Very interesting observation. What makes you think that guys with type O blood need more testosterone? I just so happen to be O-
Trans scrotal testosterone cream application is a game changer
- Thread starter bbex2014
- Start date
-
- Tags
- scrotal cream
Very interesting observation. What makes you think that guys with type O blood need more testosterone? I just so happen to be O-
it’s just called testosterone cream, I’m pretty sure. You want 20% cream, which equates to 200mg/ gram. It will equal 50mg per click.
@madman I don’t want to post all my protocols and all the correlating labs, but trust me, I’ve run lower numbers for 2-3 months at a time with some protocols. I mean hell, my natural total before HRT was around 700. So technically, I ran a low total for years probably lol. It was my free T that was bottom of the barrel and resulting in not feeling that great subjectively in most testosterone related categories. To keep things simple, my total was around 600-700 pre HRT. When I raise my total up around 1500+ I feel much much better in all categories. I honestly don’t care what any direct free T lab says, or any calculator says, or any other free T measuring system says. I’m going to keep my levels where I feel best. I encourage everyone to manage their TRT however they like. Whatever makes them happy and makes them feel the best, is what I encourage them to stick to.
Anyone can run any numbers they want but I can assure you that anyone running numbers that high long term will pay a price. Man I have shbg over 70 and only run a 700-800ng range. If you don’t care about your long term health then run 2000ng or higher. We didn’t need 15-1600ng going through puberty and certainly don’t as aging men. Trt is meant to be within physiologic limits not anabolic steroid levels. Not being argumentative but calling complete BS to guys stating they need these insanely high numbers to be normal, just isn’t factual.
I just find it odd that a lot of things with me go against the norm. Take for instance that since the early 1980's I've avoided anything with sugar in it whatsoever. I don't eat junk food, I don't eat ice cream, cake, candy, soda...anything with a high sugar level. Yet, I've almost always been overweight with an in range TSH. If I don't eat high amounts of protein daily I feel like total shit. I practically live on Boar's Head turkey breast. I do not drink alcohol but once in a blue moon. All this and I end up diabetic? WTF?
Now, could my extremely low T have caused the diabetes? Everything I've read says it can. I will tell you this...you DO NOT WANT to try and move the contents of a 3 bedroom house by yourself while working the night shift and being an undiagnosed diabetic and having the T levels of a 10 year old. I just couldn't understand why I couldn't do anything. Every time I got up I felt like I was gonna go right back down. I did it but truth be told I think I was knockin' on deaths door. Hell, I still don't feel like I'm out of the woods. This low T shit is no joke.
IDK, they say those with type O blood have 5x the digestive enzymes to digest protein than all the other blood types so who's to say there aren't other correlations to blood type. I mean it's just that one thing, the one anomaly? There could be many more but who's looking?
madman
Super Moderator
"I can assure you that anyone running numbers that high long term will pay a price".....1500-1600 ng/dl
- a little extreme here as it is highly doubtful even such levels would cause any significant negative health effects
- if anything aside from elevated hemoglobin/hematocrit/rbc's and possible lowering of hdl most of the side-effects at such level would be cosmetic such as oily skin/acne (genetically prone)/male pattern baldness (genetically prone)/increased body hair/gynecomastia (genetically prone)/water retention and bloating
"If you don’t care about your long term health then run 2000ng or higher"
- again even than running extremely high supra-physiological levels as in 2000-3000+ ng/dL long-term.....aside from what I stated above I will say that there may be an increased risk of negative effects on cardiovascular function (heart/blood vessels) but there is no data from long term studies (5-10 year) RCT's using very high dosages resulting in extremely high supra-physiological testosterone levels nor would there ever be as it would be considered unethical.
- at such levels long-term no one can say for sure if it is a given and as we should know ones genetics/lifestyle/underlying health issue will all contribute to whether one experiences such
"We didn’t need 15-1600ng going through puberty and certainly don’t as aging men"
- I will agree that no average healthy young male would ever naturally produce such
- 50th percentile (500's ng/dL).....75th (600's).....95th (800's).....97.5th(900's)
- are there outliers above 900's.....1000+.....sure far and few!
Harmonized Reference Ranges for Circulating Testosterone Levels in Men of Four Cohort Studies in the United States and Europe
- majority of men should easily do well when running TT levels in the higher end (1200 ng/dL).....which would result in a FT 30--->30+ ng/dL and that is even with one having high SHBG!
- as you know many can do well on far less
Men with a TT 1200 ng/dL, SHBG (high) 70 nmol/L, Albumin 4.3 g/dL.....FT would be 38.86 ng/dL.....almost hitting the 40's (well over the top end of the reference range 16-31 ng/dL).
