Should I continue trt or not?

[Systemlord]

Do you actually believe the things you say?

Yes, I do. I've researched it extensively.

 

[Systemlord]

Trust me, I wonder the same on a regular basis. But the truth always comes to light, and luckily via TikTok, IG, FB and YouTube clips, people are fortunately learning/ intaking information in at an accelerated rate, compared to any other time, and more and more people are getting on board with how things actually work, when it comes to the human body and nutrition. But there is a lot of people, mostly older generations, that aren’t intaking these clips, that refuse to give up on everything they’ve been taught/ heard throughout their lives, in regards to nutrition. But eventually those people/ generations will pass on, and more and more people coming up will understand the truth, and it will eventually just become common knowledge. Like how back in the day it was common knowledge that butter, red meat and egg yolks were supposedly bad for u, and caused heart disease. The difference is that common knowledge will actually be correct this time around

The bodybuilders back in the day ate steak and eggs, somehow it got all distorted and the truth changed. No one during this time was overweight. The average testosterone was higher.

The food companies wanted in on it, they wanted us to eat their products. The got us away from eating steak and eggs. Now it's sugar, engineered and processed foods etc. Look at the outcome, obesity and disease is commonplace.

Many people restrict red meat, twice weekly is now recommended.

 

[ZoomyR6]

Yes, I do. I've researched it extensively.

Wasn't ketosis a temporary state? I never read that it was done long term and intentionally.
It is my understanding that there was no diet back then, but rather survival. They did what had to be done to survive. Like intermittent fasting, which i do personally, there were periods of fasting and ketosis, until food sources were around.
It is my understanding that grains and starches were eaten at times, some times plentiful.

 

[Systemlord]

Wasn't ketosis a temporary state? I never read that it was done long term and intentionally.
It is my understanding that there was no diet back then, but rather survival.

Survival, hunting, no kill, no meal. Just because some people ate other things in other parts of the world doesn't mean it's the optimal diet. Like you said, survival. Some people must have eaten berries and died from it. Some people are smarter than others, like today.

 

[ZoomyR6]

Survival, hunting, no kill, no meal. Just because some people ate other things in other parts of the world meat doesn't mean it's the optimal diet. Like you said, survival. Some people are smarter than others, like today.

Tell me, what's optimal?
You alluded to the fact that ketosis is a natural state, and anything else, leads to diseases. Sources?

 

[Systemlord]

Tell me, what's optimal?
You alluded to the fact that ketosis is a natural state, and anything else, leads to diseases. Sources?

The sources are you in front of you every day. You want concret sources, look up Dr. Anthony Chaffee. Everything is recorded in the fossil record. Bones don't lie.

 

[ZoomyR6]

The sources are you in front of you every day. You want concret sources, look up Dr. Anthony Chaffee. Everything is recorded in the fossil record. Bones don't lie.

Now it makes sense.
The guy pushes a carnivore diet.
You can find people that push a vegan only diet, with hard proof studies about the benefits of that, as well proponents for fasting, etc...
All have valid points and arguments. All have excellent studies done and all very convincing.

What made you pick this way?

 

[Gman86]

The bodybuilders back in the day ate steak and eggs, somehow it got all distorted and the truth changed. No one during this time was overweight. The average testosterone was higher.

The food companies wanted in on it, they wanted us to eat their products. The got us away from eating steak and eggs. Now it's sugar, engineered and processed foods etc. Look at the outcome, obesity and disease is commonplace.

Many people restrict red meat, twice weekly is now recommended.

Twice weekly?? Ruminant meat should be the majority of every single meal, if not the entirety of every meal, every day, if ideal health is the goal. But I’m sure u know this

 

[Gman86]

Wasn't ketosis a temporary state? I never read that it was done long term and intentionally.
It is my understanding that there was no diet back then, but rather survival. They did what had to be done to survive. Like intermittent fasting, which i do personally, there were periods of fasting and ketosis, until food sources were around.
It is my understanding that grains and starches were eaten at times, some times plentiful.

Starches might have been eaten here and there, when in season, and when they would come across them in the wild. Grains have only been consumed regularly by humans for about 12,000 years. That’s when agriculture started. Prior to that, the only grain that humans would have regularly eaten would have been grass. Which I’m sure they only ate in absolute desperation. And would have had little to no carbs. And like I said, fruit for most of our history was mostly just seeds and fiber. Little carbohydrate/ sugar/ fructose content. And fruit would have only been consumed when in season. Throughout most of human evolution, our ancestors were carnivores. Following heard animals and eating them nose to tail. There would have consumed very little carbs on a regular basis. The heavy majority of their calories came from protein and fats. So whether it was a time of fasting or feasting, they would have been in a state of ketosis. They very rarely would have been kicked out of it. And if so, it would have been very temporarily. So it’s the opposite of what u might be thinking. Ketosis was the main state of our ancestors throughout our time on this planet. Being in a state of mainly burning carbs/ sugar for fuel would have been the temporary backup system.

