Given the question the study tried to answer it’s the best approach to reduce cofounding factors such as the reduced neurosteroid synthesis secondary to LH suppression after continuous administrations.
This secondary effect to prolonged T administration has been demonstrated to exaggerate the effects of T with regards to aggression. That’s than the difference between natural high T levels and high T levels on TRT.
The problem is that this forum is biased towards lifters or men with special conditions such as high SHBG levels. And this bias isn’t realized by the members themselves.
The average men on TRT i) has a SHBG level of around 20 ii) is not primarily interested in packing muscles iii) is in his late 40s or 50s iv) doesnt consume or doesn’t want to consume a long list of supplements and v) isn’t borderline anemic before starting TRT.
Extrapolate yourself to these conditions and you find yourself injecting 100 mg per week and be perfectly happy.
It is. T prescriptions have been exploding and low T centers were popping up all over the place. Then a guy running such centers claims that that the reference ranges are based on old, fat and unhealthy men tricking men into the belief that their levels is too low and that they need treatment. That’s marketing and not medicine.
3 Likes
Everyone is completely different with their own shit going on yet very few are using 100mg. There aren’t many on the T-replacement section (myself included) who do much more than the minimal exercise that literally every man should do regardless of whether they are on TRT or not. There’s a large portion that don’t even lift weights. I think your own bias is showing here because you don’t lift weights. I lift for the sole purpose that it makes me feel & look better plus it heightens the positive effects of TRT.
1 Like
Yes, however if trying to replicate “what is the relationship between high dosages of testosterone and aggression” then one should attempt to mirror the protocols taken by bodybuilders/athletes. A singular injection (to remove compounding variables as you’ve specified) wouldn’t be applicable to that of real life
I’ll edit this post later, but studies regarding actual prolonged T administration (within adult men) typically fail to demonstrate significant behavioural alteration… aside from one study wherein a very small subset of the subjects developing manic symptoms not (mild). The data of which we have in particular relating to testosterone/aggression stems from animal/rodent models. Differing neurological balance/brain size/Intellect, differing metabolic/elimination pathways, the… Primal nature of animals to begin with (act on impulse) doesn’t equate to a body of evidence large enough to come up with a generalised conclusion. There may be a correlation, compounds such as trenbolone (very harsh neurologically) certainly do increase generalised levels of aggression…
As to you’re post about 100mg… drug response differs from person to person. Some (not myself) that for whatever reason cleaves through esterified (or base) testosterone at an accelerated rate and/or reaches a far lower cmax… you can’t say 100mg is enough if cavg is 300ng/dl… other conditions, in particular PAIS will nessecitate far higher dosages. But yes, for the average sedentary male 100-150mg is probably enough given they have an adequate response.
Regardless of differing methods used to measure testosterone concentration… many ref ranges now have cutoff points reading 50-75ng/dl, 500-600ng/dl upper range… I don’t care what method of measurement is being used, 50ng/dl isn’t a healthy level of production for any man, nor is 500ng/dl supraphysiologic no matter the method used… there’s some validity to the “flawed reference ranges” arguement. A large scale study should exist looking over differing methods to create standardised ref ranges based on different methods of testing, this way we wouldn’t have ref ranges cutting off at below 100ng/dl
Maybe he does, we don’t know… this is in large part a bodybuilding/athletic forum… just about everyone on here either lifts or tends to be engaged within athletic endeavours. How do we know Joahann doesn’t exercise?
If he doesn’t… I’d suggest starting regardless of hormonal output. Whilst meta analysis tend to be somewhat flawed due to confounding variables. One following 60,000 adults found that generally running a mere 5-10 minutes per day dramatically decreased overall all cause mortality rates
I don’t care how busy you are…
You can fit 5-10 minutes of jogging in
1 Like
@unreal24278
There’s a large portion of this section that does not exercise. Of the portion that does a majority of them aren’t exactly serious about building muscle and more about the feel good effects of exercising with extra muscle being an added benefit. There aren’t many guys bigger than what someone not on TRT could achieve. If I don’t workout out for a week or two I lose many of the mental benefits of TRT which is the main reason I workout. I don’t believe Johann77 would have made the assumption that most here are using it to build muscle if he worked out. I for one don’t know much about working out. I do whatever Athleanx tells me to do in the video for 30-45 mins and I don’t think about it again until I go back to the gym the next day. I don’t think anyone that lifts for optimal muscle gain would call that more than minimal. I’ve been doing it consistently for years so I’ve built 10-15lbs of muscle along the way. Working out helps me in every aspect mentally.
I personally can live very happily without ever getting to the gym, but I dont wanna be a fat piece of shit and wanna make gains. This was the same way before and after TRT
Strength is a greedy mistress.
2 Likes
About strength I give zero care only about muscle mass and being lean 
You’re what we used to call a Ferrari…without an engine.
Yes but as much as I know I can achieve that especially on TRT and it will be quicker and easier. When something can be easier I prefer to do it this way
I just dont need strength anywhere in my life, I just need a little endurance in legs for snowboarding
But you do realize that such a study has been conducted, right? Thats the whole essence of the CDCs hormone standardization program and the study conducted by Travis et al., 2017.
Yes, I’ve seen this study before… however many reference ranges DON’T abide to these standardised ranges
So to stipulate all difference is associated with variance in the method used to determine testosterone concentration is incorrect… none of these studies find 50ng/dl to be within the realms of normality for a grown man.
You need to realize that the values are not absolute. Thats the whole point of method specific reference ranges.
If you measure 50 ng/dl in this assay (ref range 50 to 500 to make up something) than you will measure something around 250 ng/dl in an assay with a ref range of 250 to 950 ng/dl.
… that’s not what I’m trying to say, I’m saying that three reference ranges of which measure out T concentration using the same concentration (at least here in Australia) will have drastically differing cutoff concentrations independent of method used
There is flaw, the notion of standardised ranges are fine… we need labs to abide by them though
There’s also a decent body of evidence suggesting the mean testosterone level of the average adult male has fallen dramatically over the past few decades… should we adjust references ranges to account for this?
The 50ng/dl cutoff can be especially confusing when looking at the parameters of said labs, seeing it’s fairly close to the upper limit of female ref ranges
can you be a bit more specific? How do you know that the same method has been used? One IA based method is not the same as the other. Its also specific to instruments/vendors.
no, not really. At least between the late 1980 and now there is no decline.
I’ll showcase a demonstration tommorow, some labs specify methods on their website (in fine print typically)… still large differentiation’s between ref ranges
I agree. I messed around between 100mg to 130mg for like a year and only on about 150mg dailies am I feeling consistently non-shitty. I’m about 7 weeks into this protocol but will give it a full 12 weeks. Might be on the same boat as you and will need 200mg to feel best.
Disagreed, and I’ll post literature tommorow
If you can deconstruct said literature and tell me why it’s flawed I’d be happy to alter my ideology
Think about it… with increased rates of obesity, rampant overprescribing of meds known to interfere with endocrine homeostasis, environmental toxins/systemic pollution… it’s fairly logical to come to a consensus that there’s be some form of deleterious impact
1 Like
I thought the obese, unhealthy, etc were supposed to be filtered out of the “normal” ranges anyways?