You are wrong. Here we go:
> medical Definition of physiological. 1 : of or relating to physiology. 2 : characteristic of or appropriate to an organism's healthy or normal functioning.
> In health-related fields, a reference range or reference interval is the range of values for a physiologic measurement in healthy persons (for example, the amount of creatinine in the blood, or the partial pressure of oxygen).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_range
Free Testosterone ranges are calculated using statistical normal range distributions. So they use a sample of the population and usually use 95% percentile to determine the range.
“Values outside a reference range are not necessarily pathologic, and they are not necessarily abnormal in any sense other than statistically. Nonetheless, they are indicators of probable pathosis.”
The study you showed that referenced normal upper range as 54.7 probably used a different methodology to calculate FT therefore not being comparable with Labcorp ranges. For example Quest reference range for FT is 35-155 pg/ml that does not mean FT upper range from Quest is more than 5x of Labcorp range. So the high value is probably due to a different methodology.
So the reference range is usually 95% percentile of the population which means that 2.5% of the population has levels above the upper range and 2.5% of the population has levels below the lower range. If you want to extrapolate that to 99% of the population you just need adjust the range by multiplying the z-value for the desired confidence levels by sample standard deviation divided by square root of sample size.
So physiological value is characteristic of a normal organism. A 99% percentile is very representative of a normal population. So you might be correct saying that stating that FT level above 25 is above physiological range might be incorrect. But if we adjust that upper range to 99 or even 99.9% of the population we will not get even close to 54.7.
I am using labcorp as an example because most here use labcorp. So again the higher reference ranges you saw are probably using a different methodology so not comparable.
You can find the plenty of studies in the internet calculating FT levels for healthy individuals, general population, and even broken down by age.
My educated guess based on some data i saw in some studies looking at FT levels for healthy individuals aged 25-34 (where testosterone levels are the highest) the most you can push FT to talk about normal physiological levels is 30 pg/ml using Labcorp methodology.
This is why most members here ask labwork to be posted with reference range.
I should have asked Bonneti which Laboratory he used before making any assessment.
And last. Yes 1400 i agree might be still considered physiological range (and I never said otherwise) But not 54.7 FT!!