E2 always measured at maximum - where is the average?

[albatross]

I am on a daily dose of T and HCG but I take Exemestane qtr of a tab 6.25mg every 3.5 days. As I no longer have a trough for T, I now measure on the day of my next Exemestane dose.

So it sits at a measured 40 pg/mL on day of next dose but what I suppose is the highest level it gets. But what is the average over 3.5 days? how much of an effect does that micro dose have? does it halve the E2? take 30% off it? and then build up from there? Does anyone know?

I think I feel best on a E2 of about 40 pg/ml but for all I know the average over 7 days is much lower than this?

 

[Vince]

Of course as you know, all men need estrogen. If you're not having any symptoms from low or high estrogen. I wouldn't be concerned, I believe you're over analyzing the situation.

 

[albatross]

I am trying to figure out what is going on with my Libido it was very good a few weeks ago but has now dipped quite rapidly so I am thinking that maybe E2 is the culprit and that maybe it needs to be higher. All other blood markers are where I want them to be.

I know from previous experience that when E2 dips below about 25 then I start to feel very poorly.

 

[Vince Carter]

As I no longer have a trough for T

This is wrong. Even with a daily shot you will have a trough, and a peak. Stable is wrongly used. Less pronounced ups and downs as levels rise and fall, but never constant and never stable.

So it sits at a measured 40 pg/mL on day of next dose but what I suppose is the highest level it gets. But what is the average over 3.5 days? how much of an effect does that micro dose have? does it halve the E2? take 30% off it? and then build up from there? Does anyone know?

None of this is linear like that, how you respond to a particular dose. Get some tests.

 

[Cataceous]

.... As I no longer have a trough for T, ...

This is wrong. Even with a daily shot you will have a trough, and a peak. Stable is wrongly used. ....

That's splitting hairs. If the daily variation is only a few percent then it's perfectly reasonable to say you do not have peaks or troughs. As with the OP, this was my experience with EOD enanthate: very little variation in serum testosterone.

...
None of this is linear like that, how you respond to a particular dose. Get some tests.

This statement is what's actually wrong. Look at my tests and tell me the results aren't linear:

 

[Cataceous]

@albatross : There was a spreadsheet floating around the net called "Test and E2 Calculations V0.1.xlsx", which I may have attached. It contains some fairly detailed modeling, including the effects of AIs. With respect to exemestane, the author says "To account for the effect of an AI, this spreadsheet assumes your E2 will be linearly proportional to your aromatase enzyme level. Aromasin has a short half life, and it functions by binding to and killing your aromatase enzyme. So the model assumes Aromasin is only active right when you take it. It still keeps E2 low for ~2-3 days, while your body is producing more aromatase enzyme. (Aromasin is what reduces the column “aromatase (total)” below 100% - the other AIs only affect the unbound amount)"

I think if you play around with the spreadsheet, and/or appropriate the underlying models, you should be able to get a rough idea of what your estradiol is doing in between doses.

 

[Vince Carter]

No part of this is linear and nothing you do applies to what can or will be the response to the next guy.

Look up at the top...this isn't PeakT where goofy ideas roam freely. @Cataceous

 

[Cataceous]

No part of this is linear and nothing you do applies to what can or will be the response to the next guy.

Look up at the top...this isn't PeakT where goofy ideas roam freely. @Cataceous

And thus we come to our usual endpoint, with nary a single counterargument to sustain the debate.

 

[Cataceous]

... I’m not attacking anyone. ... BUT

it’s fucking stupid...

I'm not attacking anyone either, but apparently some individuals have no intellectual curiosity and no interest in understanding how things work. Yet it's through these pursuits that there's incremental progress in the human condition, and on rare occasion the big leap forward.

 

[Cataceous]

Yea, none of those things have happened here. We actually run off anybody with different views regardless of PHD or other.
...

What's to be said when someone charges into a thread with an overtly hostile post? Maybe if you stuck to listing "the most popular, successful regimens" for TRT then it would be a useful contribution. But you feel you must attack the notion that we can improve our understanding via theory.

...
Im an engineer so you are dead on that I don’t know how anything works.

The suggestion wasn't that you don't know how anything works, but that you don't seem to have much interest in expanding your knowledge, and worse, are hostile to those that do: "Your hormones are NOT something you can figure out using excel. I don’t care how fancy your formulas and ideas are."

 

[DixieWrecked]

What's to be said when someone charges into a thread with an overtly hostile post? Maybe if you stuck to listing "the most popular, successful regimens" for TRT then it would be a useful contribution. But you feel you must attack the notion that we can improve our understanding via theory.


The suggestion wasn't that you don't know how anything works, but that you don't seem to have much interest in expanding your knowledge, and worse, are hostile to those that do: "Your hormones are NOT something you can figure out using excel. I don’t care how fancy your formulas and ideas are."

I appreciate your graph. Good info