Trans scrotal testosterone cream application is a game changer

[antelopers]

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
View attachment 8483


Average SHBG 35 nmol/L.....43.23 ng/dL
View attachment 8486


High SHBG 70 nmol/L.....38.86 ng/dL
View attachment 8488


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!

Unless I'm mistaken, which I might be, the rule of what acceptable free t is and what makes guys feel good is not based on the tru t calculator. So if we say a guy feels shit at a free T of 12 but feels symptom relief at a free T of 20, doesn't mean that the guy who has 12 free T on the standard test plugs it into the tru t calculator and his symptoms go away because Tru t says 20.
It's a new benchmark.

 

[Gman86]

Unless I'm mistaken, which I might be, the rule of what acceptable free t is and what makes guys feel good is not based on the tru t calculator. So if we say a guy feels shit at a free T of 12 but feels symptom relief at a free T of 20, doesn't mean that the guy who has 12 free T on the standard test plugs it into the tru t calculator and his symptoms go away because Tru t says 20.
It's a new benchmark.

These are my thoughts exactly. 99% of anecdotal experiences with TRT on the internet, and what levels have gotten guys subjectively “optimal”, is all based off of free T measurements other than the tru T calculator. So even though the tru T calculator is a more accurate way of testing free T, it currently doesn’t serve much purpose, due to there not being enough studies/ anecdotal experiences of guys using the calculator and reporting their subjective experiences along with where they fall in the tru T calculator range.

Then you also have the issue of it showing that I had healthy levels, pre HRT, when I could literally feel that I had low T symptoms. If every doctor used the tru T calculator, I would of never of found a reputable doctor to treat me, and allow me to get my life back on track. I was only able to get treated because I used “flawed” testing methods. But those “flawed” testing methods correlated perfectly with my symptoms. The tru T calculator did not. So just not sure yet how well the tru T calculator range matches up with symptom relief/ feeling optimal.

 

[madman]

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.

Close to optimal.....how so?

The reference range is 16-31 ng/dL.

As you posted with a TT 601 ng/dL and SHBG 53 nmol/L, Albumin 4.3 g/dL (mean).....than
your FT is 18.25 ng/dl (close to bottom end of the reference range) and well under the mean mid-range level which would be 23.5 ng/dL.....FAR from OPTIMAL as you state.

As you know most suffering from low-t symptoms that have low/low-normal FT levels need FT at least mid-range (23.5 ng/dL) or well above 30-30+ ng/dL to experience benefit.

One can easily have low-t symptoms with a FT level 18.25 ng/dL.

Again as I have stated many times before when testing FT.....the most accurate method is Equilibrium Dialysis ( TruT calculated model/algorithm....."provides accurate determination of free testosterone without systematic deviation from values obtained using equilibrium dialysis")

As you very well know the only way to truly know where your FT level sits is to use the most accurate testing method ED or Ultrafiltration (next best) or if anything use the newer calculated TruTmethod (on par with results obtained by the gold standard ED).

Your beloved Dr. has stated that many of his patients do well having FT levels in the 30's.....and yes others are running levels in the 50-60 ng/dL range.

On average many would do well with a FT level in the 30-30+ ng/dL range (top end or higher).....others may choose to run much higher levels if that is what they deem best!

Do what is best for you.....my point being is that a majority of men on trt would never NEED to have their FT levels absurdly high 50-60 ng/dL to benefit from testosterone replacement.

Does that mean I am against one running such levels.....absolutely not.....but I am highly doubting that a large percentage of men would NEED to run such levels to experience the beneficial effects of testosterone replacement.

 

[madman]

These are my thoughts exactly. 99% of anecdotal experiences with TRT on the internet, and what levels have gotten guys subjectively “optimal”, is all based off of free T measurements other than the tru T calculator. So even though the tru T calculator is a more accurate way of testing free T, it currently doesn’t serve much purpose, due to there not being enough studies/ anecdotal experiences of guys using the calculator and reporting their subjective experiences along with where they fall in the tru T calculator range.

Then you also have the issue of it showing that I had healthy levels, pre HRT, when I could literally feel that I had low T symptoms. If every doctor used the tru T calculator, I would of never of found a reputable doctor to treat me, and allow me to get my life back on track. I was only able to get treated because I used “flawed” testing methods. But those “flawed” testing methods correlated perfectly with my symptoms. The tru T calculator did not. So just not sure yet how well the tru T calculator range matches up with symptom relief/ feeling optimal.

is all based off of free T measurements other than the tru T calculator.

