Testosterone too high?

[kpearce001]

I am hoping you more knowledgeable people can help me out. I am a 55-year-old male who lost 130 pounds and went from a body fat percentage of 40 to 12. Unfortunately, it crashed my testosterone levels to 1.89ng/mL. I went on enclomiphene therapy (through a clinic and prescription) and it jumped to 11.93 ng/mL in two months--which is considered elevated. Can I just run with this or should I back off on the enclomiphene? I have to meet with the Dr. but I wanted to get some additional input. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

 

[Renew1]

I am hoping you more knowledgeable people can help me out. I am a 55-year-old male who lost 130 pounds and went from a body fat percentage of 40 to 12. Unfortunately, it crashed my testosterone levels to 1.89ng/mL. I went on enclomiphene therapy (through a clinic and prescription) and it jumped to 11.93 ng/mL in two months--which is considered elevated. Can I just run with this or should I back off on the enclomiphene? I have to meet with the Dr. but I wanted to get some additional input. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

What range were you given on the Testosterone?

 

[sns8778]

I am hoping you more knowledgeable people can help me out. I am a 55-year-old male who lost 130 pounds and went from a body fat percentage of 40 to 12. Unfortunately, it crashed my testosterone levels to 1.89ng/mL. I went on enclomiphene therapy (through a clinic and prescription) and it jumped to 11.93 ng/mL in two months--which is considered elevated. Can I just run with this or should I back off on the enclomiphene? I have to meet with the Dr. but I wanted to get some additional input. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Congratulations on your progress and weight loss.

As for your testosterone levels, it really depends on the context in which you are asking.

If you're asking if that is too high in the sense of would your doctor continue to prescribe you enclomiphene at that number, that may vary from doctor to doctor.

If you are asking if that is a safe number to be at, people on here, myself included, could really only offer you opinions and not medical advice. Your doctor would be better suited to answer that question because they would know your medical history as well as your bloodwork.

A big part of it may depend on what your bloodwork numbers are on a variety of safety factors like liver values, prostate, hemoglobin, red blood cell count, etc. While that level may not be problematic for some people, there are others that may have issues at that level long term, so that's where bloodwork would come in.

I hope that helps.

 

[KvanH]

The ref range of the lab would be of interest, like Renew asked.

11.93 ng/ml = 1 193 ng/dl, which is pretty awesome (high) on Enclomiphene, if you ask me. Typical top range for total test is 1 100 or 1 200 ng/dl, from what I've seen. Can you share your dose/dosing protocol for the Enclo?

Like SNS well put, it's about other health markes and bloodwork and how those are or react or settle in long term. In general, my understanding is that there isn't really a such thing as too high test (for just the test itself), but it's how the high test affects your other bodily functions.

One thing to consider also is estrogen. Enclo tends to jack up my estro very high, in addition to rising test.

 

[LeanEngineer]

11.93 ng/ml = 1 193 ng/dl, which is pretty awesome (high)

I'm jealous of those levels! Topping out at the upper end of the range!

 

[kpearce001]

What range were you given on the Testosterone?

The lab was Imaware. The "normal" range was 4-8 ng/mL.

 

[kpearce001]

The ref range of the lab would be of interest, like Renew asked.

11.93 ng/ml = 1 193 ng/dl, which is pretty awesome (high) on Enclomiphene, if you ask me. Typical top range for total test is 1 100 or 1 200 ng/dl, from what I've seen. Can you share your dose/dosing protocol for the Enclo?

Like SNS well put, it's about other health markes and bloodwork and how those are or react or settle in long term. In general, my understanding is that there isn't really a such thing as too high test (for just the test itself), but it's how the high test effects your other bodily functions.

One thing to consider also is estrogen. Enclo tends to jack up my estro very high, in addition to rising test.

The lab was Imaware. The "normal" range was 4-8 ng/mL. Isn't enclomiphene an estrogen inhibitor? In any case, I haven't had it checked--which I know I should. It wasn't included in the panel I did.

