No you didn’t answer it all you danced around it. The question is not whether or not someone would want to do this to themselves, but rather how would the body react if he did. If the testes fail to produce enough, the pituitary kicks up LH and FSH. If the injection fails to produce enough, the pituitary still cease to output LH and FSH. See the conflict here?
I believe, even though it is “bio-identical” the body still recognizes that it itself didn’t create that testosterone and says I guess I’m not needed and shuts down production. I don’t think bio-identical means that the body recognizes it as it’s own test just that it effects the tissues the same as ours would. I may be way off but that’s how it would make sense to me.
1 Like
I understand but now we are reaching into variables and unique scenarios. I don’t have an answer for that. who says it shuts down? This is where a medical professional is needed because I’m not having clinical experience.
I was simply responding to hrdvn who had it backwards. The posts above clarify why A large weekly dose over many months shuts down the system.
Close but the logic is the same. I’m not making opinions here. I’m just sharing how the body works.
Just a theory here, but what about the method of injecting. We have seen that low dose testosterone can drop levels to below baseline. There are studies that show that when a man injects 25 mg weekly their total T drops significantly after 16 weeks.
I don’t have proof, but here is my theory as to why the levels drop. It has to do with response time. 25 mg produces a spike higher than natural morning spike. This causes the pituitary to stop producing LH and FSH. Now 3-4 days in, test levels are lower than they were at baseline, and the pituitary is starting to come back to signal the balls, but at lower because the body has to ramp up. Now a week later, another shot happens and starts the process over.
Does this make sense?
2 Likes
We all say it does and that is the point of the discussion. To put that theory to the test and ask deeper questions to either prove or disprove this theory. Or at least see if it holds water.
FWIW, I think @hrdlvn was arguing the exact same point I am making here. You can’t prove that the body doesn’t know the difference without testing this hypothetical scenario, and like you said…who would do that?
1 Like
enackers has a point. If you were to inject really small amounts daily or twice daily and it was not enough to be above your baseline, I am not sure you would be shut down.
I don’t think the reason for shut down at low levels of testosterone are from them being synthetic, I think it has more to do with how people use them. A large spike once or twice a week, may be enough to shut everything down, and it takes time for everything to come back.
Makes as much sense as anything else I’ve read here.
Look guys…this is the point. It’s all a theory as no tests have been done that we know of (and please somebody chime in if I’m mistaken) to PROVE this one way or the other. The point is, we ALL have a theory. Some are more plausible than others, but all of them are still theory. We can’t jump on other members’ case just because their theory doesn’t line up with ours. We should all respects each other’s opinions and take them for just that. Opinions based on personal experience.
Keep it civil guys.
1 Like
Yes he does. @hrdlvn has a point too lol.
The reason I brought up my point wasn’t so much to say that I am right, just to say that hey look this is also plausible, and correct in theory of how feedback loops work. Maybe neither are correct, but lets not jump to conclusions.
I don’t even believe my own point completely. It logically makes sense, but it could be numerous other things as well.
1 Like
Somebody gets it!! Lmao!
Here’s another question that feeds in with this discussion…
If the pituitary DOESN’T shut down on very low dose injections, then why does therapy not entail injecting .01mg (or whatever quantity would be the difference in natural production and a true good level) of No Estered Test everyday to just supplement the natural production?
I get what your saying but I still don’t think the body recognizes it as it’s own. Just that it effects our tissues the same as our own would. I believe if someone wanted to “supplement” their t (which we know doesn’t work) and was injecting at a natural test level of 800, let’s say 2-3mg everyday. Well below what we produce naturally a day. We know they will initially shutdown. And say they stuck with that protocol (God help them) and dropped to let’s say 150 or less, I do not believe that the body will say “oh hey we can do better than this” and fire up the pituitary eventually, because it see’s it still is getting outside intervention. I dont believe your system would come back online until that outside intervention is removed. Like @mnben87 stated for himself, I’m not saying I’m right either, but that is my theory.
