Much wider Free Testosterone reference range in recent research on FT levels in healthy young men

Buy Lab Tests Online

Jerajera

Active Member
Very recent paper from October 2022.

I'm not one to push for constant higher Free T levels or the idea that everyone 70 years ago was walking around with 1700ng/dL TT levels, but I thought this was interesting. They used equilibrium dialysis and a nonobese ("healthy") population of men, coming up with a range for all of them as well as the 19-39yo subgroup.

The range goes up much higher compared to what we're used to, sample size is only 145 men though so keep that in mind.


Unfortunately the full text is behind a paywall and sci-hub seems to be down, but:

Abstract​


Background: Free testosterone (FT) determination may be helpful in evaluating men suspected of testosterone deficiency especially in conditions with altered binding-protein concentrations. However, methods for measuring FT by equilibrium dialysis and reference intervals vary among laboratories.

Objective: To determine reference intervals for FT in healthy, nonobese men by age groups as well as in healthy young men, 19-39 years, using a standardized equilibrium dialysis procedure METHODS: We measured FT in 145 healthy, nonobese men, 19 years or older, using a standardized equilibrium dialysis method performed for 16-h at 37°C using undiluted serum and dialysis buffer that mimicked the ionic composition of human plasma. FT in dialysate was measured using a CDC-certified liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry assay.

Results: In healthy nonobese men, the 2.5th, 10th, 50th, 90th, and 97.5th percentile values for FT were 66, 91, 141, 240, and 309 pg/ml, respectively; corresponding values for men, 19-39 years, were 120, 128, 190, 274, and 368 pg/ml, respectively. FT levels by age groups exhibit the expected age-related decline. FT levels were negatively associated with body mass index, age, and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) levels. Percent FT was lower in middle-aged and older men than young men adjusting for SHBG level.

Discussion: Further studies are needed to determine how these reference intervals apply to the diagnosis of androgen deficiency in clinical populations and in men of different races and ethnicities in different geographic regions.

Conclusion: Reference intervals for free FT levels (normative range 66-309 pg/ml [229-1072 pmol/L] in all men and 120-368 pg/ml [415-1274 pmol/L] in men, 19-39 years), measured using a standardized equilibrium dialysis method in healthy nonobese men, provide a rational basis for categorizing FT levels. These intervals require further validation in other populations, in relation to outcomes, and in randomized trials.
 
Defy Medical TRT clinic doctor
T

tareload

Guest
I already spent a huge amount of kcals analyzing this data set without even having access to the individual raw data points:

See all my posts in that thread.


Vermeulen still owning.
 
T

tareload

Guest
And this post and the following one (Parts I and II) sum up the whole situation very well IMO (especially if you are using either Quest or Labcorp):



 
T

tareload

Guest
See @madman's post here:


We (as in the collective scientific body on planet Earth) do not have a consensus on how to properly (i.e., accurately) measure FT. Until we do, all of this modelling activity is pretty pointless in a practical sense since we have no accurate data to fit the models with.

@Nelson Vergel / MODS : could you pin this thread or the threads I've linked here? Guys need to understand this point. It is amazing the person-hours that are being wasted on the FT, caculated FT situation. It is honestly depressing.

This issue needs to be put in a big front page article in the major newspapers so guys/gals/trans/etc can get the point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
T

tareload

Guest
A critical point to be made here is everyone needs to keep in mind that some ED devices show a large bias compared to the CDCs reference device

This is why we need CDC harmonized/standardization of free testosterone.

We already know where Bhasin stands on the linear law-of-mass action/empiric equations.

Still going to be a few years before this s**t show comes to an end.

Better yet if this is still eating anyone up then grow some balls and contact Dr. Bhasin or Dr. Jasuja!

Just to be clear Bhasin's ED device (Harvard Apparatus DispoEquillibrium Dialyzers) is not the same as the CDCs reference ED device (Harvard Apparatus Micro-Equillibrium Dialyzer System, 1 mL cells) or the newer standardized CDC high throughput ED device (MD1000 dialyzer with customized in-house 3-D printed base plate) let alone any of the ED devices used across the different laboratories.

A critical point to be made here is everyone needs to keep in mind that some ED devices show a large bias compared to the CDCs reference device

This is why we need CDC harmonized/standardization of free testosterone.


We already know where Bhasin stands on the linear law-of-mass action/empiric equations.

Still going to be a few years before this s**t show comes to an end.

Better yet if this is still eating anyone up then grow some balls and contact Dr. Bhasin or Dr. Jasuja!

You may be able to pry something out of them LOL!

Madman suggests one of us grow a pair. Good point. I just started my new cycle of u-hCG.

Any practical FT by ED data set available so far can easily be fit using cFTV. To @madman's point, the TruT algorithm fits the binding data/isotherms much better, but currently the binding/isotherm data is not consistent with the practical ED measurements for FT.

Tru-T is utter *shit* (typical jargon used in peer review literature) in terms of absolute accuracy with existing FT by ED measurements on a consistent basis. Too much hype too quickly. You have to measure something accurately before you can create a decent model useful for interpolation.

NOTE: all due credit to @madman for making ExcelMale THE "go to" destination on the Internet/Planet Earth to learn and understand the details around the FT fiasco. He consistently and quickly posts up the latest research covering this topic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
T

tareload

Guest
See @madman's post here:


We (as in the collective scientific body on planet Earth) do not have a consensus on how to properly (i.e., accurately) measure FT. Until we do, all of this modelling activity is pretty pointless in a practical sense since we have no accurate data to fit the models with.

@Nelson Vergel / MODS : could you pin this thread or the threads I've linked here? Guys need to understand this point. It is amazing the person-hours that are being wasted on the FT, caculated FT situation. It is honestly depressing.

This issue needs to be put in a big front page article in the major newspapers so guys/gals/trans/etc can get the point.

No comments or reply to this?
 
Buy Lab Tests Online
Defy Medical TRT clinic

Sponsors

enclomiphene
nelson vergel coaching for men
Discounted Labs
TRT in UK Balance my hormones
Testosterone books nelson vergel
Register on ExcelMale.com
Trimix HCG Offer Excelmale
Thumos USA men's mentoring and coaching
Testosterone TRT HRT Doctor Near Me

Online statistics

Members online
3
Guests online
7
Total visitors
10

Latest posts

bodybuilder test discounted labs
Top