[quote]KSman wrote:
Have your doc read this:
http://dspace.hsl.washington.edu/dspace/bitstream/2012/52/1/JCEM_2005_Low_Dose_Human.pdf [/quote]
Excellent post, and thanks for that link. . .I have been having difficulty finding that kind of research.
on the arimidex should it be taken.5 eod or every day.thanks for that link
[quote]brunottfn wrote:
on the arimidex should it be taken.5 eod or every day.thanks for that link [/quote]
Many are on 1mg/wk and take 1/2 twice a week. Those on liquid drops have more flexibility. How one reacts in terms of E changes and feeling/libido is not very predictable. After measuring E, one might see a reason to change to more or less anti-E.
Arimidex is very costly. Insurance may not pay for a guy to be on a female cancer drug. Research chems are very affordable an can be used if you get a script instead of filling it at a pharmacy.
How soon to test for E levels after starting arimidex/anastrozole? I am feeling progressive changes after 2 months. So perhaps it takes a while to get steady state. With E lowered, there is the possibility that less E pressure on SHBG production might make SHBG go down. But there is no hard data that I can find and even if some respond that way, there will aways be some that don’t. I don’t know how fast E fouled T receptors clear and adjust to a drop in E. So E levels might get near steady state fast enough, but SHBG mediated changes might take a while to play out. The critical thing is how you feel. If you don’t get morning wood and do soon after starting arimidex, you can conclude that your E levels were messing with your libido and sexual functioning. Some might need to be lower normal range to function well and others may be ok mid range. No rules other that knowing what feels right. Some docs work that way, others don’t understand and do not want to work with something as intangible as how the patient feels; they would rather tread a blood levels than people.
Its difficult to determine if a change is working for you if you are bottoming out at the end of weekly or EOW injections. One of my objectives in trying test cyp ED then EOD, was to get steady T levels so I could feel/eval changes to supplements or responses to HCG or anti-E. If you are crashing once a week, its hard to tell if any changes are doing anything valuable.
ive been doin cyp injections for several months now after crappy gels use… i use 22g 1" needles on occasion i nick a vein it bleeds abit…i also get alot of lumps after injections ,still there after a week…not sure why? one time i did hit something artery or vein dont know but it was a gusher…
[quote]bodyrokk wrote:
Ive been doing cyp injections for several months now after crappy gels use… i use 22g 1" needles on occasion i nick a vein it bleeds abit…i also get a lot of lumps after injections ,still there after a week…not sure why? one time i did hit something artery or vein don’t know but it was a gusher…[/quote]
Injecting the vastus lateralis? You can look for the veins. Can be hard if the light is not right or if some fat there. Try rubbing the area briskly to make the veins easier to see. When you go through a vein, it can be painful too; and you may be going through the top and bottom.
#25 gauge needles would reduce damage to the veins when hit, reduce bleeding and scaring of the muscle and skin. Lumps can be from blood… are they also looking like bruises? Are the lumps sore or warm?
yes they are warm and bruised alittle .its not bad but just enough to worry …i will get smaller needles after i use up what i have left.bought a box of 100…22gx1" for $20…back in the 80s -90s ive done a few cycles never had the problems then…
thanx for the info
[quote]bodyrokk wrote:
yes they are warm and bruised alittle .its not bad but just enough to worry …i will get smaller needles after i use up what i have left.bought a box of 100…22gx1" for $20…back in the 80s -90s ive done a few cycles never had the problems then…
thanx for the info[/quote]
If you have a Sam’s Club business membership you can get for example, 100 #23 1.5" for $18+.
I am concerned that you might have inflammation from bacteria. Technique and gear clean? If no blood bruise, then I cannot think of another explanation.
yes everything is clean i showed my DR how i do it …he said everything is right .he thinks it from moving ,shaking due to the other asthma meds i take…he said its nothing to worry about
really enjoying this thread and the links. Thanks guys - it’s going to make a difference in how I approach my TRT.
I get that arimidex decreases estradiol, and why that’s good. But if my levels are still normal with my bloodwork should I bother trying to convince my doc to give me a scrip?
[quote]aikigreg wrote:
really enjoying this thread and the links. Thanks guys - it’s going to make a difference in how I approach my TRT.
I get that arimidex decreases estradiol, and why that’s good. But if my levels are still normal with my bloodwork should I bother trying to convince my doc to give me a scrip?[/quote]
Have you read the “in praise of TRT+AI” thread?
If you have E problems, report the symptoms and have those treated. The doc should treat you and your symptoms, not your lab report.
[quote]aikigreg wrote:
really enjoying this thread and the links. Thanks guys - it’s going to make a difference in how I approach my TRT.
I get that arimidex decreases estradiol, and why that’s good. But if my levels are still normal with my bloodwork should I bother trying to convince my doc to give me a scrip?[/quote]
The problem is, is that the so called “ranges” are so drastically large to either fit a large segment of the population, or are a reflection of mankinds sad state of health. Take test for example. the typical range is 300 - 1200. But 300 is awfull. The real range should probably start at 500. Most below that report low test issues. I can use myself as example of this, as well as countless others. Testosterone levels have fallen dramatically, and these ridiculous ranges are reflective of that.
Same with estradoil. Range is typically 10 - 50. Again, most start reporting issues way before estradoil goes over 50. Mine is 47, and Ive got most of estradoil’s nasty side effects. Ive heard from most that optimal range is more like 10 - 30. Again, ranges aren’t exactly whats ideal.
Age plays a huge part as well. A test level that a 50 year old has isn’t exactly ideal to what a 25 year old wants. But the AMA has decided to lump everyone in, regardless of age, into one set of ranges they consider normal. A test level of 430 might be typical of a 50 year old, but is pretty bad for a 25 year old. But alot of docs might treat them the same.
