bioidentical, it is not. Native testosterone is true, bioidentical testosterone.
Is the pregnenolone and enclomiphene in the same troche? If so, why? Seems like pregnenolone wouldn't be necessary for a lot of guys if they aren't shut down.Bioavailability can be overridden by dose. The dosage is less relevant than the outcome: serum levels. When total testosterone can go above 1500 ng/dl (see screenshot above), it's plenty potent.
The enclomiphene/pregnenolone is sublingual. Because the oral testosterone need hundreds of mg, it requires a specially formualted tablet to get absorbed by the lymphatic system. Thus, it bypasses first pass liver metabolism and does not elevate liver markers significantly.
My example of Oxandrolone was to point out that some of us on here seem to do better at lower T levels but also benefit from some more specific compounds. For example many of us benefit from the joint/injury tonic that the nandrolone family of compounds provides. Dixiewrecked mentioned proviron for DHT benefits although personally I don't find benefit there, but many people do. For those of us that need to maintain strength on a weekly workout schedule ( and hence have a 2-day recovery window at some point) the anabolic aspect is by no means unimportant. It will take a lot of crowdsourcing to figure out which compounds can be added in while maintaining decent LH levels and the degree to which the suppression is due to the compounds vs. dose vs. persistence in the body.The results are excellent (see my post above). There's no need to add Oxandrolone, given how effective the testosterone alone is. Enclomiphene is also far superior to Clomid in having less side effects.
I'm concerned about this patient's relatively low estradiol and excessive vitamin D.
In terms of duration of action this product seems to lie between Natesto and oral testosterone undecanoate, perhaps better explaining why HPTA function can be preserved with the aid of enclomiphene.
That's good to know. I'm surprised I missed the news.
This still comes across as splitting hairs, because the esters do yield bioidentical testosterone. Not to mention that guys do regularly inject straight testosterone (suspension or oil base), although the pharmacokinetics make it less practical for TRT.
Interesting, thanks for sharing. Its not as easy for clinics to prescribe Oxandrolone and Proviron, especially if you're talking about healthier individuals.My example of Oxandrolone was to point out that some of us on here seem to do better at lower T levels but also benefit from some more specific compounds. For example many of us benefit from the joint/injury tonic that the nandrolone family of compounds provides. Dixiewrecked mentioned proviron for DHT benefits although personally I don't find benefit there, but many people do. For those of us that need to maintain strength on a weekly workout schedule ( and hence have a 2-day recovery window at some point) the anabolic aspect is by no means unimportant. It will take a lot of crowdsourcing to figure out which compounds can be added in while maintaining decent LH levels and the degree to which the suppression is due to the compounds vs. dose vs. persistence in the body.
Also, while I haven't followed the enclomiphene/clomid debate too closely, my understanding is that clomid is cheaper and much easier to reliably source, so I assume that most people who are going to try this approach would go that route at least to start, if they can tolerate it. Personally, I responded well to very low doses of clomid (low in comparison to what Dr. Gordon or the PCT protocols use) so perhaps that is why I did not have issues.
Yes. It's not strictly necessary, but 5-20 mg sublingual enhances mood & energy, with little downside. In our clinical experience, patients prefer it to enclomiphene alone.Is the pregnenolone and enclomiphene in the same troche? If so, why? Seems like pregnenolone wouldn't be necessary for a lot of guys if they aren't shut down.
I'm on Jaetnzo @237 mg twice daily, or 3318 mg per week.
Here i thought oral T has ultra low bioavailability and causes the most liver issues esp at 600mg a day im guessing they hope u absorb 1/12 of that or so?
neat but if it was me id make it all sublingual? T included
Lack of acute toxicity does not imply long-term safety. Once you get north of 50 ng/mL there are negative correlations over time. Causality may not be firmly established, but why push upper limits without good reason? Interestingly, one study shows an inverted U-shaped curve for serum testosterone as a function of vitamin D levels. The peak for testosterone occurs when vitamin D is in the 30s ng/dL....
Vitamin D toxicity is rare and does not happen until levels are 200+. 100 is perfectly safe.
...