- yes using inaccurate assays (direct immunoassay/tracer analog) or calculated FT values taken from an outdated flawed model/algorithm such as the linear-law-of-mass action calculated Vermeulen method.

." However, we have demonstrated that even the calculated fT values derived from the prevailing equations, based on linear law-of-mass action models or empiric equations, differ systematically from free testosterone measured by equilibrium dialysis by as much as 40%"



Then you also have the issue of it showing that I had healthy levels, pre HRT, when I could literally feel that I had low T symptoms.

- wrong again.....how would a FT of 18 ng/dL be considered healthy as it is well under the mean 23.5 ng/dL (mean of the reference range 16-31) and not to far off the bottom end of 16 ng/dL.

 

[Gman86]

Oh sorry, didn’t realize the range was so tight and started at 16. Assumed the lower end would be lower. My bad.

 

[SSHSSA74]

just go to the page and ask to join. They accept everyone.

thanks

 

[SSHSSA74]

I made the switch about 3 months ago. I know that is a very small personal sample size, but I really can't believe how good I feel on this protocol.

Are you on an AI or hcg? Sorry if you already answered this question. This is a long thread with lots of comments.

 

[davidrn]

Assume, I should post my recent labs here, I use both T cyp injection and daily scrotal T cream. I have been taking 20 mg of T cyp, M,W,F, and daily I use a single click of a 200 mg T cream, the amount is aprox 3/4" x 1/4". It is the same every dose. So I was due for labs, and decided to do a peak & trough. I awoke, took my T cyp injection, and arrived at the lab in aprox 1 hr. Here are the tests and results (these are the trough)TT 538, FT 25.9, DHT 46.
I left the lab, immediately used the lab bathroom, and applied the T Cream. I returned to the lab at 0915, 2 hours after the trough, my peak levels were TT 838, FT 34.1, DHT 95.
Any thoughts on the results?

 

[bbex2014]

I like where your head is at my friend, good stuff! I know everyone is different, but I would have expected the peak of that one click to raise all levels a little bit more. What pharmacy do you get your cream from?

 

[Cataceous]

...
Any thoughts on the results?

Did you happen to get an SHBG reading? If so we could estimate dose-response parameters.

With some assumptions we can use that peak measurement to set an upper limit on your absorption efficiency. For simplicity let's just say you're getting 7 mg a day of testosterone from cypionate. Then, assuming the presumed peak is greater than your average levels, the most testosterone you could be getting topically is (838/538 - 1) * 7 mg ~= 4 mg. I assume that one click of 200 mg/mL topical testosterone is 50 mg. This would imply your absorption rate is less than 10%, which is supposedly on the low side for scrotal application, though it is comparable to what I've experienced.

*This also assumes there is not residual topical testosterone contributing at the trough, which isn't necessarily the case.

 

[davidrn]

I like where your head is at my friend, good stuff! I know everyone is different, but I would have expected the peak of that one click to raise all levels a little bit more. What pharmacy do you get your cream from?

I was buying it from a larger city compounding pharmacy for about $115, and that would last almost 6 months. I discovered I was overpaying, so, spoke with a local, small town, pharmacy, I now pay about $50, for same dosage, and again I only need 2 - 3 tubes a year.

 

[davidrn]

Did you happen to get an SHBG reading? If so we could estimate dose-response parameters.

With some assumptions we can use that peak measurement to set an upper limit on your absorption efficiency. For simplicity let's just say you're getting 7 mg a day of testosterone from cypionate. Then, assuming the presumed peak is greater than your average levels, the most testosterone you could be getting topically is (838/538 - 1) * 7 mg ~= 4 mg. I assume that one click of 200 mg/mL topical testosterone is 50 mg. This would imply your absorption rate is less than 10%, which is supposedly on the low side for scrotal application, though it is comparable to what I've experienced.

*This also assumes there is not residual topical testosterone contributing at the trough, which isn't necessarily the case.

