Pregnenolone makes high dose Testosterone tolerable

[Gladiator]

Skip to 2:00

Dave Lee explains that a Pregnenolone deficiency doesn't allow for higher testosterone dosages to be tolerated.
Supplementing Pregnenolone is an easy fix instead of lowering your testosterone levels.

Dave Lee is not to be trusted. Always talking about ugl gear and just plain stupid approach towards Trt.
Wants everyone to have free testosterone at 1500 pmol/L when the levels of the lab are 200 - 600 pmol/L.
All he is doing is trying to justify steroid cycles for trt

 

[Zibernet]

Dave Lee is not to be trusted. Always talking about ugl gear and just plain stupid approach towards Trt.
Wants everyone to have free testosterone at 1500 pmol/L when the levels of the lab are 200 - 600 pmol/L.
All he is doing is trying to justify steroid cycles for trt

His advice works for me.
I talk to him personnally through messenger, we also share the same views on diet and we are both doing better than ever with the principles we are currently applying.

 

[Fortunate]

Dave Lee is not to be trusted. Always talking about ugl gear and just plain stupid approach towards Trt.
Wants everyone to have free testosterone at 1500 pmol/L when the levels of the lab are 200 - 600 pmol/L.
All he is doing is trying to justify steroid cycles for trt

I watched both of his videos. I suspect many benefit from the advice he gives. My issue is that, despite providing disclaimers, he speaks in an authoritative way. Yet, he does not back anything he says up with actual data. I imagine there are lots of studies he bases his slides on, but quoting them, or at least making reference to them, would go a long way in establishing yourself as an expert. Otherwise, it feels a lot like anecdotology.

There is nothing wrong with anecdotal information, especially when that is all we have on a given subject. But, it should be identified as such by someone speaking in a lecture format.

Hormones are complex, as individuals literally have opposite responses to the same supplement. In my case, I was hopeful Pregnenolone would help me with some of the difficulty I have had with TRT. After playing with it a bit, no such luck so far. On the other hand, that’s definitely not Dave Lee’s fault!

 

[bumpy]

His advice works for me.
I talk to him personnally through messenger, we also share the same views on diet and we are bother doing better than ever with the principles we are currently applying.

Never heard of the guy but I watched his video and I like what he says and agree with it. Why? I’ve been on test for decades and I’ve recently discovered that being on the high end (TT, FT and DHT) has benefited ME greatly. Also I should mention adding pregnenolone and DHEA to my protocol did wonders for coping with my high TT and FT. It worked for me. I’ve done the blasts and cruises and everything in between. Through these experiences you come to find your sweet spot where the “honey moon” of feeling balanced is sustainable.

It’s a lot of trial and error. Supplements and pro hormones also play a vital role in finding your sustainable sweet spot.

 

[Gladiator]

G

His advice works for me.
I talk to him personnally through messenger, we also share the same views on diet and we are bother doing better than ever with the principles we are currently applying.

Good for you

 

[Gladiator]

I watched both of his videos. I suspect many benefit from the advice he gives. My issue is that, despite providing disclaimers, he speaks in an authoritative way. Yet, he does not back anything he says up with actual data. I imagine there are lots of studies he bases his slides on, but quoting them, or at least making reference to them, would go a long way in establishing yourself as an expert. Otherwise, it feels a lot like anecdotology.

There is nothing wrong with anecdotal information, especially when that is all we have on a given subject. But, it should be identified as such by someone speaking in a lecture format.

Hormones are complex, as individuals literally have opposite responses to the same supplement. In my case, I was hopeful Pregnenolone would help me with some of the difficulty I have had with TRT. After playing with it a bit, no such luck so far. On the other hand, that’s definitely not Dave Lee’s fault!

All his data is in his head. No real studies have ever been done. He is just a person that’s been in Trt for 25 years and that’s as far as it goes. No medical degree so don’t trust a word he says.

 

[Zibernet]

All his data is in his head. No real studies have ever been done. He is just a person that’s been in Trt for 25 years and that’s as far as it goes. No medical degree so don’t trust a word he says.

I'm fine trusting someone delivering anecdotal evidence from his own experience rather than studies with potential conflicts of interests.
"Science" is not the wholy grail, we know that with other medications, why wouldn't it apply to hormones?

25 years on TRT? Dave is just above 25 years old, what are you even talking about?