And that’s how the body works to this day. We’ve been taught that burning sugar for fuel is the “regular” state that the body should be in. But burning sugar for fuel is actually our bodies backup/ survival system. Our bodies much prefer burning ketones for energy. Everything in the body works better when the body is mainly using ketones for fuel/ energy. Sugar is basically like a dirty fuel for the human body. Everything doesn’t work as good when it’s mainly burning sugar for energy.

 

[Gman86]

Tell me, what's optimal?
You alluded to the fact that ketosis is a natural state, and anything else, leads to diseases. Sources?

At the end of the day, it’s very simple. Just go by what results people get. U’ll never see better results, health wise, than someone doing the lion diet. To me it’s literally that simple. Whatever results in the body functioning the best, is the ideal diet. But what’s cool about carnivore/ the lion diet is the more u research and learn about them, the more it makes sense why they put the human body in such an optimal state of health

 

[Systemlord]

You can find people that push a vegan only diet,

You got many who push the vegan diet main selling point is save the poor murdered animals.

They leave out the part where they kill the animals to protect the crops. Where they chopped down 55% of the rainforest to make way for crops and sea oils destroying ecosystems.

Pesticides and chemicals known to cause cancer are sprayed on crops before they’re harvested. The ground is devoid of nutrients from which the crops grow, Or I could go on about how fiber is an anti-nutrient talking other nutrients from other absorption.

Sounds like an optimal diet to me, I’m sold.

Is a vegan diet healthier than a highly processed sugar and carb diet? Absolutely and that’s what the study show, but it is not “the optimal diet!”

Long-term is a big question mark, because your brain is made up of 20% EPA and DHA and you can only get this from meat or algae. They don’t call fish brain food for nothing.

Try to imagine if 80,000 years ago everyone became a vegan.

People who eat lots of red meat, have a lower cancer mortality risk.

If I were you, I would read up on the Maasai and the Akuo (1920’s) and find out which of the two tribes were healthier. Now they’re drinking Pepsi, eating western food and have type two diabetes.

I’d rather have children that are on average 5 inches taller and 23 pounds more lean muscle mass. I want the girls to chase my son.

Protein is directly correlated to brain size. Humans brains have shrunk since the agriculture revolution.

 

[Gman86]

Now it makes sense.
The guy pushes a carnivore diet.
You can find people that push a vegan only diet, with hard proof studies about the benefits of that, as well proponents for fasting, etc...
All have valid points and arguments. All have excellent studies done and all very convincing.

What made you pick this way?

Trust me, I understand what ur saying. I follow many YouTubers that are vegans and vegetarians, and even fruitarians. Throughout my health journey I wanted to hear the perspectives of everyone. I personally have no biases, when it comes to diet. I make zero money on eating a certain way, or advocating for a certain way of eating, or encouraging people to checkout certain diet advocates. All I care about is what works, and what’s actually the best way to eat. It’s taken 20+ years of researching, and I continue to research every single day, but at this point, it’s just too clear what the proper diet for optimal human health is to entertain people that are still advocating for a vegan, vegetarian, fruitarian diet, or just any way of eating that isn’t at least mostly carnivore based. Again, if optimal health is the goal.

But at the end of the day, I always say, I personally just want people to be happy. So if eating McDonald’s everyday is what makes someone happy, that’s what I want them to do. All I care about is that people have the proper education, when it comes to nutrition. I just want to help people understand what’s correct and not correct, and what’s ideal and not ideal, and then I want them to do whatever it is with that info that they want, and do whatever makes them the happiest

 

[Gman86]

@ratt57 btw, sorry for derailing ur thread a bit. This tends to happen more often than not anytime diet is brought up lol. But we can definitely get back to the original thread topic

 

[1cc]

ratt57,

I highly recommend you watch the following video featuring Dr. Keith Nichols who is one of the top TRT doctors who discusses this very topic and provides answers to all your questions. You can start from the 1:07:35 mark that discusses prostate cancer, PSA's, etc. One of the takeaways is to not do a prostate biopsy under any circumstances as this will actually cause the cancer, if any, which is perfectly isolated and contained within the prostate, and which in the overwhelming majority of cases will not lower mortality, to metastasize. The entire video is excellent. If you are still concerned about your prostate and TRT dosing after watching the video, then it might be a good idea to make an appointment with Dr. Nichols to address your concerns. BTW, just to clarify, are you doing 100mg twice per week? This is the link to the video:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Ozzieville]

I'll just briefly share my prostate cancer and TRT journey. I was diagnosed with prostate cancer (Gleason 3+4) five years ago, at age 65. I went on active surveillance (meaning no treatment, just monitoring cancer progress) with Dr. Mark Scholz, who is arguably the world's leading prostate oncologist.