I have very low SHBG, in the past few years, between 10- 16. More than likely related to an auto immune disease, or the drugs used to control my RA.
I take 20 mg of T cyp 3 x week, so that is about 8.5 mg daily. This trough is a little lower than what I usually test at, over the past few years, I have usually been around 750 - 900.
I made a conscious effort to drop it a little lower. I also like the idea that I have a decent amount of hormone variability. Libido could be better, but morning wood is almost every day. The history of low SHBG has made me consider if I actually need much less E2, than what is considered optimal for most guys here. This article is from 2015, but I have not taken enough time to reread and research what this is telling us: Sex Hormone Binding Globulin: New Science Questions Old Beliefs

 

[Cataceous]

I have very low SHBG, in the past few years, between 10- 16. More than likely related to an auto immune disease, or the drugs used to control my RA.
I take 20 mg of T cyp 3 x week, so that is about 8.5 mg daily. This trough is a little lower than what I usually test at, over the past few years, I have usually been around 750 - 900.
I made a conscious effort to drop it a little lower. I also like the idea that I have a decent amount of hormone variability. Libido could be better, but morning wood is almost every day. The history of low SHBG has made me consider if I actually need much less E2, than what is considered optimal for most guys here. This article is from 2015, but I have not taken enough time to reread and research what this is telling us: Sex Hormone Binding Globulin: New Science Questions Old Beliefs

If your SHBG was at the lower end this last time then that could contribute to a lower value for total testosterone. My basic premise is that the dose of exogenous testosterone drives free testosterone in a linear manner. Total testosterone ends up where appropriate for the free T and SHBG.

I was just assuming EOD for that 7 mg calculation. More exactly, the average testosterone you inject per day is 6 mg (20 mg T cyp * 3 / week / (7 days / week) * 0.7 mg T / 1 mg T cyp). This further reduces the apparent absorption efficiency.

 

[SSHSSA74]

Assume, I should post my recent labs here, I use both T cyp injection and daily scrotal T cream. I have been taking 20 mg of T cyp, M,W,F, and daily I use a single click of a 200 mg T cream, the amount is aprox 3/4" x 1/4". It is the same every dose. So I was due for labs, and decided to do a peak & trough. I awoke, took my T cyp injection, and arrived at the lab in aprox 1 hr. Here are the tests and results (these are the trough)TT 538, FT 25.9, DHT 46.
I left the lab, immediately used the lab bathroom, and applied the T Cream. I returned to the lab at 0915, 2 hours after the trough, my peak levels were TT 838, FT 34.1, DHT 95.
Any thoughts on the results?

What about estradiol?

 

[davidrn]

What about estradiol?

I passed on any tests other than TT, FT and DHT, I wanted to see the effect of TCyp injection and scrotal cream application. My E2 is usually in the optimal area, 20-25 most tests, but, I wonder if I really need much E2 for a better Libido, considering my history of low SHBG.
As to the effect of low SHBG on my TT, this trough is the lowest I have had in a few years. I understand that the SQ absorption rate is more difficult to estimate, but my TT went up 300 from my injection(peak at 3 hr post inj) and the scrotal cream application. My FT is always high, which makes sense R/T SHBG. I was more interested in the TT and DHT at 2 -3 hrs post usage.

 

[wsj357]

"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
View attachment 8454


View attachment 8455


- 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).
View attachment 8456


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.
View attachment 8457


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.

I think allot of what you are saying is based on a lack of understanding. Some men need 30+ today where 50 years ago the same
Man did not. It’s obvious that today we are bombarded with toxins , edc’s and etc.

I know plenty of men who tried 150 or 200mg or 2 Clicks scrotal and never felt better. They stayed feeling like Shit until dose was increased. Looking at lab ranges alone these men are screwed. This is wrong.

so much has changed with our environment and health today.


1. Ten years ago lab ranges were up to 150/1600 ng. This was based on the population. No lab company would allow lab ranges this high if it wasn’t shown in the general public.

2. last year it was 1200. This year 900. how can you sit there and not acknowledge this. It’s obvious lab ranges are based on a sick population and your post is saying that anyone that hits 1500 is using steroids. So tell me something. Are you going to tell
Men next year they shouldn’t go above 900?

