Topic of the Week: Are you worried about the long term effects of Prohormones?

[Stacks1]

I think below 400 and youre at risk for heart issues.

Yes, I don't know the exact number but low test could certainly cause heart issues (although I would imagine it's somewhat less likely for those who diet and exercise properly). But you can have extremely high cholesterol and be on the brink of a heart attack or stroke and have zero symptoms... it's actually pretty common.

Like I said, I agree with @Mathb33 that that a well controlled healthy test is always better than a low one. My point was that a lot of people look at their test and immediately point to it being the culprit of not feeling great because it's lower than they thought... and sometimes that is the case... but there are certainly plenty of times where it is not. Someone might think that their test needs to be at 1000 because they felt great when it was and they felt much worse when it was 600... but that's not necessarily the solution. There can be plenty of other variables why someone "felt better" at 1000 than 600 and it may not be entirely or at all related to the higher test. That's all I'm trying to get at.

 

[thescience]

Yes, I don't know the exact number but low test could certainly cause heart issues (although I would imagine it's somewhat less likely for those who diet and exercise properly). But you can have extremely high cholesterol and be on the brink of a heart attack or stroke and have zero symptoms... it's actually pretty common.

Like I said, I agree with @Mathb33 that that a well controlled healthy test is always better than a low one. My point was that a lot of people look at their test and immediately point to it being the culprit of not feeling great because it's lower than they thought... and sometimes that is the case... but there are certainly plenty of times where it is not. Someone might think that their test needs to be at 1000 because they felt great when it was and they felt much worse when it was 600... but that's not necessarily the solution. There can be plenty of other variables why someone "felt better" at 1000 than 600 and it may not be entirely or at all related to the higher test. That's all I'm trying to get at.

totally.

yeah the issue with low t is that the heart is a muscle that loses tone when it dips too low.
as far as overuse goes, i dont know at what point the head becomes a potato head, but that would probably be the line for me. time may reveal that some of these guys are drastically extending their life. personally, if i was boxed into that corner despite all of my attempts to remedy it, i would run it up to 900 and then bombard my system with a bunch of supplements to support the liver and blood thinning

 

[Hyde]

totally.

yeah the issue with low t is that the heart is a muscle that loses tone when it dips too low.
as far as overuse goes, i dont know at what point the head becomes a potato head, but that would probably be the line for me. time may reveal that some of these guys are drastically extending their life. personally, if i was boxed into that corner despite all of my attempts to remedy it, i would run it up to 900 and then bombard my system with a bunch of supplements to support the liver and blood thinning

Why do you feel legitimate TRT would require especially bolstered liver support? Just curious.

 

[thescience]

Why do you feel legitimate TRT would require especially bolstered liver support? Just curious.

Why do you feel legitimate TRT would require especially bolstered liver support? Just curious.

i was talking about 900+; i think legit trt is supposed to cut you off at 650. my normal is 550, so nearly doubling those androgens needed to be processed by the liver would warrant the attention for me.

 

[Dustin07]

Yes, I don't know the exact number but low test could certainly cause heart issues (although I would imagine it's somewhat less likely for those who diet and exercise properly).

wow considering the mad scientists I read on these boards daily I feel incredibly naïve. I was aware of plenty of downfalls to low T levels but I had never heard that it could be related to more serious issues like heart conditions.

 

[Hyde]

i was talking about 900+; i think legit trt is supposed to cut you off at 650. my normal is 550, so nearly doubling those androgens needed to be processed by the liver would warrant the attention for me.

Your numbers seem very arbitrary, for what is already an arbitrary therapy. Most clinicians would define replacement as within the normal range - which is greater than 900 in the US, often 1,000-1,100ng/dl.

I also don’t think you are giving the liver much credit, unless you specifically have some existing impairment or family history of disfunction.

 

[thescience]

Your numbers seem very arbitrary, for what is already an arbitrary therapy. Most clinicians would define replacement as within the normal range - which is greater than 900 in the US, often 1,000-1,100ng/dl.

I also don’t think you are giving the liver much credit, unless you specifically have some existing impairment or family history of disfunction.

no yeah i see "normal" ranges all over the place, but when i hear stories of guys limiting their vitamin c intake due to getting polycythemia when their test is at 900.... im sorry that isnt normal. are there guys that doesnt happen to even at 1200? surely, but i have no clue about all the variables involved with that.

yeah my old man has high cholesterol. my strategy is an outset strategy and would definitely be subject to adaptation as the situation demanded. i do things to support my liver now

 

[Stacks1]

Your numbers seem very arbitrary, for what is already an arbitrary therapy. Most clinicians would define replacement as within the normal range - which is greater than 900 in the US, often 1,000-1,100ng/dl.

