What is TRT and What is NOT TRT

Somewhere between a day and 3 days. I’m not really sure TBH. Probably depends on the individual. Most places test right before your next injection.

I don’t buy this or at least not to the degree it’s frequently proclaimed.our great grand daddies were not walking around with 2x our test levels. Maybe 10% more but that’s all studies have reflected.

http://ourstolenfuture.com/NewScience/reproduction/2006/2006-1210travisonetal.html

1 Like

How long have we been able to actually measure total T or free T levels? Like which decade did that start being possible at least with some degree of regularity? I’ve seen some posts talking about T levels a realllly long time ago but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t possible to even test T levels in say the 1920’s (but I could be wrong and that’d be kind of cool too)

1 Like

I’m more guilty of the whole “say everything except directly stating what I’m trying to say” thing. It’s an issue, I’m working on it

1 Like

@highpull you do realize that you posted three articles that were summarizations of the same study (2007). Ok so let’s assume that study is true, it still shows mean testosterone levels two decades ago at 600-650. This is a far cry from the “TRT” dose related labs seen here more often than not showing a trough level of 800-1200ng/dL. Now let’s also assume this study may be flawed and typically you need more than one study to show a trend.

More to add… in the 2007 study diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease significantly increased from the 80s T1 samples to the 2004 T3 samples. Likely obesity as well. Obesity has doubled since the 80s. I would post sources but I’m on my iPad and it’s tough. So assuming true, is this self inflicted and not indicative of generational loss but rather lifestyle?

The other prevalent study out there that started this mantra used samples that had to be “rehydrated” due to their age. So the samples from grandad were not the same as the freshly taken. IMO this automatically deems it flawed.

3 Likes

Nope, just did a quick search, took a glance and pasted them. Sorry about that.

Your points are valid. Chicken or the egg? We’re fat, out of shape, sedentary, eat crap, diabetic, etc. Yeah, testosterone levels drop. It’s getting worse in the US. Look at young people these days. I was in the Czech Republic for an international weightlifting competition about twenty years ago. After three or four days, it occurred to me I had not seen a fat person, except for the SHWT weightlifters. I actually started looking for them. Saw two women, about 25-30 lbs overweight. That was it. No one 100 lbs overweight. I go to a WalMart and in the time it takes me to walk to the back and grab some motor oil, I’ve seen a dozen at least 100lbs overweight. Plus one or two, or even three, riding a scooter because they are 200lbs overweight and cannot walk twenty feet.

Yeah, we’re not healthy and, big shock, our hormones are Fd up.

I have some guys, and women, that have lost 80-100lbs. Their health has improved dramatically. Is it the diet, exercise, testosterone, one of the above, two of them? Maybe they’re spending money on a TRT program and are now motivated to clean up their act. I don’t know. But if you ask them, they don’t care. And, the GP is happy as they are off BP and diabetes meds.

I feel good about that, regardless of the lab numbers and whether or not it is “TRT” or a “cycle”. Call it whatever, I’m calling them a lot more healthy than they were.

8 Likes

This is a good point.
What’s more effective, healthier - FDA approved weight loss meds, exercise, diet, surgery or trt, or for women hrt?

I mean if trt is allowing people to loss weight and motivate them, that’s a great thing.
But would we use trt for this?

I think I lean towards life style chances cause if they don’t do that first trt will fail them accomplishing the goal here. And now they are worse off.

Good point. I’m just engaging in thoughtful conversation about it too, not saying your approach is wrong but wanting more to discuss that generational decline. I’m totally agreeable that you treat the symptoms more so than the range itself but that would still have its limits. I do think @readalot makes a good point and that the clinics over prescribe dosage most of the time. Is it harmful? Not sure. Mine is definitely more than I need but I’m aware, willing to risk it, and also feel well where I’m at (140mg/wk upper range on trough day in both free and total).

1 Like

Good point and no argument from me. One guy of mine comes to mind immediately, he’s lost 80lbs, sitting on a needle once a week. Still eats like crap, exercise is playing the guitar (huh?) and drinks his beer. He’s off metformin and atenolol.

Sometimes, not this guy, lifestyle choices fail them without TRT.

1 Like

Couldn’t agree more. There are 50 year old guys on TRT running TT of 1200-1500 justifying it saying these levels were normal just a few years ago. This is simply not the case. The Framingham Heart Study measured levels of fit individuals between 18-40 screening out those that were overweight, had diabetes, hypertension, etc… There were a handful of people around 1300. Presumably these were people in their 20’s. Even if you are in the elite natural level when it comes to testosterone on average testosterone starts decreasing at 25. The body is very complex. Can we assume this happens for a reason? People get in their late 20’s and life hits them. They no longer live at home and have a full time job and rent. Then they get married and have kids. This stress can lead to worse sleep, worse eating habits, less working out, etc… Now the default is my TT is 500 but I still feel like crap so I need TRT and levels of 1200 to feel good. There are no long term studies and we simply don’t no if there will be long term effects from people running TT over 1000 consistently for years.

3 Likes

Average testosterone levels amongs YOUNG MEN 50 years ago was 650ng/dl. It is absolutely redicilous how some idiots here claim that “we used to walk around with 1500ng/dl man!!” - No, we did not, fools.