 

[ivkonst2017]

At 250mg's/week (125mgs x 2 injections) my TT is at 1503 ng/dl and my FT is at 731.4 pg/ml. I was noticing my resting heart rate was increasing by about 10bpm's. Nothing to be alarmed about but I could feel my heart rate wasn't quite what it was

I began to take 50mgs pregnenolone/day and 25 mgs DHEA/day. It helped a little bit. Some days were better than others. I upped my dose to 100mgs Preg/day and 50mgs DHEA/day and BINGO. My resting heart rate returned and I felt excellent with high TT and FT levels. I never felt bad at these levels mind you, but I thought I'd feel much better. I just felt slightly "off"

My program/dosages are finally dialed in in regards to HCG, Test, DHEA, Pregnenolone. Libido and sense of well being is off the charts. Never felt better.

Why initially have you started so high t dose and aiming at 1500 ng/dl, what made you think you need so much to experiment there?

Also at 1450ng/dl my e2 is around 80, not that I ever had any e2 complains...It seems to me the more it is the better I feel but just I dont mess with it

 

[Fortunate]

I'm fine trusting someone delivering anecdotal evidence from his own experience rather than studies with potential conflicts of interests.
"Science" is not the wholy grail, we know that with other medications, why wouldn't it apply to hormones?

25 years on TRT? Dave is just above 25 years old, what are you even talking about?

I don't disagree - anecdotal information has value. But, science really does matter. There are ways to judge data validity, ie how good a study (Level I data=randomized, double-blinded, prospective data). Also, conflicts of interest are a very big deal these days. To even get on a podium, you have to disclose all conflicts.

That said, my issue is not whether or not there is value to anecdotal information. My issue is the way he presented it: In an academic-appearing, powerpoint, lecture format. The presentation makes it feel scientific, when it is very unscientific. Again, nothing wrong with unscientific information - but it's incongruous to present anecdotal information as a scientific authority.

I do appreciate his experience. No question he has that.

 

[Gman86]

I'm fine trusting someone delivering anecdotal evidence from his own experience rather than studies with potential conflicts of interests.
"Science" is not the wholy grail, we know that with other medications, why wouldn't it apply to hormones?

25 years on TRT? Dave is just above 25 years old, what are you even talking about?

I actually put much more weight into personal anecdotes than I do science. Both have to be considered obv, but I care more about what works in the real world over what they think happens based on lab results. Most studies are biased, based on who’s funding them. And most studies, in regards to hormones, have huge flaws in the them, from what I’ve seen. Every study I read I can always pick out at least a few flaws that make the results questionable, at best. And since there’s very little money in bio-identical hormones, we have to base information on studies that weren’t even done on men on TRT. And again, since there’s basically no money in bio-identical hormones, most institutions doing studies are only doing them because there being funded by someone who has an interest in a specific outcome. But real life anecdotes don’t lie. I care more about real life results that the majority of guys experience over flawed study conclusions. But science definitely has its place.

 

[bumpy]

Why initially have you started so high t dose and aiming at 1500 ng/dl, what made you think you need so much to experiment there?

Also at 1450ng/dl my e2 is around 80, not that I ever had any e2 complains...It seems to me the more it is the better I feel but just I dont mess with it

I didn’t start there I was on 100-110mgs/week. Never felt on top of my game for years so I went off the reservation and began experimenting with a very wide variety of protocols and dosages.

 

[Gladiator]

W

I'm fine trusting someone delivering anecdotal evidence from his own experience rather than studies with potential conflicts of interests.
"Science" is not the wholy grail, we know that with other medications, why wouldn't it apply to hormones?

25 years on TRT? Dave is just above 25 years old, what are you even talking about?

Well that just shows how full of shit he is then. The guy told me he started 25 years ago.

 

[ivkonst2017]

actually put much more weight into personal anecdotes than I do science11

100 percent with you here brother and I learned that the hard way. Im very curious about the people quotting all the time "evidence-based medicine" dont they realize how superficial is that.

All the studies in the HRT realm have either big limitations or flows. They show us certain outcomes in certain setups and thats all! We can draw conclusions from that, but the real picture on the case studied is much more huge than the small fragment of data that a study would show.

Best example I have - few studies show IM and sub-q testosterone injections have the same efficacy. And for some people they do. But for me and many people I know in person there is night and they difference between the levels you get on the same milligrams and also how we feel. So the science epicly fails here and NOBODY can persuade me for that case the science is more objective than the anecdotal experience.

Another example we have - the studies do not show any harm from X, so it is not harmful. Wrong! It means we just dont know. Lack of evidence is not evidence for the opposite statement. Period.

I think I can write a few pages of analysis why we should NOT rely only on studies and blindly follow them...

 

[Zibernet]

W

Well that just shows how full of shit he is then. The guy told me he started 25 years ago.

That just shows how little you know about him and still take the liberty to criticize him.

