My blood test after a few weeks of c. 80mg a week still had me at a TT of 44nmol/l (ref 8.64 - 29), which corresponds to about 1268 ng/dl. That blood draw also happened 4 days after the last injection, so suspect the read would’ve been even worse had it been at ‘peak’ time. So while I’m sticking with every E2D injections, I want to keep (incrementally) reducing my T dosage because a little goes such a long way with my body. At least until diminishing returns set in and then it’s very clear where the sweet spot is - and it’s so much lower than I expected when I first started out. It’s unfortunate that Systemlord gets picked on for his other ailments - as to reiterate, his talk of minimal effective dosages totally changed my protocol for the better. I will continue to read his posts with interest and along with those of the louder voices in the room.
Wow you are probably one of the strongest responders I’ve ever seen!
Was this 80mg once a week and testing 4 days after shot?
I’ve never totally understood this idea of differing ‘responders’. I guess it’s because I don’t understand the factors that control T excretion. To me, a strong ‘responder’ would be someone with a low T level that has no symptoms. I’m not sure how to qualify varying serum concentrations between individuals on the same dose. Someone who reaches high T levels on a low exogenous dose…what are the factors that drive that? Anyone with knowledge on the biology here want to chime in?
No, it was my third protocol by that point (never done weekly shots but had already figured out that smaller amounts more often were the way to go). The numbers there were when I was doing c. 40mg every 3.5 days and had missed a shot, hence the 4 day wait between shot and blood draw. I’ve brought it down again, pro-rated to a E2D and 15/20mg per shot atm. Hopefully this will bring down the TT and keep things on an even keel . As men supposedly (naturally) produce around 7-10mg of T daily, I’ve often thought T “replacement” could therefore clock in at about 49-70mg weekly and this could suffice. Of course, appreciate most here use a fair bit more and successfully so, as we’ve all long learned to go by feel and not numbers.
All I meant by it is that his blood levels got really high with not much T. Not sure I understand much more than that.
I don’t think it’s apples to apples. There are very few that get symptom relief anywhere near that dose. Many of the guys doing such low doses have other shit going on the requires them to keep doses that low.
Also, many people doing larger doses are shooting for optimal rather than just shy of feeling like crap. Everyone has their own reasons/goals and must expirement to find where they want to be. I’ve used the analogy of income before. Some are ok at $40k/year and others want $250k+/year. Most are somewhere in the middle. There are no wrong answers and everything comes with it’s own pros & cons.
Same exact experience. I actually had no fuse prior.
Income is a horrible analogy to use for hormones.
Elaborate
It’s obvious because the studies show and the endocrine societies website discusses that toxins are causing effects on our systems
More is not better 
Income is one part based on what the person wants and is willing to do and one part based on circumstances out of their control. Just like TRT not everyone wants or can take higher doses. Some folks are fine with lower doses and have no want to go higher. Some have to stay at lower doses because of circumstances that are out of their control. Same with income. Some folks want higher doses because that’s where they feel best and because they don’t have any issues at that dose plus the extra benefits that come with it. Same with income. Some folks live in places that require a higher income to have what someone with a lower income somewhere else can achieve. Just like folks having to take higher dosages that others can achieve with lower doses. Most folks fall somewhere in between. Same with income.
Changing hormones is much more simple than changing income. Income doesn’t have inherent negative consequences over a certain threshold. The more income you have the more you can do with it. I can’t donate hormones or invest hormones. Not everyone would benefit from T levels over say 1500. Everyone who is average income would benefit from income over 200k. Even then tho the comparisons are just so apples to oranges. And it subtly plays into the common sales pitch in hormones…‘you don’t want to be the ‘Walmart guy’ ‘average fat dudes have 500 T levels’ ‘wouldn’t you want to making 250k/yr?’ ‘2000 total T is like giving yourself a promotion’. It’s a sales pitch that totally undermines any health based reasoning for TRT and coerces men into it that might not need it.
Theres a study that exists showcasing an income of up too 75,000$ is associated with an increased quality of life. After 75,000$ per year rates of reported happiness stagnate. I assume this pertains to single men/women, at which case perhaps happiness is associated with being able to live comfortably. I just recalled this fact because I remember seeing the study and thinking “well I’ll be damned”. I presume for a single man/woman living by himself/herself 75,000$ is quite a bit, above the median etc.
Average fat dudes have below 500TT, closer 200-450ng/dl I’d assume. The problem regarding higher dosages (2-300mg as “TRT”) refers to the long term risk, we don’t know what that is. I’m not talking about those like DBOSSA that who requires 250mg to acquire a TT/FT most would acquire on 125mg weekly… for those people it’s different. But lets use the avg 100mg = 1000ng/dl (admittedly flawed) formula. Statistically 200mg invokes (if I recall correctly) a net median TT of 55nmol (so about 1500ng/dl)… Given androgens suppress SHBG say SHBG is 15-20… we don’t know what the long term impact of FT 2x ref range, TT 1.5x ref range is… it’s probably not extensive for a HEALTHY man so long as haematological parameters are kept in check… but we don’t know
A man who runs half marathons regularly, weight trains 3-5x weekly etc will fare better long term on 300mg weekly long term compared to a sedentary guy who eats fast food every night, gets home and has a few beers after work etc. The healthy man will probably take 5-10 years off his life (if he doesn’t stop using as he gets older… the older you get, the more strain the substantial water retention, aldosterone dysregulation will induce). The sedentary drinker might take 20-30 years off… or not… vastly premature deaths tend to be associated with extreme abuse over prolonged periods of time (there are exceptions)
Yes happiness isn’t tied directly to income above a certain point. But there is something you can do with more income. Make other people happy? Build businesses that make positive contributions? And while just giving people more money (the lottery curse)highlights limitations in humans behavioral, mental, and emotional capacities. it’s not the same as the direct correlation excessive hormones can have on health. Bottom line is that income is a horrible analogy for TRT.
I’m not arguing about whether or not it’s a good analogy for TRT. I was just making a statement, for TRT I think it’s individualistic. If you’re a bodybuilder/exercise fanatic that wants a higher dose, why not, it’s you’re decision to make… if you’re an avg sedentary male who eats like shit and doesn’t exercise, you can probably fare well on 100-150mg weekly
I believe the reason more money doesn’t equate to happiness is perhaps because those with vastly large sums of money/income can afford anything… thus what is typically considered exciting for you or I will become boring for them. The increasingly high level of stimulus required for excitation (say travel is no longer exciting, even on a first class flight/private jet) make even the most thrilling of events menial.
Those with businesses tend to know how to manage funds properly… some random dude (probably from a lower socioeconomic demographic) who has won the lottery won’t have the faintest idea regarding how to manage such a large sum of money… hence why so many go on ridiculous sprees and end up broke and miserable. If I personally won the lottery I’d choose the yearly payouts for this exact reason. If I fail to adequately manage my funds for the first year I’d have another chance
@dbossa I appreciate your knowledge, the info you make available and passion about the TRT. The information on the drive and FB is honestly profound. I also understand your frustration when people repeatedly post the same issue or are dogmatic. However, it’s not your duty to fix everybody. It’s also not obligatory that everybody agrees with you or your facts. You take this waaay to personally. Threatening to leave, calling out and so on is not helping your cause man, it just makes you look petty. It’s just an Internet forum. Help those you can, ignore those who aren’t interested, simple.
I agree this comes up all the time. Individual choices for people with varying goals. Tho I think it’s also a fallacy that maximal performance comes with higher doses. Maybe for strength but adding in other measures like flexibility and endurance it becomes less clear.