3. When we do trt the goal is to find a dose that resolves symptoms as you stated. Yet in the other hand you say anything over 1599 is unsafe. You do realize that total is shit. One guy can convert 25 free t from 1k and another man needs 2k to get 25 free t. Next the free t ranges have also dropped over the years. Yet you state that nobody has had these levels. How about this. My father is 75 and his total is 600 and free t is 12. Imagine how high his levels were at 20? I’m sure they were 1500+ and free t was probably in the high 20s or above today’s lab ranges at the least. Your lab range fears are based on a sick population and ignorance of the health we used to have. Studies have been run that state we have much less hormones today than our ancestors. Can we at least acknowledge this and stop referencing sick folks levels?

Nobody is saying you need 3k to be healthy. What we are saying is don’t compare yourself to these horrid lab ranges based on a sick population. You are unique and you might need more T than the next guy. What you are doing is speaking in absolutes and condemning men based on your own fears.

3. With proper research we find that our receptors are not desensitized or saturated. Seriously get rid of your confirmation bias and research this topic with an open mind: forget everything you think you know and start there. You will find what i have found. There are some great studies out there. Go watch Scott howells video on YouTube about androgen receptors. He breaks down the studies and it’s obvious the fear is false.

4. if I need X Dose to feel normal. This is more than some and less than others. I see no reason to increase this dose much higher because I am simply doing trt. What I will not do is tell men they are going to die and suffer consequences if they have a higher dose than me. Some men simply need more. they tried a lower dose and slowly increased the dose until TRT worked for them. This is not abuse. This is therapy.

It is abuse when we find a dose that resolves symtoms and then proceed to increase this dose for further benefit of muscle gain, fat loss and whatever else.

Even then TRT doses do not cause the Health problems you reference. People who abuse anabolic use T as a base and add a dozen other produces on top are getting sick . This is why they are unhealthy. Including their diet and blocking their e2 levels. You are comparing apples to oranges.

You are not acknowledging that 200mg is too much for some men and not enough for others. It’s clear with lab results when a man takes 200mg and free t is 15 and he stays sick.

 

[wsj357]

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.

It’s amazing you condemn men and try to act like the genius of trt yet you continue referencing Total as your cut off.

It makes me realize you really have no clue . Because people who have a clue will reference free t levels since total T is ineffective and causes benefits in the body until it’s converted.

then you go and say you have 70 SHBG. Yet you never tell us what your free t is. You also might be different than another man with similar SHBG levels. SHBG is not set in stone; but majority of high SHBG guys do not convert to free t optimally.

Again I think you are saying a bunch of stuff based on your own fears. Nobody that truly understands trt would intuitively mention total when discussing dosing and resolution of symtoms. instead they would mention free t , estrodial and DHT levels.

It’s truly sad that you made such a fuss and cannot comprehend the other sides point of view.

How does anyone formulate a holistic view on trt when all they do is find information that backs up their fear and never challenged their beliefs. Kinda messed up isn’t it?

 

[madman]

I think allot of what you are saying is based on a lack of understanding. Some men need 30+ today where 50 years ago the same
Man did not. It’s obvious that today we are bombarded with toxins , edc’s and etc.

I know plenty of men who tried 150 or 200mg or 2 Clicks scrotal and never felt better. They stayed feeling like Shit until dose was increased. Looking at lab ranges alone these men are screwed. This is wrong.

so much has changed with our environment and health today.


1. Ten years ago lab ranges were up to 150/1600 ng. This was based on the population. No lab company would allow lab ranges this high if it wasn’t shown in the general public.

2. last year it was 1200. This year 900. how can you sit there and not acknowledge this. It’s obvious lab ranges are based on a sick population and your post is saying that anyone that hits 1500 is using steroids. So tell me something. Are you going to tell
Men next year they shouldn’t go above 900?

3. When we do trt the goal is to find a dose that resolves symptoms as you stated. Yet in the other hand you say anything over 1599 is unsafe. You do realize that total is shit. One guy can convert 25 free t from 1k and another man needs 2k to get 25 free t. Next the free t ranges have also dropped over the years. Yet you state that nobody has had these levels. How about this. My father is 75 and his total is 600 and free t is 12. Imagine how high his levels were at 20? I’m sure they were 1500+ and free t was probably in the high 20s or above today’s lab ranges at the least. Your lab range fears are based on a sick population and ignorance of the health we used to have. Studies have been run that state we have much less hormones today than our ancestors. Can we at least acknowledge this and stop referencing sick folks levels?