Hey guys, I’d appreciate it if everyone can be respectful in this thread so we don’t clog it up with logical fallacies. Share your data, share facts, even post thoughtful opinion. Otherwise, it’s just gonna get clogged up like some other threads. Then it’s going to be hard to navigate. Thanks very much in advance and appreciate the good input so far…@highpull, @blshaw, @mnben87, @swoops39 !!

For example, this thread:

Lot’s of good stuff in there but most aren’t going to make time / have patience to dig for it with all the litter.

1 Like

So when I add trestolone to my routine will that still count as trt? :joy:

1 Like

Thanks for sharing this paper. Taking it at face value besides the great nice observations from @blshaw

Analysis sample

To enhance comparability of age distributions across study waves and to allow for analyses of T concentrations by subjects’ birth cohorts, data were restricted to observations obtained on men of age 45–79 yr born between 1916 and 1945, inclusive. This yielded potential samples of 1399, 975, and 579 observations at T1, T2, and T3, respectively. Of these, we excluded all observations on the seven men who had T1 serum total T less than 100 ng/dl (3.5 nmol/liter), and two outlying observations with total T more than 1200 ng/dl (41.6 nmol/liter). One hundred twenty-six observations were excluded because they were taken on subjects who, before the relevant study wave, had a diagnosis of prostate cancer, for which treatment via hormone suppression therapy could not be ruled out. An additional 44 observations were excluded because subjects lacked complete health data. This yielded samples of 1374, 906, and 489 observations at T1, T2, and T3, respectively, totaling 2769 observations taken on 1532 men.

Notice the max range of the y-axis:

I was trying to be generous with setting upper bound at 1200 ng/dL up above. Pretty consistent range across studies.

but guys! I thought average test levels 40 years ago was 1800ng/dl, “cuz they keep messing with the normal range”, those legit dudes on utube told me?

1 Like

Hey @highpull, I appreciate the feedback and compliment. I also appreciate and understand your philosophy towards therapy. Rather than Testosterone Restoration Therapy, the approach you summarize would have to be described as Symptom Resolution Therapy (SRT) or Feeling-Function Restoration Therapy (FRT) or “Super Man Mode” or “Mild Continuous Cycle - MCC”. Restoration is not resetting something to a much higher level than it was originally. So FRT I can buy. I am glad that men have this option and are free to choose once they have given informed consent. My mission here was to define TRT so that guys can educate themselves and decide if they want TRT or SRT/FRT. I can understand your POV on numbers but this becomes a slippery slope as numbers do matter and if they don’t why measure stuff? We both know the associated penalty functions and delicate homeostasis of the human body so that’s why standardized ranges are developed as there’s usually risk/reward involved in violating them.

Even within the standard range, what’s normal for one dude may be a no-no for another (hence the distribution). I think that’s why the endocrinologists are typically very conservative as they know they don’t know very much (no one does).

Once we accurately define TRT, then we can attack what’s going on with guys now days and discuss this in depth (EDCs, obesity, screen time, …).

2 Likes

Thank you, will be good data in the future.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cen.14068

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cen.13840

The only group of humans walking around above 1200 ng/dL except for those taking exogenous testosterone.

The testosterone levels in the genetic males with 5ARD2 and AIS are shown in Table 2.7, 24-34 These values are from individuals with a range of phenotypes and varying degrees of virilization. Most of these males showed virilization with apparent male external genitalia. However, some do show a more female phenotype, with testosterone in the normal male range.26 The mean/medians for males with 5ARD2 ranged from 13.4 to 31.2 nmol/L (386‐899 ng/dL), and the absolute range of individual values was 3.6‐47.2 nmol/L (104‐1360 ng/dL). Males with AIS had mean/medians ranging from 11.9 to 55.7 nmol/L (343‐1605 ng/dL), and the overall absolute range was 4.8‐68.3 nmol/L (138‐1968 ng/dL) (Table [3](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cen.13840#cen13840-tbl-0003)).7, 28, 30-34 Testosterone levels were similar in males with partial AIS (PAIS) and complete AIS (CAIS). Some of the reports included pubertal males for both 5ARD2 and AIS, and their ranges overlapped with the postpubertal males.

Genetic males with CAIS have a blind vagina, no cervix or uterus, and undescended testes which are usually located in the abdomen.28, 34, 40, 41 They have normal foetal male testosterone levels in utero, but ambiguous genitalia, as the impaired androgen receptors do not activate appropriate cellular responses and tissue action. At puberty, testosterone levels increase into the normal adult male range, but there is no tissue response to testosterone and no masculinization. However, the pubertal increase in testosterone causes an increase in estradiol, by aromatization of the testosterone, leading to feminization, with breast development and a near‐normal female phenotype. The testes usually remain in the abdomen. Because males with CAIS lack ovaries, they often present for primary amenorrhea with anovulation and lack of menses. Men with PAIS show a range of phenotypes with progressive masculinization depending on the degree of androgen insensitivity.40 As children, males with 5ARD2 and PAIS may be raised either as girls or boys, depending upon whether female or male phenotype predominates, and depending upon parental, social, religious and ethnocultural considerations.

8-24 hrs for intramuscular / subq studies testing every few hours. Let me know if you want more info or how to calculate from the paper I shared above.