 

[S1W]

At 250mg's/week (125mgs x 2 injections) my TT is at 1503 ng/dl and my FT is at 731.4 pg/ml. I was noticing my resting heart rate was increasing by about 10bpm's. Nothing to be alarmed about but I could feel my heart rate wasn't quite what it was

I began to take 50mgs pregnenolone/day and 25 mgs DHEA/day. It helped a little bit. Some days were better than others. I upped my dose to 100mgs Preg/day and 50mgs DHEA/day and BINGO. My resting heart rate returned and I felt excellent with high TT and FT levels. I never felt bad at these levels mind you, but I thought I'd feel much better. I just felt slightly "off"

My program/dosages are finally dialed in in regards to HCG, Test, DHEA, Pregnenolone. Libido and sense of well being is off the charts. Never felt better.

Appreciate you sharing what works for you and glad to hear you're doing well. Please keep us updated.

 

[Fortunate]

I kind of regret weighing in on this subject, but since I have, I feel compelled to at least explain some of my position. I will start of by saying I'm sure Dave Lee is very knowledgeable and has helped many people. I value his experience and I believe anecdotal information is important.

However, my issue was kind of his lack of transparency about his expertise and lack of support for information he was presenting. For example, he demonstrates organic chemistry slides and makes references to complex neurochemical processes, citing GABA receptors, etc. He mixes this scientific information with other information that is pure anecdote. So, he is toeing the line - coming off as an authoritative figure with complex scientific knowledge, yet giving information that is pure anecdote, without distinguishing the two. I think this matters, because he portrays himself as a scientist.

The other thing that troubles me about this conversation is the blind medical establishment bashing, portraying doctors as fuddy-duddy lab-coat wearing absent-minded-professors and scientific research as being driven purely by money. This is not fair and not reflective of reality. I think it can be dangerous to rely solely on anecdotal information for decision making guidance. Now, in the realm of hormone treatment, I think anecdote is VERY important for a variety of reasons, but that does not mean that the scientific method does not matter.

For example, if you walk up to a friend, Bob, who tells you his coin is kinda magic. Despite having both a heads and a tails side, you are highly likely to flip it and end of with heads. You flip the coin behind a curtain, and come out and tell him the result. He thinks almost all of the last ten people flipped heads. Holy cow!

You see another friend, Joe, who tells you: "Actually, that coin is just a coin." What Bob didn't realize is that 20 people flipped the coin. But, one guy had a stroke before coming out from behind the curtain. He flipped tails, but wasn't alive to tell anyone. A family of six flipped the coin, but had to make a plane to Ecuador, so they bailed before anyone could find out what they flipped. Instead of flipping the coin, three teenagers bounced it off the table like they were playing quarters. You start to wonder how magic Bob's coin is.

Joe then proceeds to tell you that he also did a coin flipping experiment. It was weird, because the first ten actually did flip heads. But, he eventually invited 1000 people to flip the coin. Some people cheated. Some people did not report their result. Ultimately, about half the people flipped heads and the other half tails. Joe figured that since he simply had more data, he could account for a few people here and there cheating or leaving before giving their result.

In another example, you have a loved one that just came out of surgery to resect a brain tumor. Although things went well, you are told your loved one will need chemotherapy. Dr. Bob walks in with a IV bag of fluid, telling you we are going to start the chemotherapy right away. You look at him and ask him: Does that stuff work? What are the chances this will save my loved one? Does the potential for a cure outweigh all potential side effects? Dr. Bob says: "That's hard to say. I have seen a bunch of people survive on this chemo drug. I have also seen some people not make it."

Dr. Joe then comes in to give you a second opinion. You ask him the same question. Dr. Joe tells you that the drug was studied in 100,000 people. He just got done conducting a Level I study designed to answer whether or not the chemo drug was safe and effective. You become a bit worried, wondering - if he was involved in the study, does he benefit financially from giving the drug. You are not shy, so you ask him up front. He goes on to explain that the study was funded by the NIH. He lost his father at a young age to cancer and he knew early in life he was going to pour his heart and soul into trying to find cures to various types of cancers. It was grueling for him. It took him years of punishing pre-med in college, med school, residency and fellowship in surgical oncology for the privilege of calling himself "doctor". But, that was not enough. Dr. Joe really wants to make a difference, so taking care of patients will not be enough. He wants to push the frontier forward. So, in his free time, through all that, he spent long nights in the dark, peering through microscopes and pipetting into test tubes, so he can earn a PHD and become armed to really answer some questions about the human body. Anyway, "I digress" says Dr. Joe. The point I am making is that I went through all this to help people, and I am here to help your loved one.