 

[kpearce001]

The lab was Imaware. The "normal" range was 4-8 ng/mL. Isn't enclomiphene an estrogen inhibitor? In any case, I haven't had it checked--which I know I should. It wasn't included in the panel I did.

The dose was 12.5mg/day.

 

[kpearce001]

Congratulations on your progress and weight loss.

As for your testosterone levels, it really depends on the context in which you are asking.

If you're asking if that is too high in the sense of would your doctor continue to prescribe you enclomiphene at that number, that may vary from doctor to doctor.

If you are asking if that is a safe number to be at, people on here, myself included, could really only offer you opinions and not medical advice. Your doctor would be better suited to answer that question because they would know your medical history as well as your bloodwork.

A big part of it may depend on what your bloodwork numbers are on a variety of safety factors like liver values, prostate, hemoglobin, red blood cell count, etc. While that level may not be problematic for some people, there are others that may have issues at that level long term, so that's where bloodwork would come in.

I hope that helps.

Thanks for the information. I probably just need to do a full panel--which I will do when I talk to the doctor.

 

[Jeremyk1]

The lab was Imaware. The "normal" range was 4-8 ng/mL. Isn't enclomiphene an estrogen inhibitor? In any case, I haven't had it checked--which I know I should. It wasn't included in the panel I did.

It docks estrogen receptors and can inhibit estrogen action at the receptor level. With less estrogen signaling, you can actually see an increase sometimes.

 

[sns8778]

Thanks for the information. I probably just need to do a full panel--which I will do when I talk to the doctor.

You're very welcome. I think a full panel is always the best way to go, and then you and your doctor can make the appropriate decisions from there based off of how you feel and how your bloodwork results look.

 

[sns8778]

The lab was Imaware. The "normal" range was 4-8 ng/mL. Isn't enclomiphene an estrogen inhibitor? In any case, I haven't had it checked--which I know I should. It wasn't included in the panel I did.

The perception of enclomiphene as an estrogen inhibitor is a common mistake that a lot of people make with the ingredient.

@Jeremyk1 explained the estrogen part well above as to the how part.

A lot of people run into estrogen issues on it, so its something I would definitely suggest checking.

 

[MrKleen73]

@sns8778 pretty much covered it with the bloodwork and seeing how it effects you personally.

 

[BCseacow83]

I am hoping you more knowledgeable people can help me out. I am a 55-year-old male who lost 130 pounds and went from a body fat percentage of 40 to 12. Unfortunately, it crashed my testosterone levels to 1.89ng/mL. I went on enclomiphene therapy (through a clinic and prescription) and it jumped to 11.93 ng/mL in two months--which is considered elevated. Can I just run with this or should I back off on the enclomiphene? I have to meet with the Dr. but I wanted to get some additional input. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

OP, how do you now feel? Numbers are great, and a piece of the puzzle, but at the end of the day a patients quality of life and satisfaction should be, at minimum, weighed just as heavily. If you feel great at these numbers, and nothing else skews out of range, then, IMO, game on. Medical providers are not treating machines, these are people, and numbers on paper are NOT the be all end all.

 

[kpearce001]

OP, how do you now feel? Numbers are great, and a piece of the puzzle, but at the end of the day a patients quality of life and satisfaction should be, at minimum, weighed just as heavily. If you feel great at these numbers, and nothing else skews out of range, then, IMO, game on. Medical providers are not treating machines, these are people, and numbers on paper are NOT the be all end all.

I feel pretty good. Definitely better than before. I did a blood panel and everything else looked great--but the panel didn't look at estrogen. I think I am going to get the full blood panel done and if everything looks good I will just run with it.

 

[BCseacow83]

I feel pretty good. Definitely better than before. I did a blood panel and everything else looked great--but the panel didn't look at estrogen. I think I am going to get the full blood panel done and if everything looks good I will just run with it.