I believe an average clinician is unlikely to target the same range for an older person with test under 200 vs a younger person with test of 400. 1000-1100 seem high for the "average" clinician to me.

 

[Hyde]

no yeah i see "normal" ranges all over the place, but when i hear stories of guys limiting their vitamin c intake due to getting polycythemia when their test is at 900.... im sorry that isnt normal. are there guys that doesnt happen to even at 1200? surely, but i have no clue about all the variables involved with that.

Totally agree that polycythemia isn’t normal. But that goes back to people being individuals, and why treating (or judging) based on a total t number is misguided if you are seeking an optimal health outcome.

Dave Crosland had talked about in the UK, if the average man has his replacement at the top of the US normal range, he very often sees a host of issues like polycythemia with those clients. People of different geographic/genetic backgrounds respond differently, needing different levels to be optimal. He is big on keeping the doses for real TRT on what the body seems happy to metabolize without issue.

I believe an average clinician is unlikely to target the same range for an older person with test under 200 vs a younger person with test of 400. 1000-1100 seem high for the "average" clinician to me.

A good clinician doesn’t overly focus on numbers. If they do, they are indeed not going to pursue maxing out that wide range - but they’re also not going to cut anyone off for going over 650ng/dl. That was simply not factual.

 

[thescience]

Totally agree that polycythemia isn’t normal. But that goes back to people being individuals, and why treating (or judging) based on a total t number is misguided if you are seeking an optimal health outcome.

Dave Crosland had talked about in the UK, if the average man has his replacement at the top of the US normal range, he very often sees a host of issues like polycythemia with those clients. People of different geographic/genetic backgrounds respond differently, needing different levels to be optimal. He is big on keeping the doses for real TRT on what the body seems happy to metabolize without issue.



A good clinician doesn’t overly focus on numbers. If they do, they are indeed not going to pursue maxing out that wide range - but they’re also not going to cut anyone off for going over 650ng/dl. That was simply not factual.

im sure there is some kind of cut-off in the sense that if a clinician doesnt back down the dose and numbers are skyrocketing, theyre legally holding the bag if something happens to the guy. dont know where that point is. it's news to me that people are going that high supervised, but im not shocked. i guess maybe if you want more, alot of them say ok but we're going to monitor this and that and if you trip something they back you off. ive heard stories of guys who take sarms etc on top of trt and the doc continues with the normal dose administered whether they agree with the addition or not because 1) they cant yank a script that someone is potentially dependent on and 2) they basically arent legally responsible for any problems at that point because the patient is responsible for adding more against the dr's advice

 

[Stacks1]

A good clinician doesn’t overly focus on numbers. If they do, they are indeed not going to pursue maxing out that wide range - but they’re also not going to cut anyone off for going over 650ng/dl. That was simply not factual.

Maybe... to be honest I'm not sure. You're the one who said that most clinicians would consider replacement in the normal range of 1000-1100. I just don't think that's a universal range. I think there are plenty of clinicians who would say bringing a 65 year old from 200 to 650 is still the definition of TRT... hell, at 65 years old 650 is pretty damn good... above the average range for the age. I just don't believe most good clinicians are targeting 1000-1100.

I almost invested a substantial amount of my personal capital into an online TRT clinic (plus additional services). I didn't but in hindsight I kind of regret not getting in on that round. One of my biggest concerns at the time was liability issues. I don't recall if the ranges were discussed but I do recall they said anyone under 35 (or maybe it was 30) would be immediately turned away. They had some real institutional investors that put money in so I have to believe some of this had to be covered during due diligence. It would be interesting to see if they have some feedback on this as this industry is still evolving.

 

[Hyde]

im sure there is some kind of cut-off in the sense that if a clinician doesnt back down the dose and numbers are skyrocketing, theyre legally holding the bag if something happens to the guy. dont know where that point is. it's news to me that people are going that high supervised, but im not shocked. i guess maybe if you want more, alot of them say ok but we're going to monitor this and that and if you trip something they back you off. ive heard stories of guys who take sarms etc on top of trt and the doc continues with the normal dose administered whether they agree with the addition or not because 1) they cant yank a script that someone is potentially dependent on and 2) they basically arent legally responsible for any problems at that point because the patient is responsible for adding more against the dr's advice

Then I expect it will be news to you also that some guys have been given scripts as high as 600mg of test/wk. But it has happened. And not because that’s what it takes to keep someone in a normal range of course; it’s just an abuse of the system.