Nobody is saying you need 3k to be healthy. What we are saying is don’t compare yourself to these horrid lab ranges based on a sick population. You are unique and you might need more T than the next guy. What you are doing is speaking in absolutes and condemning men based on your own fears.

3. With proper research we find that our receptors are not desensitized or saturated. Seriously get rid of your confirmation bias and research this topic with an open mind: forget everything you think you know and start there. You will find what i have found. There are some great studies out there. Go watch Scott howells video on YouTube about androgen receptors. He breaks down the studies and it’s obvious the fear is false.

4. if I need X Dose to feel normal. This is more than some and less than others. I see no reason to increase this dose much higher because I am simply doing trt. What I will not do is tell men they are going to die and suffer consequences if they have a higher dose than me. Some men simply need more. they tried a lower dose and slowly increased the dose until TRT worked for them. This is not abuse. This is therapy.

It is abuse when we find a dose that resolves symtoms and then proceed to increase this dose for further benefit of muscle gain, fat loss and whatever else.

Even then TRT doses do not cause the Health problems you reference. People who abuse anabolic use T as a base and add a dozen other produces on top are getting sick . This is why they are unhealthy. Including their diet and blocking their e2 levels. You are comparing apples to oranges.

You are not acknowledging that 200mg is too much for some men and not enough for others. It’s clear with lab results when a man takes 200mg and free t is 15 and he stays sick.
.



Your post is my reply to sh1973 as his comments were highlighted in red!


Now as to what you stated:

1. Ten years ago lab ranges were up to 150/1600 ng. This was based on the population. No lab company would allow lab ranges this high if it wasn’t shown in the general public.

- bull****.....show me the data and as I said levels at such in healthy young men would have been far and few and that would have been using inaccurate testing methods

- and you very well know the previous assays used were not accurate.....as I stated in a previous post.....which you seem to have a hard time comprehending Harmonized Reference Ranges for Circulating Testosterone Levels in Men of Four Cohort Studies in the United States and Europe


2. last year it was 1200. This year 900. how can you sit there and not acknowledge this. It’s obvious lab ranges are based on a sick population and your post is saying that anyone that hits 1500 is using steroids. So tell me something. Are you going to tell
Men next year they shouldn’t go above 900?

- your wrong again.....top end of 1200 was up until 2017 and again reason the top end was dropped from 1200--->900 was due to more accurate testing methods (LC/MS-MS) based off data from populations of healthy young men

- you need to read over all my posts again as I never stated that a TT 1500 ng/dL is steroid levels.....that would be extremely high supra-physiological levels as in 2000-3000 + ng/dL range

- my reply to sh1973.....read that post over thoroughly before you state such!

- read over my reply to userjoe while your at it

3. With proper research we find that our receptors are not desensitized or saturated. Seriously get rid of your confirmation bias and research this topic with an open mind: forget everything you think you know and start there. You will find what i have found. There are some great studies out there. Go watch Scott howells video on YouTube about androgen receptors. He breaks down the studies and it’s obvious the fear is false.

- lol.....you another one of those caught up in this testosterone resistance thing.....if anything maybe in older men or men who have previously used/abused testosterone/AAS

- refer me to some of the research/studies regarding testosterone resistance

- the sensitivity of the AR and CAG repeat length (short/long) has been shown in studies to play a role in the genomic/non-genomic effects of testosterone.....much research is being done in this area and it could very well change the approach to how men with low-t/using trt are treated in the future

- dig up some of my older threads from 2-3 years ago


4. if I need X Dose to feel normal. This is more than some and less than others. I see no reason to increase this dose much higher because I am simply doing trt. What I will not do is tell men they are going to die and suffer consequences if they have a higher dose than me. Some men simply need more. they tried a lower dose and slowly increased the dose until TRT worked for them. This is not abuse. This is therapy.

- you should be addressing this to sh1973.....as you seem to be questioning me.....when a majority of your post relates to him as again I never stated such if you actually took the f***ing time to read my previous post (reply to sh1973 pg.6)

- think deeply before you come at me ranting and raving....."BIRD"

It is abuse when we find a dose that resolves symtoms and then proceed to increase this dose for further benefit of muscle gain, fat loss and whatever else.

