Rabble rabble rabble
Amazing this is important Info concerning your health. You sir are effected by this as are everyone on this board .
I have read just about every study that points to a decline in T-Levels, and have discussed w/ more doctors then I ever thought I would in re: to a single health topic. My personal take away, which mostly aligns with the feedback I have been given is that most prior studies were really quite poor and very limited. Some are funded byā¦ you guessed itā¦ drug companies for low T products.
Those that seem reasonably solid pointed to a decline of roughly 15%. Potentially meaningful, but a far cry from some of the stuff you read on forums or marketing material for TRT clinics where everyone should be roaming around w/ 2,000+ levels.
Itās not until recent years (partially due to the explosion in what is now a very large TRT business) that large scale studies have been done or started. The CDC reference range study is the largest and most comprehensive that I am personally aware of. The simple fact of the matter is a LOT more people are getting tested, and the total sample size is exponentially larger - which alone can greatly skew results.
Again, that is my personal take away thus far.
Let me give you an example of, letās say some of the āless informedā information that is out there. Without giving names as itās not intended as a personal dig - but one of the āmore popularā podcast authors on this topic, who also runs one of the largest TRT support groups preaches much of the same information you have mentioned. What folks may not realize is this same person once did a video podcast (it may have been deleted by now)ā¦ but he is morbidly obeseā¦ and so was his guestā¦ despite being on TRT for years. Of course their low testosterone had nothing to do with their lifestyles, their apparent clear lack of any exercise or nutritionā¦ no it was all plastics in the water and other things. Had nothing to do with the fact that neither one of them take care of their bodies. Itās all about the $.
Itās frightening to think how many people are taking their advice at face value, vs. doing the actual research behind all this to make an actual informed decision.
Yeah, but you havenāt really said anything thatās more convincing than what @johann77 posted previously, so right now itās just āwe should be up in armsā and āhas nothing to do with the Assaysā when you donāt really know that. You just donāt like the idea that that COULD be a major piece of the range change which goes again the commonly spewed rhetoric of justifying going over the current ārangeā because the range was arbitrarily changed.
Honestlyā¦ I donāt care. if I feel better over it, Iāll go over it, no matter what ātheyā say it is. But that doesnāt mean itās a conspiracy.
I have no idea how the actual test works or is performed in the lab for measuring how much T is in blood, no clueā¦ but I have to assume itās a more complicated than say measuring if something is 1 inch or 2 inches with rulers that used the same sizes for decades or more. It seems plausible to me that calibrating everyone to the same standard does account for at least some of the change.
My belief, with no real data to back it up, is itās like most things in this world and itās probably some of bothā¦ the average T level probably has gone down some (or they were measuring a different population, whether on purpose or not) and the methods behind the lab tests were probably standardized some too, accounting for the other half of the change.
Who knows. Time will tellā¦ and honestly, I donāt care if it doesnāt. Iāll keep taking the T that I need whether itās prescribed or not, or the range goes up or down or sideways. I donāt really care.
I do know that. Everything I referenced and my source stated says so. You didnāt even read the studies and what I posted . If you had you wouldnāt be saying āhe sounds good so I believe himā. L
So you know your info is right and you know his is wrong? Iāll read the studies this weekend
I will try to explain one last time.
The old ref range was based on the study of Bashin 2011, it made use of the Framingham cohort.
The new ref range is based in Travis 2017 and it made use of the CDC calibrated T assay. Now to compare the āoldā assay with the ānew CDCā assay 100 randomly selected samples of the Framingham study were re measured with the new assay by the CDC. The correlation is shown in Figure 1, second row on the left in the Travis 2017 article. Here it is:
The white line within the brownish lines is the best fitting regression line. The blue represents perfect agreement, ie the data points would be on the blue line in caseboth assay give the same result. Thats however not the case as all data points are above the blue line, ie the T value of the Framingham study which used the old assay are generally higher than the T value of the same samples measured with the new CDC method.