Just last weekend I spoke with a pro competitor getting prescribed 420mg/wk. He is an enormous man, over 50, and he needs no special nutrient or phlebotic intervention to maintain acceptable blood viscosity to his doctor. He’s certainly above the natural range, but it’s something he’s going to do anyway, so I think some doctors realize it’s safest if they can at least supervise the abuse.

I’m mainly just telling you this because I thought it was interesting

Maybe... to be honest I'm not sure. You're the one who said that most clinicians would consider replacement in the normal range of 1000-1100. I just don't think that's a universal range. I think there are plenty of clinicians who would say bringing a 65 year old from 200 to 650 is still the definition of TRT... hell, at 65 years old 650 is pretty damn good... above the average range for the age. I just don't believe most good clinicians are targeting 1000-1100.

I didn’t say that. Reread my post. I said the normal range in the US goes up to 1,000 or even 1,100ng/dl. And I said that to make the point that there is no medical rule regarding an arbitrary cutoff when seeing levels above 650.

I completely agree that there’s no health-minded reason to target top of normal range for someone of advanced years.

 

[Stacks1]

Then I expect it will be news to you also that some guys have been given scripts as high as 600mg of test/wk. But it has happened. And not because that’s what it takes to keep someone in a normal range of course; it’s just an abuse of the system.

Just last weekend I spoke with a pro competitor getting prescribed 420mg/wk. He is an enormous man, over 50, and he needs no special nutrient or phlebotic intervention to maintain acceptable blood viscosity to his doctor. He’s certainly above the natural range, but it’s something he’s going to do anyway, so I think some doctors realize it’s safest if they can at least supervise the abuse.

I’m mainly just telling you this because I thought it was interesting

Oh this definitely exists. There were doctors willing to write scripts for opioids like they're tic tacs. They still take significant liability and risk doing so but it's a risk some doctors are willing to take.

I didn’t say that. Reread my post. I said the normal range in the US goes up to 1,000 or even 1,100ng/dl. And I said that to make the point that there is no medical rule regarding an arbitrary cutoff when seeing levels above 650.

I completely agree that there’s no health-minded reason to target top of normal range for someone of advanced years.

I understand what you're saying now... when I read your post it didn't really read that way though. You just said the average range is over 900, not up to 1100. But yes, I agree it's about the normal range, which obviously varies based on age.

 

[Hyde]

I understand what you're saying now... when I read your post it didn't really read that way though. You just said the average range is over 900, not up to 1100. But yes, I agree it's about the normal range, which obviously varies based on age.

Well I never said average; I was saying the normal range goes over 900 - as high as 1100 in some cases. But I can see how you could read that as I was implying they would target 900-1,100. Which I do not believe.

 

[thescience]

well this thread definitely explains why there's a bunch of old men at my gym who are more jacked than me

 

[Hyde]

well this thread definitely explains why there's a bunch of old men at my gym who are more jacked than me

Every efficacious thing generally has a cost equal to that efficacy…

 

[KvanH]

im sure there is some kind of cut-off in the sense that if a clinician doesnt back down the dose and numbers are skyrocketing, theyre legally holding the bag if something happens to the guy. dont know where that point is. it's news to me that people are going that high supervised, but im not shocked. i guess maybe if you want more, alot of them say ok but we're going to monitor this and that and if you trip something they back you off. ive heard stories of guys who take sarms etc on top of trt and the doc continues with the normal dose administered whether they agree with the addition or not because 1) they cant yank a script that someone is potentially dependent on and 2) they basically arent legally responsible for any problems at that point because the patient is responsible for adding more against the dr's advice

Yeah, the clinicians are monitoring (or should be) related health markers and those are the cut-offs, and the normal ref ranges of hormonal values (which for TT goes up to 1 100 ng/dl in some places, like was said). I've gotten the impression, that usually the Dr.'s have their typical dose they start with, say like 100 mg a week, and if that lands the patient in normal ref ranges and other health markers are (and stay) fine and the patient feels good with the dose/protocol, then that's the dose they keep, wether the patient's TT goes to 600 or to a 1 000.