TMI dude, haha.
1 Like
I agree with your points. I just wish there was a step before a call out thread. Maybe a DM from someone like you listing the issues with their content (a warning). I understand we do not have DMs, but I think a case for them exists.
Chris himself has called him out in threads, so in a way he has, just not privately .
@Chris_Colucci the thread has derailed past the point of no return at this point… Didn’t change much.
oops…
Not particularly, many threads derail at some point. A return to the topic at hand is certainly feasible. Someone just has to make another point
I’ll start
Those absent of having serious credentials should back up opinionated ideology with scientific literature when pertaining to medication/how to treat various disorders. If one is giving out advice that generally goes against scientific consensus… be prepared to back it up as you WILL get called out.
2 Likes
Again, I am not saying that there hasnt been a decline in T. What I am saying is that the role of environmental factors play hasnt been exactly elucidated. Obesity, diabetes and illicit substance abuse have all skyrocket in the last 2 to 3 decades. The role these factors play is to my opinion downplayed and the role of environmental factors exaggerated.
The devil is in the details. Lets compare for example the two studies linked below.
Travis, 2008 found a population decline in T. They used blood samples from 3 waves of the MMAS; T1 around 1988, T2 around 1996 and T3 around 2003.
Travis et al followed the subjects as they aged, so its the same cohort.
The limitations of this study:
- its not a comparison between young, healthy men in 1988 and 2003 using the same T assays.
- Travis measured the T levels of the ageing men and had to ‘calculate back’ T levels on the basis of the known (or believed to be known) decline in T levels during aging to do an age matched comparison
- As men aged, they got sicker and needed significantly more medication. We dont know how much this contributed to the decline in T and if the assumption made to allow the age matched comparison was actually correct
- T levels were measured at different time points, potentially leading to a bias in results (T1 assays were performed in 1994, whereas T2 and T3 samples were assayed soon after in-home visits)
The study by Platz et al 2019 in contrast used samples of the NHANES cohorts from around 1989 and compared them to the cohort measured around 2001. They found that in never-smoking lean men without comorbidities the T concentration was the same (624 vs 626 ng/dl). So no decline of T levels in this period. The strenghts of this study:
- Direct comparison of age matched samples; they were never-smoking, lean men without aging-associated comorbidities
- Platz measured all samples in the same lab with the same method and the same instrumentation. Method precision was around 2 times higher in this study as compared to the Travis study (CV 4.5% vs 8 to 9%)
So to summarize, while Travis found a decline of about T levels of around 70 to 80 ng/dl within less than a decade, Platz et al found no such difference in the same period of time.
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/92/1/196/2598434
Two interesting studies were published on that topic in the last year. The first one talks about contributing factors such as obesity, T2D, illicit drug abuse, environmental factors on low T levels in yound adults.
The most recent one discusses a decline in T levels in US young mean. Unfortunately I dont have access to the article, but it will be interested to take a closer look at eg the exact T assay used in this study.
‘Limitations include the influence of confounding variables such as environmental factors and the use of differing assays for TT measurement.’
2 Likes
Let’s talk about this in one of my threads… It involves derailing the thread. But I created it and thus don’t mind
These quotes indicate aforementioned studies posted ruled out obesity, lifestyle factors
That being said I believe you’re onto something regarding the abuse of illicit drugs, particularly referring to cannabis.
What I’m trying to convey is the notion of environmental pollutants (EDCs… endocrine disrupting chemicals) and whatnot interfering with hormonal homeostasis
You said
Now you’re saying
As to testosterone assays… we are taking about assay variation of typically below 20%, when there’s a drop of say 50% (present within one of the studies I’ve posted) or a difference of 2-300% regarding ref range cutoff values I don’t think assay variation can entirely account for this
I think you have to read and try to understand my posts and the literature references i provide. I really like to explain but at this point its a waste of time.
I’ve read the posts… I’ve seen the studies regarding variance between measurement within a singular sample and I’ve seen the difference assay variation can induce… it’s not a difference of 300%… ever. I’ve tried to specify labs aren’t adhering to the harmonised ref ranges.
We can agree to disagree, you may think I’m unintelligent, I think you’re too black and white (which is the pot calling the kettle black).