Sounds good. You can always lower the dose to 6.25/ED or drop to 12.5 EOD.

Generally speaking when I hear "too high of testosterone" my brain responds: Does NOT COMPUTE........................Does NOT COMPUTE..................

 

[Dustin07]

I am hoping you more knowledgeable people can help me out. I am a 55-year-old male who lost 130 pounds and went from a body fat percentage of 40 to 12.

I'm surprised that your T levels were seemingly healthy when you were 100+lbs over weight. do you know what they were before the weight loss started? I have seen some fun studies on natty lifters vs geared during a cut and the natty lifters at sub 10% bodyfat had T levels that were low for a woman.

glad that things have improved for you and congrats on the great weight loss. subscribing to see how your bloods come back and where it goes from here

 

[KvanH]

I'm surprised that your T levels were seemingly healthy when you were 100+lbs over weight. do you know what they were before the weight loss started? I have seen some fun studies on natty lifters vs geared during a cut and the natty lifters at sub 10% bodyfat had T levels that were low for a woman.

glad that things have improved for you and congrats on the great weight loss. subscribing to see how your bloods come back and where it goes from here

Wow, I didn't know low bodyfat to possibly have that big of an effect. Although when someone is getting to sub 10% BF, there can many times be other possible contributors to low test levels as well, like very low calories, insufficient fat intake, sub-optimal sleep, under recovering, elevated cortisol etc.

I wouldn't still call 1.89 ng/ml (= 189 ng/dl) a healthy level. It's under every ref range I've ever seen for TT.

 

[Resolve10]

Wow, I didn't know low bodyfat to possibly have that big of an effect. Although when someone is getting to sub 10% BF, there can many times be other possible contributors to low test levels as well, like very low calories, insufficient fat intake, sub-optimal sleep, under recovering, elevated cortisol etc.

I wouldn't still call 1.89 ng/ml (= 189 ng/dl) a healthy level. It's under every ref range I've ever seen for TT.

Ya lots of the research on it that I've seen (for it lowering T) is in studies on pre-contest bodybuilders. It can have a pretty big effect, seems to be worse with faster paces of weight loss vs total amount lost, and can take months to recover even if weight and other markers recover. The studies comparing to female contest prep is pretty interesting too. Just as some useless fyi facts for today.

The negative effects you'd get for staying at lower body fat is going to depend on "how low" and what a persons set-point is, the further from that point the more negative effects and possibly those other things you mentioned tying in (although nit-picking the evidence of insufficient fat intake for T probably isn't as strong as some people make it out to be, again depending on what insufficient is determined to be ).

 

[KvanH]

Ya lots of the research on it that I've seen (for it lowering T) is in studies on pre-contest bodybuilders. It can have a pretty big effect, seems to be worse with faster paces of weight loss vs total amount lost, and can take months to recover even if weight and other markers recover. The studies comparing to female contest prep is pretty interesting too. Just as some useless fyi facts for today.

The negative effects you'd get for staying at lower body fat is going to depend on "how low" and what a persons set-point is, the further from that point the more negative effects and possibly those other things you mentioned tying in (although nit-picking the evidence of insufficient fat intake for T probably isn't as strong as some people make it out to be, again depending on what insufficient is determined to be ).

Yeah, I knew getting to very low BF has a negative effect on test levels, but was just surprised to hear it to (in some cases) have men at "lower than women". Never seen any numbers though. By insufficient fat intake I just meant that sometimes when people are trying to cut the last little BF they have, they may be pretty much starving themselves and decrease their fat intake to very low, which at least on paper could contribute to low test production and be just one more thing to hurt test levels in that scenario.

 

[Smont]

The lab was Imaware. The "normal" range was 4-8 ng/mL. Isn't enclomiphene an estrogen inhibitor? In any case, I haven't had it checked--which I know I should. It wasn't included in the panel I did.