[quote]V R wrote:
The problem is, is that the so called “ranges” are so drastically large to either fit a large segment of the population, or are a reflection of mankind’s sad state of health. Take test for example. the typical range is 300 - 1200. But 300 is awful. The real range should probably start at 500. Most below that report low test issues. I can use myself as example of this, as well as countless others. Testosterone levels have fallen dramatically, and these ridiculous ranges are reflective of that.
Same with estradiol. Range is typically 10 - 50. Again, most start reporting issues way before estradiol goes over 50. Mine is 47, and Ive got most of estradiol nasty side effects. Ive heard from most that optimal range is more like 10 - 30. Again, ranges aren’t exactly whats ideal.
Age plays a huge part as well. A test level that a 50 year old has isn’t exactly ideal to what a 25 year old wants. But the AMA has decided to lump everyone in, regardless of age, into one set of ranges they consider normal. A test level of 430 might be typical of a 50 year old, but is pretty bad for a 25 year old. But a lot of docs might treat them the same. [/quote]
Well, it is normal for some normal men to have low T and normal for many of those to have many related health and QOL issues. The normal ranges are just that, normal ranges that include those who suffer at those low range levels. The numbers are from statistics gathered by the labs for their particular diagnostic methods, based on the work that they do. They do not in any way represent any suggestion that the range reflects any state of health. Normal men simply get low hormones when old. And many reference ranges are age adjusted by the labs as well. We choose to not suffer the same fate as most normal aging men. The cholesterol and fasting blood sugar levels levels are AMA recommended, but things like hormones are not. They are all relative to the methods, standards and practices of the labs.
If you switch labs while also changing meds, the results could be hard to evaluate.
Perhaps some docs do not appreciate this distinction.
Many normal diseases of aging can be prevented or treated with lifestyle changes (diet, habits, exercise), hormones and supplements. It is normal for many to die fat with a bad heart and diabetes. We do not need to do that.
[quote]KSman wrote:
V R wrote:
The problem is, is that the so called “ranges” are so drastically large to either fit a large segment of the population, or are a reflection of mankind’s sad state of health. Take test for example. the typical range is 300 - 1200. But 300 is awful. The real range should probably start at 500. Most below that report low test issues. I can use myself as example of this, as well as countless others. Testosterone levels have fallen dramatically, and these ridiculous ranges are reflective of that.
Same with estradiol. Range is typically 10 - 50. Again, most start reporting issues way before estradiol goes over 50. Mine is 47, and Ive got most of estradiol nasty side effects. Ive heard from most that optimal range is more like 10 - 30. Again, ranges aren’t exactly whats ideal.
Age plays a huge part as well. A test level that a 50 year old has isn’t exactly ideal to what a 25 year old wants. But the AMA has decided to lump everyone in, regardless of age, into one set of ranges they consider normal. A test level of 430 might be typical of a 50 year old, but is pretty bad for a 25 year old. But a lot of docs might treat them the same.
The cholesterol and fasting blood sugar levels levels are AMA recommended, but things like hormones are not. They are all relative to the methods, standards and practices of the labs.
.
Perhaps some docs do not appreciate this distinction.
[/quote]
But then that is the real, underlying problem. Doctors not understanding lab ranges and what is optimal.
Take the thyroid gland. Normal ranges for TSH are .4 - 5.5. But from what Ive gathered from the MD’s that are cutting edge is that those ranges are ridiculous. Anyone over 2.0 is already in the very early stages of hypothyroidism. But because of such “accepted” ranges, 99 percent of the doctors throughout the country brainlessly follow numbers, don’t treat the patient and send them on their way.
By the time someone is out of range, the damage is already done. They are slapping bandages on a leaking boat thats already 90 percent capsized.
My issue with the whole system is that it doesn’t teach MD’s to be proactive. Many doctors are handcuffed and unable to treat people because they are considered “normal”. This is a big reason why HRT is so difficult to get for 99 percent of the people who need it.
Just my .02 
BTW, how is hCG IM going?
[quote]V R wrote:
Many doctors are handcuffed and unable to treat people because they are considered “normal”.
BTW, how is hCG IM going? [/quote]
I tried hCG EOD for a few days, nothing noted for me and back to SQ.
But it is BUSINESS as usual to treat normal people with problems. Preventative medicine is not how they get paid.
We need to stop hijacking this tread
[quote]KSman wrote:
Preventative medicine is not how they get paid.
[/quote]
Couldn’t have said it more perfectly.
I spoke of this issue with my sister in law who is an MD. She says its as much of a liability issue as any. Now she isn’t the most well versed person in HRT, but she has her own practice and had been in the game for awile.
The threat of suit is a sword of over her head at all times. Which is the reason why she says being proactive in treating issues like this is so difficult to do.
Hijack over 
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
After 3 glute shots, btw, my Test came back at 280 (240- 950 ng/dl is my range). Granted, the blood was drawn 3 weeks after a shot, so it’d be low but that’s terrible.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. If the half-life is one week, a 280 reading 3 weeks later could have been 1120 2 days after the injection. That’s why once or twice weekly injections are best.
I’m sorry, Headhunter, but I can’t stand to look at your avatar. It makes me very sad.
She was a wonderful girl.
Mods…
Please move this post to the "over 35 lifter: forum.
-thanks
[quote]KSman wrote:
Mods…
Please move this post to the "over 35 lifter: forum.
-thanks[/quote]
Oker doke.
HH,
Can you PM me about this. I haven’t seen the thread until now, but I got some questions that really aren’t public domain and your profile is private.
Thanks!!