For example old method gives 600 ng /dl, the new CDC method gives around 450. The old method gives 1000 the new CDC method gives around 820.
Let me give you an analogy
In europe we measure temperature in celcius, the US uses fahrenheit. In europe water freezes at 0 degree celcius, i guess water freezes in the US at 32 degree fahrenheit. Same principle, two different scales describe the same thing, freezing point of water.
Let me refer here to my post above in which i stated
Whether testosterone is declining on a population level is a controversaly discussed topic. Travison et al 2007 described a decline in testosterone on a population level, whereas Nyante et al, 2012 concluded that there is no evidence for a decline in US men. Andersson et al, 200i have describes a decrease in SHBG and total T but no change in freeT levels between 1982 and 2000.
2 Likes
Yes I read the studies it makes no sense. Read the studies and otherwise just donāt comment based on what you feel sounds right.
So your sure heās right without questioning ?
I didnāt think it was an added my proof. You are just going off what you hear.
Big difeeeence.
Read the studies and draw your conclusion.
I also referenced Scott Howell who is an expert in medical study analysis and review. Heās been a part of studies.
How we canāt take what he says seriously is absurd.
Thatās not the point. You stated the new levels of 900 are based on assays and different testing being more accurate. Yet if you look at the same aunties previous studies you will be confused as to how he can report a decline in one study and in the new study mention these are normal lab ranges. Weāre talking about background on the author.
If it was me I would be a bit embarrassed
And feel inadequate neglecting the previous work I have done.
This is where I start to question this authors goals.If the new range is based on his research , what about his earlier research.
If anything he should of said āthese new lab ranges are based on a population of men seeing a large decline in hormone levels and I suggest we stick with the ranges based on a previous healthy populationā.
Does that make sense?
Youāre picking a fight where it doesnāt actually exist. Some of the studies show a decline in Test levels in men. Separately, the new CDC method for determining what the number is offers a standardization that did not exist across labs previously. If the top of the range in the old system is 1200, and under the CDC system the same blood sample gives a number of 900, then that technically has not actually changed, and does not in any way support OR negate a postulation of overall decline in the male population at large. It does explain a change in lab ranges.
If in fact there is a decline in the healthy population over time, that would contribute to a change in lab ranges over time, but that would be in addition to the change derived from the CDC method. This makes it disingenuous to simply quantify the entire change as being contamination from sick peopleās labs or as being entirely from the decline in the healthy population.
@johann77 gains marked credibility in the argument for continued use of PUBLISHED work that has undergone peer review, and logical elocution. The response from your researcher lacked said eloquence and clarity. It doesnāt make him wrong, just less well expressed at the moment.
1 Like
@enackers Just curious. Iām under the impression that your current dose started before the addition of Armour for thyroid? If so, do you actually know that you would in fact not feel the same with a lower dose and the same thyroid treatment? Not picking a fight, I actually like you and think that we largely get along.
I tried a lower dose and increased it until I felt well. I also tried synthetic and etc.
Oh you mean T? I started at 140 per the groups suggestions then 160 or something and then 200. Nothing worked. Added thyroid now it works.
December to March/April was timeline.
Yes. That. I was wondering if you had tried any different dosing since dialing in the thyroid. Not saying that you should, if something works then it works.
Idk if all ref ranges were 1500 decades agoā¦ Some of them were, sureā¦ But I recall the avg upper limit was 1000-1300, now itās like 5-900 (upper limit), I donāt pay any attention to these ref ranges though, theyāre not indicative of optimal health statusā¦ or gainzzz (jokingā¦ sorta)
I donāt have time to get into this argument due to exams coming up butā¦ in my unprofessional opinion, @enackers is right, normality in relation to male hormonal status has been declining, Iāll just link some studies and whatnot yeet.
Make youāre own conclusions. Environmental pollutants, PBC exposure (swimming pools etc.), declining overall general health status (lack fo physical activity, obesity etc) is inducing an exposure dependent decline in testosterone levels.
