If you just need some reassurance measure nt-preBNP or BNP (as mentioned above) in your bloodwork. These are we established markers for the early identification of dilated cardiomyopathies.
At physiological doses there is no evidence that TRT would have a negative impact on the structure of the heart (for artheriosclerosis however the jury is still open, but thats a different story). At levels above 5000 ng/dl the negative impact is well described. Between 1500/2000 and 5000 is a grey zone.
One example of the usefulness of nt preBNP in the detection of a cardiomyopathy induced by steroid abuse. Dont know if you have access though
ā Even more convincing, within a species, the males with higher testosterone are more competitive and less social than males with lower testosterone. This is as true in humans as it is in other mammals. While the gender stereotypical implications make many of us uncomfortable, there are multiple lines of evidence that high testosterone promotes competition and low testosterone promotes cooperation.ā
The social propaganda claims exactly that, however in my mind men with higher testosterone are much more cooperative and social as well as competitive. All good and useful qualities. I start to more and more think somehow testosterone is demonized on purpose but I refuse to go down this conspirative pathway
I would rather see it as another reason to stay within the physiological range. Too low is bad, too high is equally bad. There are enough men on this forum who describe how TRT on high dose T triggered social problems and destroyed relationship.
But itās interesting that everything which questions the unlimited use of T immediately triggers a defensive reaction.
I never read anything here about the unlimited use of t. The article also argues about high-normal vs low-normal levels. If staying within the psychological range means below 800-1500 I totally agree
Look, im pro TRT but insulin and testosterone isnāt the best comparison. Insulin can lead to immediate death if not regulated properly. A man can live with near zero testosterone. And its not an individual āMr. Smith to Mr. Smithā comparison we are trying to makeā¦this is about an average of all of the Smiths from 50 years ago to all of the Smiths from today. This argument eventually leads to a more philosophical/political place of āwhat it means to be a manā and the correlation with higher T to being āmore of a manā.
I never followed up with it. It wasnt something so alarmingā¦just something she noted. When i turned 40 i did do a cardiac work up where i got my calc score and it came back zero.
Why? If you have no energy, no focus, no libido, no ability to handle stress etcā¦ thatās a pretty shit life. Regardless of what your number is. We donāt have to Chris Beniot murder our families, but being able to function and perform would be nice. Thatās not hyper masculine or gender role confirming. I just want to be as sharp as I once was.
Totally agree, quality of life is of upmost importance. I just dont believe that if a guy walks into the dr. with borderline T numbersā¦complaining of the symptoms you mention that the first line treatment should be TRT. I would say the exact same thing for insulin and a borderline diabetic. Change your lifestyle and look at some of the core problems before moving to lifelong hormone or insulin therapy. I think its great that hormone therapy is more readily availabe to a wider range of men and that quality of life for men is an important discussion. But its important to note that there are alot of men whoās symptoms are not resolved from TRT and in some cases makes worse libido, focus, energy etcā¦ Its a delicate situation with a lot of factors involved. And its not clear that the change in average testosterone numbers over time doesnt have some evolutionary basis. Maybe on average, its better for lower T numbers across the population. It doesnt preclude you or I from pursuing a certain quality of life. But the ultimate discussion becomes very specific to personal opinion and preference rather than medical necessity.
Sometimes I feel like I was born in the wrong Era. When I was in 6th-7th grade my best friends dad was the caretaker of an exotic wildlife refuge full of huge animals from all over the world but many from Africa. They roamed wild like Jurassic Park in the middle of the woods/hills of Sidon, MS. It was called Thunderbird Ranch. He would drop me and my buddy (his son) off on Friday and pick us up on Sunday. We survived on what we killed and the shelters we built and the only tools we had were a lighter. In the beginning it was scary and felt like a world we werenāt made for but by the end it felt like the only world I wanted to be in. It came to an end when he died of cancer but those two years would forever change my life and the way I approach it. Weāve created a world that we arenāt suited for. Everyone should have to live with nature for a time to be able to appreciate life and understand why we are the way we are. I donāt know why Iām even posting this or what it has to do with what youāre saying but itās what came to mind.
If anyoneās looking for a great read they should check out the book āSapiensā.
To clarify, those would be intraday peak on a TT profile vs time that posseses a MUCH lower weekly AUC than a 3.5 or 7 day trough at the same value with use of exogenous testosterone ester. I know you know this but i want someone reading this to learn it and understand it.
Hence a man on the testosterone protocol could have 2-3x higher mean TT level (Cavg = 1500-2000 ng/dl) throughout the week than the top 1 percentile eugondal man (Cavg = 500-700 ng/dl).
Yep. Still a very timely topic and I had something to add/clarify so that people reading these threads can appreciate some of these details. I am hopeful some new folks use the search function which will bring up potentially dated yet pertinent threads.
The discussion clearly sets up the concept that too low or too high has (-) consequences. Then we are left with invidual tolerance that then gives a distribution of responses to chronic exposure.
Here we show that supra-physiological concentrations of testosterone inhibit the urinary excretion of NO in healthy volunteers 48 hours after the administration of testosterone. Since urinary NO is a biomarker for endothelial function and mainly originates from the endothelium, our results indicate that even a single dose of testosterone may induce a decrease in NO formation in endothelial cells. One determinant of NO bioavailability is the expression and activity of eNOS, the main enzyme involved in the metabolism of NO in endothelial cells. Here we show that testosterone down-regulates the gene expression of eNOS after 48 hours. In a previous study it was shown that low doses of testosterone induce the protein expression and activity of eNOS in HUVECs and in rat aorta. These effects were lost when higher doses of testosterone were used, and in agreement with our findings, an inhibition in eNOS expression and activity could be discerned.[ 16 ]
You mention Yeti, but you post articles with zero clinical experience. You are a data analyst or whatever you areā¦
Yeti take a holistic approach and thats why his clients are happy and you do not see them all over forum boards complaining about TRT not working.
Hes a doctor who has dedicated his life to helping men and women. If it were not for him, many would not receive the help they need. Help that guys like you would refuse to give because you think you know it all . Here take 100mg , you are within range, enjoy your life. It must be something else.
You have zero creditiblity in my eyes and i dont see why you keep mentoining yeti. you are not at his level. not even close. if anything, you should pick his brain and learn from the man and realize how f ignorant you are.
im not wasting my time responding to your endless posts of graphs and stuidies. TRT is very simple. theres a reason our bodies need it. but you want to over complicated the shit out of everything.
Tareload alway spams threads with studies and graphs that seem relevant from afar, but up close, if you read them, are out of context. Nobody has the time to read them and heāll just spam new ones anyway, so people donāt bother and the discussion dies out leaving only his posts ment to scare inexperienced readers.
I just randomly clicked one of his studies, the one on transgender males, and in the conclusion alone it literally says:
ā Testosterone is an acute vasodilator and in men may protect against endothelial dysfunction[27] Androgen receptors are expressed in cells throughout the cardiovascular system, including endothelial cells[28] and vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMCs) although the impact of testosterone administration on the cardiovascular system in men is varied[2]. In contrast, androgens may induce detrimental outcomes on the cardiovascular system in women[2] In general, the engagement of androgen and the androgen receptor results in impaired, agonist-triggered endothelial NO release in women, a likely cause of the sex differences in testosterone effects on endothelial function.ā
See, he doesnāt really read them. He doesnāt care about the specific context of transgender men on testosterone therapy and just applies it to cisgender men. He only skims through studies looking for scary buzzwords or graphs to spam. Of course if people only read the title that was posted they will actually think the study shows testosterone is harmful. āI never said thatā, yeah, but you definitely ment to imply it.