Because my free T was low (although my total T was in the 700s), and I was just beginning a new relationship with a lovely woman whose sex drive was way stronger than mine, I went on TRT despite the prostate cancer diagnosis. Dr. Scholz endorsed this decision, and I also consulted with Dr. Morgentaler, who is famous for the "saturation theory" regarding testosterone and the prostate.

Two years ago (after three years on active surveillance), I had my prostate cancer treated with focal radiation at UCLA ("focal" meaning only the cancer lesion and not the entire prostate was treated). I had a few temporary side effects (e.g., painful urination) that quickly resolved, and currently I have no side effects, either urinary or erectile. Follow-up MRIs show no signs of cancer recurrence.

I've been on TRT the whole time. Although I only inject 100 mg of testosterone cypionate a week (in two divided doses), my total T level is usually around 1500, which is what it takes to get my free T into the high normal range.

So just to differ with Vince (whose opinions I always respect), you don't necessarily have to go off TRT because you have prostate cancer. In my case, I actually began TRT after being diagnosed. It's worked out for me.

 

[Gman86]

I'll just briefly share my prostate cancer and TRT journey. I was diagnosed with prostate cancer (Gleason 3+4) five years ago, at age 65. I went on active surveillance (meaning no treatment, just monitoring cancer progress) with Dr. Mark Scholz, who is arguably the world's leading prostate oncologist.

Because my free T was low (although my total T was in the 700s), and I was just beginning a new relationship with a lovely woman whose sex drive was way stronger than mine, I went on TRT despite the prostate cancer diagnosis. Dr. Scholz endorsed this decision, and I also consulted with Dr. Morgentaler, who is famous for the "saturation theory" regarding testosterone and the prostate.

Two years ago (after three years on active surveillance), I had my prostate cancer treated with focal radiation at UCLA ("focal" meaning only the cancer lesion and not the entire prostate was treated). I had a few temporary side effects (e.g., painful urination) that quickly resolved, and currently I have no side effects, either urinary or erectile. Follow-up MRIs show no signs of cancer recurrence.

I've been on TRT the whole time. Although I only inject 100 mg of testosterone cypionate a week (in two divided doses), my total T level is usually around 1500, which is what it takes to get my free T into the high normal range.

So just to differ with Vince (whose opinions I always respect), you don't necessarily have to go off TRT because you have prostate cancer. In my case, I actually began TRT after being diagnosed. It's worked out for me.

Thanks for sharing all this. It’s one thing hearing that TRT may not have any negative effects on prostate cancer. It’s another hearing someone that proved it in real life. I commend u for having the balls to do what makes sense in the literature, but goes against what mainstream medicine still says. A man after my own heart lol. And obv very glad to hear that things worked out for u, and that ur cancer free!

 

[Ozzieville]

Thanks for sharing all this. It’s one thing hearing that TRT may not have any negative effects on prostate cancer. It’s another hearing someone that proved it in real life. I commend u for having the balls to do what makes sense in the literature, but goes against what mainstream medicine still says. A man after my own heart lol. And obv very glad to hear that things worked out for u, and that ur cancer free!

Thanks, man. Maybe I’ve just been lucky.

Interestingly, testosterone is used in some cases to actually treat prostate cancer: Study Solves Testosterone’s Paradoxical Effects in Prostate Cancer.

 

[Systemlord]

Twice weekly?? Ruminant meat should be the majority of every single meal, if not the entirety of every meal, every day, if ideal health is the goal. But I’m sure u know this

I meant doctors recommended restricting red meat to twice weekly, which is insane and flat out wrong! I should have been more clear on my statement.

Medical knowledge is no longer the monopoly of physicians.

 

[Mastodont]

There is also increasing evidence (Dr. Samuel Denmeade is the leader in this and there are threads on here about it) that periodic high doses of testosterone are anti-cancer, and I have raised the issue before that his work implies that periodic high short-acting doses might be preventative, so you may be in a situation where that would make sense to consider.

Hmm, periodic as in every two weeks...almost sounds like 200mg enanthate or cypionate every 2 weeks

 

[Guided_by_Voices]

Since what I referring to is purely speculative and I haven't heard anyone else taking about it, doses and timing have to be guesswork. I don't remember what Dr. Denmeade's intervals are but I seem to recall that his dose was 600mg, although I could be way off. Anyway, if I was going to try the periodic burst technique as a preventative, I would go with 600mg of proprionate once every two or three months, but that is purely a guess. That said, and anti-cancer protocol is always step one, and a preventative protocol would be fairly hard to test in a trial so we are likely far off from having good data.