Compared to men with higher SHBG 70 nmol/L.....men with low SHBG 10 nmol/L would only need to hit a TT 1000 ng/dL to achieve roughly the same FT level of 38.57 ng/dl.
Most would think that the men with higher SHBG would need to hit a much higher TT in order to achieve such high FT levels but this is not the case due to the newer research/understanding of SHBG:T binding.
[0387] Relation between Percent FT with Total Testosterone and SHBG. Intra-dimer complex allostery suggests that SHBG can regulate FT fraction over a wide range of total testosterone concentrations without getting saturated. Indeed, it was found that percent FT calculated using the new model changed very modestly over a wide range of total testosterone concentrations. In contrast, the Vermeulen's equation suggests a negative relation between percent FT and total testosterone. Furthermore, as SHBG concentrations increase, percent FT calculated using our new model shows only a modest decline in contrast to the marked decline in percent FT calculated using Vermeulen's equation.
Trt is meant to be within physiologic limits not anabolic steroid levels.
- most mainstream doctors think such as they are dead set on keeping their patients TT within a certain range (mid-normal is common) and to them anything above is a cause for concern
- as we very well know a doctors main concern should be treating the patient symptoms not numbers while at the same time keeping ones overall health in mind.....so we are seeking out relief/improvement and increased overall well-being of the patient while at the same time minimizing/preventing any potential negative effects whether health related/cosmetic.....this is why blood work is CRITICAL!
- we also know that many men need to have their TT levels at the top end of the range or slightly higher in order to achieve a healthy FT level which would result in relief/improvement of low-t symptoms
- numbers/reference ranges should be used as guidelines as it is not set in stone that one needs to stay within these ranges.....but again it is highly doubtful one would need to venture into these absurd TT levels 1500-2000 ng/dL to achieve a healthy FT level.
"Not being argumentative but calling complete BS to guys stating they need these insanely high numbers to be normal, just isn’t factual"
- normal.....who wants to be normal.....as they say it's about being optimal/tuned-up/slightly jackd' bruh.....LOL!
- more is always better man.....I feel my best bruh!
- on a more serious note I agree that most would never need to be running these absurd TT levels 1500-2000 ng/dL.....let alone FT levels double the top end 50-60+ ng/dL..... as I find it ridiculous that the majority of men pre-trt have low <16 ng/dL or sub-optimal (high teens/low 20s) FT and all of a sudden go on trt and now supposedly need their FT levels almost triple 50-60 ng/dL compared to what they naturally produced when they had low-t.....hell would put money on it that most men in their PRIME were not even hitting low-mid TT 20 ng/dL at peak with average FT levels.
Of course symptom relief is what truly matters but we need to be sensible here as to what levels are truly needed.
Again to each his own and I have no issues if one chooses to run such levels.....but in most cases highly doubtful it is truly needed to experience the beneficial effects of trt.
Charliebizz
Well-Known Member
Like I always say with this hormone stuff you can’t speak in absolutes. Everyone is so damn different. And trt as a whole still has risks. Shutting down your own body’s production may not just effect sperm. And that’s a whole other angry debate.
Numbers are without a doubt just a guideline. Take my thyroid my numbers are good. Always good. But my body temp is low 97. Cold hands and feet very often. And I have some hypothyroid symptoms. But yet I can not tolerate any thyroid meds without getting hyper symptoms. This hormone stuff is a tough game for many people
Numbers are without a doubt just a guideline. Take my thyroid my numbers are good. Always good. But my body temp is low 97. Cold hands and feet very often. And I have some hypothyroid symptoms. But yet I can not tolerate any thyroid meds without getting hyper symptoms. This hormone stuff is a tough game for many people
madman
Super Moderator
How stupid are to say someone is spot on injecting 200/wk with a trough of 900, but when he injects more frequently and shows a trough of 1300 we've got someone abusing TRT, bla bla. Seriously?
-who stated such?
-what would it matter if one ran a trough 1300 when injecting more frequently as in daily or EOD as peak is not going to be extremely higher compared to one that ran a 1300 trough injecting once weekly which would have their peak well over 1500.
-who is saying there is an issue with running slightly higher levels 1200+?
-most would never need to run levels in the 1500-2000 range whether 1500+ trough or 2000 peak to achieve a healthy FT.
I've injected 300/wk split into 2x/wk and had a trough around 1200 iirc.
- so what's the big deal if your peak was around 1500.....I see none!
- I can hit a 1200 trough on 150 mg/week (75 mg every 3.5 days)
Same dose done daily and I'm in that evil steroid range.
- that would have to be 2000-3000+ range
If you feel better on a higher dose, and believe me that some guys honestly do, then you just gotta keep an eye on all of your other bloodwork.