- again never stated such as abuse would be running levels in the 2000-3000 ng/dL range which no healthy young male would ever produce naturally.....let alone use/need for trt

- when on trt most are using 100-150 mg/week......others are using 200 mg/week (considered the high end) and some may use slightly higher doses 250-300 mg/week (very rare one would need such a dose) and as you should very well know even with healthy testosterone levels as in top end of the physiological range or over say 1200-1500 ng/dL .....when following the proper diet/training protocol the muscle/strength gains will be minimal compared to one using very high doses of 300-600mg/week which would have ones testosterone levels in the extremely high supra-physiological range (steroid levels) 2000-3000+ ng/dL and even than muscle/strength gains would be greater using doses in the higher end 500-600 mg/week.

- there is no comparison regarding muscle/strength gains when using trt vs steroids.....it is like night and day.....so if your main goal is gaining any appreciable or significant muscle let alone significant strength gains than trt doses are pointless and you better be planning on using steroid doses to achieve extremely high supra-physiological testosterone levels.....end of story!


Even then TRT doses do not cause the Health problems you reference. People who abuse anabolic use T as a base and add a dozen other produces on top are getting sick . This is why they are unhealthy. Including their diet and blocking their e2 levels. You are comparing apples to oranges.

- again never stated such idiot!

- you need to be addressing sh1973

- everything highlighted in red below was stated by sh1973.....I responded!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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!


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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




You are not acknowledging that 200mg is too much for some men and not enough for others. It’s clear with lab results when a man takes 200mg and free t is 15 and he stays sick.

- again I have stated many times in numerous previous threads that on average most meen need 100-150 mg/week to achieve a healthy FT level (top end or higher) and others may need a higher dose (200mg/week) to achieve such but it is not as common and yes there are some that run 250 mg/week (which is rare and would never be needed by most).

 

[davidrn]

"The normal range of testosterone is reported as 350- 1200ng/dl. Studies in the 1940's showed the average testosterone level to be at 700 ng/dl, 300 ng/dl higher than for men today. In the past, a drop in testosterone levels to 250 ng/dl was rarely reported before men were 80 years of age. Yet today, it is not an uncommon value for middle aged men! "
I also have seen mention (assume this is estimated) that slim tradesmen as recent as a hundred years ago had levels up to the 2000 range. In my town, Italian stone workers built loose stone walls with little equipment in the 1870's, looking at pictures of these men, you realize how strong and wiry they were. What they weren't, was built like contemporary bodybuilders.

 

[madman]

"The normal range of testosterone is reported as 350- 1200ng/dl. Studies in the 1940's showed the average testosterone level to be at 700 ng/dl, 300 ng/dl higher than for men today. In the past, a drop in testosterone levels to 250 ng/dl was rarely reported before men were 80 years of age. Yet today, it is not an uncommon value for middle aged men! "
I also have seen mention (assume this is estimated) that slim tradesmen as recent as a hundred years ago had levels up to the 2000 range. In my town, Italian stone workers built loose stone walls with little equipment in the 1870's, looking at pictures of these men, you realize how strong and wiry they were. What they weren't, was built like contemporary bodybuilders.

There were no accurate testing methods decades ago.....let alone testing methods in the 1940's

Serum Testosterone Assays—Accuracy Matters (2004)
The routine clinical use of T assays began approximately 30 yr ago with the development of RIAs for T that could be performed on relatively small quantities of blood after organic extraction and chromatographic separation (1). Subsequently, there have been remarkable advancements in immunoassays for T as well as other hormones. Compared with original RIAs, T assays of today are more sensitive and specific, require smaller quantities of serum, do not involve extraction or chromatography, and are performed more rapidly and with less cost. In most large clinical chemistry and many reference laboratories, T assays are performed routinely on automated platforms using nonradioactive meth



http://eknygos.lsmuni.lt/springer/516/63-72.pdf
The first RIA method, developed in 1959 by Yallow and Berson (1,2), was for insulin. Ten years later, Abraham (3) reported the development of the first steroid RIA, which was for estradiol (E2). The immediate impact of the RIA method allowed measurement of an immensely wide range of compounds of clinical and biological importance and opened new horizons in endocrinology.








I also have seen mention (assume this is estimated) that slim tradesmen as recent as a hundred years ago had levels up to the 2000 range.

-that would be based off he said/she said!