It's a serm

 

[Dustin07]

Wow, I didn't know low bodyfat to possibly have that big of an effect. Although when someone is getting to sub 10% BF, there can many times be other possible contributors to low test levels as well, like very low calories, insufficient fat intake, sub-optimal sleep, under recovering, elevated cortisol etc.

I wouldn't still call 1.89 ng/ml (= 189 ng/dl) a healthy level. It's under every ref range I've ever seen for TT.

Yeah, I knew getting to very low BF has a negative effect on test levels, but was just surprised to hear it to (in some cases) have men at "lower than women". Never seen any numbers though. By insufficient fat intake I just meant that sometimes when people are trying to cut the last little BF they have, they may be pretty much starving themselves and decrease their fat intake to very low, which at least on paper could contribute to low test production and be just one more thing to hurt test levels in that scenario.

If i have time later I'll try to find one of the studies. When I was sub 10% for a very long time I had zero signs of low T but never tested. in fact, I'd say my indicators were typically high T, extremely high libido etc and the only supplementation for me was always like maca, goat weed, tribulus etc. that was around age 30-36. Now at age 41 I can say that carrying an extra 20lbs and hanging around 16% bf my natural indicators love surplus food and cuts definitely have me down. so it would be interesting if I can find one of those old studies if I could also find the age of the people they looked at cutting natty vs geared.

 

[Smont]

If i have time later I'll try to find one of the studies. When I was sub 10% for a very long time I had zero signs of low T but never tested. in fact, I'd say my indicators were typically high T, extremely high libido etc and the only supplementation for me was always like maca, goat weed, tribulus etc. that was around age 30-36. Now at age 41 I can say that carrying an extra 20lbs and hanging around 16% bf my natural indicators love surplus food and cuts definitely have me down. so it would be interesting if I can find one of those old studies if I could also find the age of the people they looked at cutting natty vs geared.

There's a lot of factors that go into it.

If you had to go on a starvation diet, something less then like 1800 calories a day to get sub 10 or maintain it. assuming your a normal size gym rat or bigger and your stuck eating those calories or less your testosterone levels will most likely decline. But if your single digits and still able to eat a decent amount of quality food it's less likely your test will tank. 10% is not that low for this topic. If your 6-7% that's a different story too.

Diet, age, genetics, health In general. Lots to consider.

You absolutely can be 10% and natty and have Fantastic testosterone levels. I think sometimes guys play up tge severity of this to make a excuse not to cut.

 

[Resolve10]

Yeah, I knew getting to very low BF has a negative effect on test levels, but was just surprised to hear it to (in some cases) have men at "lower than women". Never seen any numbers though. By insufficient fat intake I just meant that sometimes when people are trying to cut the last little BF they have, they may be pretty much starving themselves and decrease their fat intake to very low, which at least on paper could contribute to low test production and be just one more thing to hurt test levels in that scenario.

Ya I didn't mean to imply you specifically, I can get in trouble speaking broadly when quoting others, my bad.

I'd have to see the numbers I hadn't seen anything that low, but wouldn't necessarily be surprised in certain cases.

This case study measured a 72% decrease and I've seen quite a few others with measurements, but don't know the numbers off the top of my head.

There's a lot of factors that go into it.

If you had to go on a starvation diet, something less then like 1800 calories a day to get sub 10 or maintain it. assuming your a normal size gym rat or bigger and your stuck eating those calories or less your testosterone levels will most likely decline. But if your single digits and still able to eat a decent amount of quality food it's less likely your test will tank. 10% is not that low for this topic. If your 6-7% that's a different story too.

Diet, age, genetics, health In general. Lots to consider.

You absolutely can be 10% and natty and have Fantastic testosterone levels. I think sometimes guys play up tge severity of this to make a excuse not to cut.

I laugh at the bold because it feels so true. I don't want to downplay the importance of hormone levels, but I see tons of excuses in general thrown around by people using them to justify stuff when there are probably lots of other factors.

Also sorry OP just realized how off topic this is!