- true.....but I would say that would only hold merit if one truly invested the time in starting low and going slow and giving such protocol using the lower doses a good 2-3 months to allow the body to adjust in order to truly gauge how one feels overall before claiming they need to be running some of these absurd levels....trough 1500+.
- as you should very well know many on trt are changing their protocols left/right after 6 weeks because they expect to see improvement within 6 weeks when in fact levels are in FLUX in the weeks leading up until blood levels stabilize and during this time it is common to experience ups/downs and most importantly once levels stabilize it can take many months for the body to adapt to the new T levels.....let alone the poorly demonized estradiol!
So you need to have already become comfortable with that so you don't do something stupid like changing a functional protocol bc some man on the internet thinks your numbers aren't in his magical range.
- again as I stated in my previous post:
- as we very well know a doctors main concern should be treating the patient symptoms not numbers while at the same time keeping ones overall health in mind.....so we are seeking out relief/improvement and increased overall well-being of the patient while at the same time minimizing/preventing any potential negative effects whether health related/cosmetic.....this is why blood work is CRITICAL!
- we also know that many men need to have their TT levels at the top end of the range or slightly higher in order to achieve a healthy FT level which would result in relief/improvement of low-t symptoms
- numbers/reference ranges should be used as guidelines as it is not set in stone that one needs to stay within these ranges.....but again it is highly doubtful one would need to venture into these absurd TT levels 1500-2000 ng/dL to achieve a healthy FT level
Last edited:
Vince Carter
Banned
Of course you're running numbers that high let's say > 1500 and your SHBG has it all bound up then it's rather moot; total test.
madman
Super Moderator
True if we were to base that statement off of the previous understanding of SHBG:T binding which was flawed!
Due to the newer research/understanding of SHBG:T binding.....even in cases of higher SHBG an extremely high TT level is not needed to achieve a healthy FT.
[0387] Relation between Percent FT with Total Testosterone and SHBG. Intra-dimer complex allostery suggests that SHBG can regulate FT fraction over a wide range of total testosterone concentrations without getting saturated. Indeed, it was found that percent FT calculated using the new model changed very modestly over a wide range of total testosterone concentrations. In contrast, the Vermeulen's equation suggests a negative relation between percent FT and total testosterone. Furthermore, as SHBG concentrations increase, percent FT calculated using our new model shows only a modest decline in contrast to the marked decline in percent FT calculated using Vermeulen's equation.
*Intra-dimer complex allostery suggests that SHBG can regulate FT fraction over a wide range of total testosterone concentrations without getting saturated.
FT calculated using the newer TruT model
Even with a TT 1600 ng/dL and an absurdly high SHBG 90 nmol/L, Albumin 4.3 g/dL (mean).....ones FT levels would be very high 51.49 ng/dL.
Regarding the newer TruT calculated method (shown to on par with results obtained by the gold standard Equilibrium Dialysis)
Even if you are one that has no interest in using calculated methods and you want to use the direct assay testing than one would need to have their FT tested using the most accurate method such as the gold standard Equilibrium Dialysis or Ultrafiltration (next best).
Than you would still even see even if one had a very high TT 1500+ along with very high SHBG that ones FT levels would be very high.
Again unfortunately most are still using/relying on the piss poor inaccurate direct immunoassay/tracer analogue methods or using the outdated linear law-of-mass action calculated Vermeulen method which is based on a flawed model and has been show to underestimated FT levels by as much as 40% (when compared to the gold standard Equilibrium Dialysis method).
The newer research/understanding of SHBG:T binding changes the whole landscape.
Even when one has higher SHBG as long as a high enough TT is attained than it will result in a healthy FT and extremely high TT levels are not needed to achieve such.
As I stated many time before a TT 1000 ng/dL, SHBG 70 nmol/L, Albumin 4.3 g/dL would have ones FT levels in the at the top end of the range 31.30 ng/dL (reference range 16-31).....so much for needing a TT 1500-1600 ng/dL to achieve such!
Now if the same man with a high SHBG 70 nmol/L wanted to achieve very high FT levels as in 50+ ng/dL than a TT of 1500-1600 ng/dL would be needed.
I am just trying to stress the point that in cases of one having higher SHBG that an EXTREMELY HIGH TT is in no way needed to achieve a HEALTHY FT 30-30+ ng/dL.
I could care less whether one wants to run an extremely high TT 1600-2000- ng/dL with an extremely high FT of 50-60+ ng/dL.....to each his own.....do what is in your own best interest!
But everyone needs to understand the importance regarding the new research of SHBG:T binding and get it in their heads that even with high SHBG an extremely high TT is in no way needed to achieve a healthy FT level.
When one has very high SHBG and average TT (<600 or 600-700 ng/dL) levels than and only than would FT levels be low/sub-par.