The "topical guys" usually experience HPTA suppression and elevated DHT to boot. The duration of action appears to be the driving factor in the former. There's no reason to attack esters per se except for marketing purposes. This approach exposes the vulnerability in having enclomiphene in the protocol. It is decidedly non-bioidentical, and the safety of long-term use is not well-established. There are very likely some effects on non-target receptors, with uncertain consequences. These concerns are not enough to stop me from using enclomiphene, but I have to view it as a calculated risk....
If you want to split hairs, esters eventually yield bioidentical testosterone, but given the half-life, it does not behave the same in the body before the esters are cleaved, and are far more suppressive. Almost everyone injecting is using an ester. Only the topical guys are using native testosterone the majority of the time.
Associational research is not very useful when it comes to Vit D. I suggest exploring the Vitamin D wiki’s studies. It’s not central to this discussion here, so let’s move on.Lack of acute toxicity does not imply long-term safety. Once you get north of 50 ng/mL there are negative correlations over time. Causality may not be firmly established, but why push upper limits without good reason? Interestingly, one study shows an inverted U-shaped curve for serum testosterone as a function of vitamin D levels. The peak for testosterone occurs when vitamin D is in the 30s ng/dL.
The "topical guys" usually experience HPTA suppression and elevated DHT to boot. The duration of action appears to be the driving factor in the former. There's no reason to attack esters per se except for marketing purposes. This approach exposes the vulnerability in having enclomiphene in the protocol. It is decidedly non-bioidentical, and the safety of long-term use is not well-established. There are very likely some effects on non-target receptors, with uncertain consequences. These concerns are not enough to stop me from using enclomiphene, but I have to view it as a calculated risk.
These quibbles aside, I'm happy to see another option in the TRT marketplace, and you guys should be commended for making it happen.
Bioavailability can be overridden by dose. The dosage is less relevant than the outcome: serum levels. When total testosterone can go above 1500 ng/dl (see screenshot above), it's plenty potent.
The enclomiphene/pregnenolone is sublingual. Because the oral testosterone need hundreds of mg, it requires a specially formualted tablet to get absorbed by the lymphatic system. Thus, it bypasses first pass liver metabolism and does not elevate liver markers significantly.
There's a physiological limit in how much you can absorb sublingually. Sublingual is just no a good delivery vehicle for testosterone. There's no need for "less liver issues," since there are no liver issues (per the research posted above).right but dose would be 1/4 of what the oral dose if all was sublingual, less liver issues etc.
anyway, doesnt make much sense IMO as can get dosages far more dialed taking enclomophene pregnalone seperately and used as an add on to other test protocol.. OR perhaps enclomophene etc is all that is needed and no exogenous test required.
just interesting the common knowledge that oral test is bad now all of a sudden isnt a thing??? seems weird and imagine will show up even in undaconate post marketing, nevermind test plus lycethin and oil... me thinks its just a time thing and eventually markers will go up, 3-6 months obv isnt going to do a WHOLE lot but 3-5 years probably.... sorry just lost faith in folks and them making pretty big assumptions in their studies.
There whole thing on their ******** marketing was that you wouldn’t be at super physiological on TT, according to all the clinical ranges 1500 would be exactly that… Enclomifene is cheap, it’s half of clomid and was never FDA approved as Androxil…Look at this patient's bloodwork. You ever seen a Total T> 1500 and Free T> 350 with an LH of 5.4 and FSH of 8.9? Remarkable.
The clinical trial is being published on Monday on Maximus' website.
As I mentioned, there's only so much you can pass through bucally/sublingually. It's a good choice for low-dose drugs like enclomiphene & pregnenolone, it's not a good choice for drugs like testosterone that requires higher dosages. Studies on bucal testosterone like Striant don't get levels very high (~20 nmol/L or 576 ng/dL) on average.i always assumed there was decades on why oral T was bad...and perhaps these "new" hypothesis dont have long enough data? or select obese people that get skinnier and liver gets better which is different than not causing liver issues partially from metabolites..
why wouldnt direct absorbtion via sublingual ACTUALLY bypassing liver be better? dosage is less is it not with troche?
clearly your body is doing something with that high of a dosage and its mostly not absorbed super quickly... so if its not near fully absorbed before liver obv most is making it past no? harmless metabolites in stomach acid?
oral t ~4% bioavailable, buccal test ~14% bioavailability.... in the literature i was able to find.
This method of delivery definitely has less side effects and is much easier and quicker to dial in your dosage!Oral Testosterone is the future.