He assured you that the study he led was had a very low P-Value and was large enough to give sufficient statistical power to reasonably estimate whether or not the chemo will help without hurting. He is confident this chemo drug has an excellent chance of helping with manageable potential side effects.

I personally am going with Dr. Joe

Let me reiterate, I absolutely value anecdotal information. I personally come to this forum for it and strongly consider it in my own decision making. I do believe the medical establishment likely has some blind spots when it comes to understanding things like TRT. But, I think can be a slippery slope and dangerous to whole-sale discount doctors and the scientific method. I am not necessarily implying anyone here in this thread has done that, but I see a lot of medical establishment bashing on forums like this one. I am in no way suggesting doctors and scientist always get it right (look up thalidomide) or are always ethical (look up Tuskeegee Experiment). But to wholesale discount the medical establishment, in my opinion is short sighted and can be dangerous.

 

[Zibernet]

I kind of regret weighing in on this subject, but since I have, I feel compelled to at least explain some of my position. I will start of by saying I'm sure Dave Lee is very knowledgeable and has helped many people. I value his experience and I believe anecdotal information is important.

However, my issue was kind of his lack of transparency about his expertise and lack of support for information he was presenting. For example, he demonstrates organic chemistry slides and makes references to complex neurochemical processes, citing GABA receptors, etc. He mixes this scientific information with other information that is pure anecdote. So, he is toeing the line - coming off as an authoritative figure with complex scientific knowledge, yet giving information that is pure anecdote, without distinguishing the two. I think this matters, because he portrays himself as a scientist.

The other thing that troubles me about this conversation is the blind medical establishment bashing, portraying doctors as fuddy-duddy lab-coat wearing absent-minded-professors and scientific research as being driven purely by money. This is not fair and not reflective of reality. I think it can be dangerous to rely solely on anecdotal information for decision making guidance. Now, in the realm of hormone treatment, I think anecdote is VERY important for a variety of reasons, but that does not mean that the scientific method does not matter.

For example, if you walk up to a friend, Bob, who tells you his coin is kinda magic. Despite having both a heads and a tails side, you are highly likely to flip it and end of with heads. You flip the coin behind a curtain, and come out and tell him the result. He thinks almost all of the last ten people flipped heads. Holy cow!

You see another friend, Joe, who tells you: "Actually, that coin is just a coin." What Bob didn't realize is that 20 people flipped the coin. But, one guy had a stroke before coming out from behind the curtain. He flipped tails, but wasn't alive to tell anyone. A family of six flipped the coin, but had to make a plane to Ecuador, so they bailed before anyone could find out what they flipped. Instead of flipping the coin, three teenagers bounced it off the table like they were playing quarters. You start to wonder how magic Bob's coin is.

Joe then proceeds to tell you that he also did a coin flipping experiment. It was weird, because the first ten actually did flip heads. But, he eventually invited 1000 people to flip the coin. Some people cheated. Some people did not report their result. Ultimately, about half the people flipped heads and the other half tails. Joe figured that since he simply had more data, he could account for a few people here and there cheating or leaving before giving their result.

In another example, you have a loved one that just came out of surgery to resect a brain tumor. Although things went well, you are told your loved one will need chemotherapy. Dr. Bob walks in with a IV bag of fluid, telling you we are going to start the chemotherapy right away. You look at him and ask him: Does that stuff work? What are the chances this will save my loved one? Does the potential for a cure outweigh all potential side effects? Dr. Bob says: "That's hard to say. I have seen a bunch of people survive on this chemo drug. I have also seen some people not make it."

Dr. Joe then comes in to give you a second opinion. You ask him the same question. Dr. Joe tells you that the drug was studied in 100,000 people. He just got done conducting a Level I study designed to answer whether or not the chemo drug was safe and effective. You become a bit worried, wondering - if he was involved in the study, does he benefit financially from giving the drug. You are not shy, so you ask him up front. He goes on to explain that the study was funded by the NIH. He lost his father at a young age to cancer and he knew early in life he was going to pour his heart and soul into trying to find cures to various types of cancers. It was grueling for him. It took him years of punishing pre-med in college, med school, residency and fellowship in surgical oncology for the privilege of calling himself "doctor". But, that was not enough. Dr. Joe really wants to make a difference, so taking care of patients will not be enough. He wants to push the frontier forward. So, in his free time, through all that, he spent long nights in the dark, peering through microscopes and pipetting into test tubes, so he can earn a PHD and become armed to really answer some questions about the human body. Anyway, "I digress" says Dr. Joe. The point I am making is that I went through all this to help people, and I am here to help your loved one.