Vince Carter
Banned
Extremely high is relative to Free T and symptom relief or where relief should start, let's say 3% of TT. No one should need to run 1500+ to get an acceptable FT level. But then the outliers are present.
How can I find and join the FB group?
just go to the page and ask to join. They accept everyone.
Attachments
Just curious...if you are calculating FT off of TT using the TruT calculator, why are you still using the reference range 16-31 ng/dL from the FT test that you say is wildly inaccurate?
16-31 is the truT range
Hmm...if I punch in 916 ng/dL for TT(highest of range) and 30 SHBG, it returns 32.8 ng/dL. 40 SHBG gives 31.61 ng/dL. So, the reference range people that have 916 ng/dL don't have any lower than 40 SHBG?
madman
Super Moderator
You kidding me here?
Regarding Free Testosterone using the newer calculated TruT model/algorithm:
"Based on the new data on the distribution of free testosterone levels in healthy men the target range of free testosterone has been determined to be 164 to 314 pg/ml (mean+/−1SD)"
Which would convert to 16-31 ng/dl
Now do understand that on trt we use these ranges as guidelines.....it is in no way set in stone that one needs to stay within such ranges.
Some may choose/need to run slightly higher TT/FT levels, while others may choose to run extremely high TT/FT levels when on trt and as long as blood markers are healthy and one feels well overall so be it.
As we know symptom relief is what truly matters not numbers but again even than we most likely do not need to achieve/run absurd TT/FT levels to benefit from testosterone replacement!
Do what is best for you within being sensible regarding your overall health.
Last edited:
madman
Super Moderator
As you know many men tend to aim for a TT trough on the higher end (1000-1200 ng/dL) to achieve a healthy FT.
Some do well with a TT trough in the 700-900 ng/dL.....but in many cases most want to have their TT trough 1000+ ng/dL.
We will use a TT trough 1200 ng/dL which most would consider on the higher end.....let alone prefer such level if they can tolerate it as we know many want their levels to be high.
So using the newer calculated TruT method we will take three men.....low SHBG 10 nmol/L, average SHBG 35 nmol/L and high SHBG 70 nmol/L all running the same high TT 1200 ng/dL.....we will leave Albumin 4.3 g/dL (mean).
Man low SHBG 10 nmol/L.....FT 46.49 ng/dL
Average SHBG 35 nmol/L.....43.23 ng/dL
High SHBG 70 nmol/L.....38.86 ng/dL
So we just used the TruT calculated method which the model/algorithm is based of the newer research/understanding of SHBG:T binding.
So enlighten me on what is so f***ing AVERAGE as you say about these FT levels?
Yes this is only with a TT of 1200 ng/dL.....read that over again for me while you are at it!
Just saying that the tru T range is based on numbers, not subjective symptoms. Here were my numbers before TRT. According to the tru t calculator, I shouldn’t need TRT. According to quest’s free T lab, I was literally at the bottom of the range. I went on HRT, and felt a ton better.
All I’m saying is that numbers are just numbers. And obv I don’t trust the tru t range if it’s telling me I’m almost in the optimal range, yet have symptoms and then TRT helps me immensely, with so called “healthy levels”.
Here were my labs before TRT
Total - 601 (250-1100)
Free - 54.3 (46.0-224.0)
Bio- 116.4 (110.0-575.0 ng/dL)
SHBG 53 (10-50)
So even though the tru T calculator is supposed to be one of the best ways to figure out free T levels, which one is more accurate? The tru T that shows im close to optimal, or quest’s that shows me I’m very low, which matches my low T symptoms? I’m gonna go with the one that matches my symptoms, and allowed me to get the help I needed to get on HRT and get my life back.
All I’m saying is that numbers are just numbers. And obv I don’t trust the tru t range if it’s telling me I’m almost in the optimal range, yet have symptoms and then TRT helps me immensely, with so called “healthy levels”.
Here were my labs before TRT
Total - 601 (250-1100)
Free - 54.3 (46.0-224.0)
Bio- 116.4 (110.0-575.0 ng/dL)
SHBG 53 (10-50)
So even though the tru T calculator is supposed to be one of the best ways to figure out free T levels, which one is more accurate? The tru T that shows im close to optimal, or quest’s that shows me I’m very low, which matches my low T symptoms? I’m gonna go with the one that matches my symptoms, and allowed me to get the help I needed to get on HRT and get my life back.
Attachments
Last edited:
Share this page
Sponsors
Online statistics
- Members online
- 3
- Guests online
- 8
- Total visitors
- 11
Latest posts
-
cheap HCG (23usd/10k IU) - reliableRX - experience
- Latest: t_spacemonkey
-
-
-
-
-