Literature can conflict, hence my studies referenced stating the populational decline existing despite factoring out obesity, lifestyle ‘decisions’
As to this
If you want I can get access to it, screenshot it and send it to you. I have the ability to access just about any one of the articles through a parent of which is an MD
A quote from the study you’ve linked (more detailed abstract than the science daily version)
“Interestingly, even in men with a normal BMI (18.5-24.9), TT levels have declined from 664.79 ng/dL to 529.24 ng/dL”
I’ve tagged you within my other thread, reply there if you wish to continue this conversation
Many ref ranges cut off at 5-600ng/dl now… I don’t care about the assay used to measure test, no method of measurement should cut off at 5-600ng/dl…
That being said I have a few questions for you (medical related) I was hoping you’d be willing to answer for me. Do you mind if ask you on my other thread? @johann77
The theme has gone offropic anyway so…dude, are you really 19?
What the f have you studied to know so much?
I’m trying to keep things on topic… but it was derailed again
Why would I lie about my age? Dbossa has me Facebook (not to share, but so he can back up I’m just a normal kid)
I’m autistic however (high functioning), so I’m… different
If you’ve ever seen skins, I’m nowhere nearly as bad as he is socially (but intellectually it’s very similar)… a character named JJ from seasons 3/4. I don’t find myself to be overtly stimulated by environmental factors either. Many whom are autistic can’t stand loud noise, I’m fine with nightclubs, concerts etc
1 Like
Science is almost always ambiguous - thats what iam trying to explain.
Again, its the details. Just because these authors come to this conclusion doesnt mean that its correct. How was the study setup? How was T exactly measured? etc etc
Challenging results. You will learn during your studies that this is the most important (and most fun) part in science.
Yeah, sure
1 Like
I understand… but not all studies have the competency to mention how these variables are measured… some don’t even account for lifestyle factors. I’ll get the full version of this study but many a times factors such as
- prescription medication (SSRI usage is now being implicated within disrupting endocrine homeostasis, however many studies of which ref ranges are standardised upon don’t include SSRI usage, they’ll include opiates, LHRH agonists, antiandrogens etc… SSRI’s are frequently overlooked
This being said some will out all prescription drug use… this is preferable. Does it mean one should entirely discredit a study due to say… failure to account for assay variation? I don’t think so, when alterations are significant enough (say a 50% drop) I highly doubt assay variation can account for it all
That being said I will acquire the full article over the next few days and send it to you
Then with this said… aside from you’re vastly higher level of educational attainment, who is to say my ideology is 100% most definitely flawed? I believe that there has probably been a decline within the T/fertility rates within the generalised populace independent of obesity. lifestyle factors like lack of exercise, prescription drug use etc I do believe plays a large role… as do EDC’s.
I also believe many labs still don’t adhere to the harmonised ranges that have been constructed… at least in Australia/Europe as I have yet to see a ref range in America that cuts off at 500ng/dl (upper limit) or 50ng/dl (Lower limit)
I’ve never used an AI but Systemlord’s posts were very influential in my changing my protocol for the better. I started initially with 250mg a week (0.5ml of Test E every 3.5 days) and life was just awful, couldn’t sleep, felt anxious and jittery and my TT was over 3100ng/dl when I did my first post-TRT blood test. And my back and chest just exploded with the most horrendous acne almost overnight. I did that for about 3 months, then I read how Systemlord was effectively micro-dosing, and started reducing my own. I’ve cut it back again and again until the point I’m now doing 0.15ml (around 25mg) every 2 days - for every cut back, the better (and more ‘balanced’) I feel. No more acne, no more mood swings. I would probably do c. 10mg daily similar to Systemlord’s previous protocol if it wasn’t unduly inconvenient. I realised I was a hyper-responder on Test and while I still harbour vague notions of a “blast” for muscle gain purposes in future, I seem to get from 200mg/week what others get from 500-600mg/week.
Jesus Christ, 3100 from 250mg weekly
You are just a normal responder on a normal weekly T dose.
1 Like
24 hours after a 250mg shot of sus I clock in at 1500ng/dl… does this mean that I don’t respond normally?
if I look at the literature nadir from 300mg weekly in day 7 is 1000-1300ng/dl depending on the study, meaning peak would be 2000-2600, wouldn’t this equate to him having a higher than avg response (granted FT would be a more accurate predictor here)
Also I’ve asked you my unreal24278 questions in the other thread. (Tagged you)
1 Like
@anna_5588, @skyzyks here ya go
2 Likes
Is it actually 1500 or the maxed out 1500+ result that the most common test (at least in the US) gives?
I’m assuming you would have stated if it were the latter but thought I’d ask anyways.