No not to be argumentative but the science is saying otherwise. The body creates Testasterone using the process outlined. This shows why this synthetic hormone is close enough to the real thing. If it was not we would still have a functioning gland.
The other points you brought up are different scenarios. But the science is truth and not my opinion.
I hope you can understand what I mean by “why would you give yourself less T .” The body surely would say “not enough” and continue trying to top it off. It’s only torment that one inflicted upon themselves if they take that approach.
Read the article there’s no disputing it. It’s only logical why the body stops producing.
The system is saying we have enough. Enough of what? Hormones… if the body did not recognize it as it’s own then it would not say we are topped off please discoutninue production or stimulation of… its in the reading above and I’m not going To dispute or think otherwise because it would be against what science has discovered.
There are zero opinions when making the comment I made above.
You can pick and choose what you want out of that article just like I can. What I read, it acts just as natural hormones and says technically can’t tell the difference. Is it saying the tissues can’t tell or the whole system in general? Doesn’t say. That Harvard study is also about women and estrogen and states that it adds to their estrogen already produced in the ovaries. We men on TRT know that we cannot add on to our current levels by just adding more to supplement as our body shuts virtually all production unless we trick it with HCG or another SERM to produce in the testes. So yes there are opinions on what you stated because I did not get the same “facts” out of what you gathered from the same article. I’m sorry man but I will not read something and gather it as complete fact no matter where it comes from, I will pick it apart and if something is not completely answered I will question it. Like I said I’m not saying I’m right but there are holes in what you are stating as fact, just as there probably are in my theory.
It is it really though? If it was scientific fact, then it would hold true for all scenarios. It could be proven. A fact proving test is something that can be repeated and recreated over and over again. It takes 4000 newtons of force to break a human bone. Scientific fact that can be repeated over and over again and proven.
Now let me use that FACT to compare this discussion…
Side A:
If I exert 4000 newtons of force on my leg bone it will break. A fall of 25’ can exert 4500 newtons of force upon impact. My conclusion is that a fall from 25’ WILL break a bone in my body.
Sounds reasonable right?
Side B:
If I exert 4000 newtons of force on my leg bone it will break. I know that a fall of 25’ will produce 4500 newtons of force, but the only factual conclusion I can draw is that 4000 newtons of force will break my leg bone.
Side A draws a conclusion based on fact, but it is simply not true. The statements do not hold true for all variables, or scenarios. The 25’ fall could result in one doing a touch and roll, thus spreading out the force in such a way that 4000 newtons of force is never exerted to one specific spot on your leg bone (or any bone for that matter).
Side B only concludes what is fact, and leaves the unknown variables to be proven on a situational basis.
See the difference? Now let’s apply…
Side A:
Pituitary secretion of FSH and LH shuts down when exogenous Test is introduced. My testosterone is marketed as bioidentical.
The pituitary gland will stop LH and FSH production when serum test levels reach a satisfactory (or higher level). My conclusion is that since my exogenous test is bioidentical, the compounded introduction must be higher than the predetermined threshold for serum levels, because the pituitary function shuts down.
Side B
Pituitary secretion of FSH and LH shuts down when exogenous Test is introduced. My testosterone is marketed as bioidentical.
The pituitary gland will stop LH and FSH production when serum test levels reach a satisfactory (or higher level). My conclusion is that pituitary secretion of FSH and LH shuts down when exogenous Test is introduced. I cannot prove whether or not that is because of the amount of injected test or because the body saw that the test was exogenous, therefore I cannot prove this theory as fact.
See what I mean?
1 Like
I’ll respond after my date but maybe @physioLojik can help reiterate what I’m saying in a way that clarifies . Because I see it clear as day.
No need brother. At least not here. We’ve hijacked this guy’s thread enough. If you want to continue the discussion, start a new thread and tag me. I love discussing this type of stuff.
I would also love to hear @physioLojik chime in. He’s a busy man though, so he may not have time for these type of “chicken or the egg” discussions lol.
1 Like
I like the threads that are more science based.