Want to increase those low testosterone levels??? Start smoking cigarettes, everyone knows the many, MANY benefits one can acquire from smoking. Who DOESNāT want cardiovascular disease, COPD, emphysema, cancers of the lungs, mouth, throat, stomach, colonā¦
Agreed and thank you sir for the health advice. Cigarettes the new T booster. Just get a juul.
1 Like
Juulās are illegal in Australia, as is any kind of smokeless tobacco product or vape with nicotine. Unfortunately, for those who wish to quit smoking, nicorette patches/gum costs like 50$/pack (was in the pharmacy yesterday filling a script and was looking around, saw these and couldnāt believe the prices)ā¦ The only feasible option for the heavily nicotine dependent individual here is tooā¦ keep smokingā¦ The govt wants to keep increasing excise tax on cigarettes, however theyāre still affordable (or so I hear, many of friends buy them regularlyā¦ wellā¦ they buy this processed tobacco that comes in a pouch of which they roll into cigarettes) but they say the nicotine patches and whatnot are prohibitively expensive.
I donāt understand this however, it isnāt as if excise tax goes directly into govt pockets. Theoretically, the excess revenue pulled in should go towards funding cancer treatment and/or smoking secession programs, in which case these patches/gums or whatever should be more affordableā¦ so whatās happening here? I assume they must be profiting off the addictions of others somehow, otherwise theyād increase the price of cigarettes to match or be above that of the quitting products.
I harbour no judgement/stigma towards those who smokeā¦ as long as they know the risksā¦ however I think itās somewhat funny that the tobacco industry (and the booze industry) is one of the few legitimate large scale corporations that kills itās customersā¦ Theoretically in a perfect model theyād find a way to profit off nicotine addiction whilst minimising harm to longevity (either way though, the tobacco industry is a business derelict of morals), but then againā¦ most large scale corporations areā¦ however the unethical practices are typically taken care of under the table rather than in broad daylight.
Haha you just went off on a total sideways rant. Ive been known to do this.
Raising prices on tobacco has happened in the USA. Some states are extremely expensive with taxes. I think New York was 15$ for a pack of smokes or something a decade ago. I know Canada is as well.
The goodness is that today people rarely smoke anymore. Itās no where near the health problem it was 30 years ago.
Yes I tried 1 click twice a day for a while and that didnāt feel good for a good two weeks. I think tried 2 clicks and I felt fine , but after a month I realized I didnāt feel my best. Iām back to 3 clicks. I tried adding hcg and hated it
I Currently like to add HCG to the mix. I think cream does not create enough estrogen in the penile area and thatās why my sensitive had dropped so much. This is because Iām on suboxone an opiate, which caused my e2 to hit the teens range during low t as well.
Anyways, I actually read some studies about estrogen being Parcine (if thatās how itās spelt) or static. Meaning estrogen is created in the penis heart brain and etc. Blood serum does not show us where we have and donāt have e2.
So I added hcg would help and to my surprise it helped tremendously. I have great libido without, but hcg just added a sensitive I missed form pre trt days.
I tried this for a few months On and off. I would take 150iu every 3 to 4 days for a couple or three weeks . Iād stop for a couple weeks and it would go away. Iād start back up and it would come back with just one injection.
Lastly, I tried more T (as if 3 clicks isnāt enough) and it didnāt improve and stayed steady state.
This is why I always push estrogen for men who have no libido.
If I had to make the hard choice of one or the other I would choose thyroid any day.
I just donāt get it. The basic fact that a lab test can go form 1200 to 900 is unreliable as F . The previous study I mentioned should open eyes. Did you read the studies I posted or just skim through them?
Iām waiting for a long term trt used to chime in and tell me if their lab results are super low now and thatās the answer. If you are taking lab Corp tests and itās always above 1200-1300 now itās 900s and everything else like SHBG and e2 has stayed the same Iāll start to believe this argument.
Until then the studies I read make sense. I just donāt get it.
You canāt just negate a study that shows a decline in levels and then the same author says āthese are the new levelsā and forget about the study where I found that men are having much lower levels today.