He assured you that the study he led was had a very low P-Value and was large enough to give sufficient statistical power to reasonably estimate whether or not the chemo will help without hurting. He is confident this chemo drug has an excellent chance of helping with manageable potential side effects.

I personally am going with Dr. Joe

Let me reiterate, I absolutely value anecdotal information. I personally come to this forum for it and strongly consider it in my own decision making. I do believe the medical establishment likely has some blind spots when it comes to understanding things like TRT. But, I think can be a slippery slope and dangerous to whole-sale discount doctors and the scientific method. I am not necessarily implying anyone here in this thread has done that, but I see a lot of medical establishment bashing on forums like this one. I am in no way suggesting doctors and scientist always get it right (look up thalidomide) or are always ethical (look up Tuskeegee Experiment). But to wholesale discount the medical establishment, in my opinion is short sighted and can be dangerous.

You're giving yourself a headache for no reason.

Try sensible advice that is given by someone who seems knowledgeable.
Works, good for you.
Doesn't work, move on.

 

[Fortunate]

You're giving yourself a headache for no reason.

Try sensible advice that is given by someone who seems knowledgeable.
Works, good for you.
Doesn't work, move on.

Excellent point and agree. Frankly, I have already taken some of your advice, which is much appreciated

 

[Gman86]

100 percent with you here brother and I learned that the hard way. Im very curious about the people quotting all the time "evidence-based medicine" dont they realize how superficial is that.

All the studies in the HRT realm have either big limitations or flows. They show us certain outcomes in certain setups and thats all! We can draw conclusions from that, but the real picture on the case studied is much more huge than the small fragment of data that a study would show.

Best example I have - few studies show IM and sub-q testosterone injections have the same efficacy. And for some people they do. But for me and many people I know in person there is night and they difference between the levels you get on the same milligrams and also how we feel. So the science epicly fails here and NOBODY can persuade me for that case the science is more objective than the anecdotal experience.

Another example we have - the studies do not show any harm from X, so it is not harmful. Wrong! It means we just dont know. Lack of evidence is not evidence for the opposite statement. Period.

I think I can write a few pages of analysis why we should NOT rely only on studies and blindly follow them...

I literally couldn’t agree with u more. Great example too with the subQ vs IM. People will still quote the studies showing no difference, but the studies are 100% wrong. I’ve lost count a long time ago in regards to how many people had to switch back to IM after trying subQ, due to levels being drastically difference, and/ or they just didn’t feel as good on subQ. The question is, why are those studies incorrect? Did the people funding the studies make sure the studies had a specific result? Were there flaws in the study that led to an incorrect outcome? Did they not run the study long enough? These are the things that I’m most curious about. I already know most studies are very flawed and/ or corrupt, and like u, nobody can tell me different. But luckily with some studies we can still pull useful information out of them that we can use to progress this field in the right direction. U just have to be really careful and knowledgeable to be able to know what info is legitimate and useful, and what info is too flawed to extrapolate anything useful from.

 

[ivkonst2017]

I literally couldn’t agree with u more. Great example too with the subQ vs IM. People will still quote the studies showing no difference, but the studies are 100% wrong. I’ve lost count a long time ago in regards to how many people had to switch back to IM after trying subQ, due to levels being drastically difference, and/ or they just didn’t feel as good on subQ. The question is, why are those studies incorrect? Did the people funding the studies make sure the studies had a specific result? Were there flaws in the study that led to an incorrect outcome? Did they not run the study long enough? These are the things that I’m most curious about. I already know most studies are very flawed and/ or corrupt, and like u, nobody can tell me different. But luckily with some studies we can still pull useful information out of them that we can use to progress this field in the right direction. U just have to be really careful and knowledgeable to be able to know what info is legitimate and useful, and what info is too flawed to extrapolate anything useful from.

Totally agree. I just say relying only on studies, disregarding anecdotal experience and looking for scientific proof for everything is a flawed approach. Of course weighing out the rubbish anecdots and useless part of bro science requires knowledge and experience. But Ive learned a lot of useful tips for TRT from bros and weightlifters, especially to ditch the sub q route for good.

The studies have their place, but the best HRT doctors I've seen have a lot of anecdotal experience with their patients, seeing all kinds of strange cases and rely strongly on that to take decisions and give advice. Also the studies cannot capture the subtle issues like injection frequency, choice of esters(for some people me for example) this matters a lot.

Not to mention that things like progesterone in men have almost not been studied at all or the evidence ia very limited.

We have very limited data and sometimes we got to use logic, make sense and experiment what would work in a particular case and what not