First post. Can’t get E2 under control, starting to worry

Mastodont · Mar 4, 2024

@RobRoy Arnold and the boys were not on testosterone so your example on not needing AI is not verry good, you write long ass posts but never seem to like to comment on what is going on when something is not working as per your preaching...pretty surprised none of those guys are never your patients.
Some guys feel better after donating blood? Some guys get bloat and loss of libido and erections on higher levels, and can fix it with some AI?
Some get blood pressure when going higher? Some come down to the current normal range from higher levels and feel the best there? Some guys tank their ferritin on higher levels but to a lesser degree when moderating the dose?
There is just too many reports on benefits on wellbeing and erections when e2 is lowered with AI to simply tout e2 as nothing but beneficial.
I do believe people have huge variations in receptor sensitivity, and that is why SOME guys have no issues with supraphysiological levels, whereas others overstimulate their CNS etc, also SHBG level will matter not just for T but free estradiol also.

tropicaldaze1950 · Mar 4, 2024

Charliebizz said:
janSz was a good guy but he was a nut also. How can you prove “high dht” caused prostate issues ? Plenty of men with normal or low dht have prostate issues. I’ve had a few bouts of prostatitis. Before trt. I also am having one as we speak. Should I blame the high dht from being on cream?

I can't prove it. I can only go by what he reported. The closest to that was a guy on AllThingsMale.com . He was going to Dr. Shippen, on subq testosterone, with good lab numbers but poor erectile function. Dr. Shippen was as much a scientist as he was a doctor. He prescribed T cream with DHEA to increase DHT. I think different concentrations were tried, all applied to the scrotum. DHT went to 300 or 400 and the man reported prostate issues. That's it. When I've applied T cream or DHEA to my scrotum, my bladder/prostate felt uncomfortable. Maybe it's an individual thing since many men apply T cream to their scrotum, per the protocol of Dr. Rouzier and Dr. Nichols.

Cataceous · Mar 4, 2024

Charliebizz said:
You betting money isnt very scientific is it ? ...

Fair enough.

A recent large study by Collet et al. [43] pooled individual data from 10 prospective cohort studies and concluded that endogenous subclinical hyperthyroidism is associated with increased risks of total and IHD mortality, and incident AF, with highest risks of IHD mortality and AF when TSH level is lower than 0.10 mIU/litre. [R]

In this study, we found that people with low–normal thyroid function (i.e., highest tertile of TSH and lowest tertile of FT4 reference ranges) are expected to live more years with and without NCD than those with high–normal thyroid function (i.e., lowest tertile of TSH and highest tertile of FT4reference ranges). [R]

An age-related subtle thyroid hypofunction appears to be related to human longevity. ...

In conclusion, evidence from experimental studies clearly suggests that reduced [thyroid hormone] levels may prolong lifespan. [R]

You can see why I'm pretty confident I would win that bet. All I'm asking for is informed consent. How many doctors wanting to push up thyroid hormones discuss this issue in detail?

Cataceous · Mar 4, 2024

Charliebizz said:
You are so stuck on “natural production” when we take trt it’s far from natural. Serious question. Do you believe that endogenous levels vs exogenous levels are identical and metabolized exactly the same ? Do you think that the Hpta being shut down can lead to people need more t to feel better to overcome said shutdown vs natural?

In this case the burden of proof is on those claiming that exogenous administration is so different that much larger amounts are required. What is the basis for this hypothesis? Clearly at the molecular level, with exogenous testosterone being bioidentical, there is no difference in how it's metabolized. As you suggest, the better argument relates to subtleties associated with the loss of pulsatile delivery regulated by the HPTA. However, this is looking for the cause of a condition that itself has not been shown to exist with any scientific rigor. Otherwise it's easy to dismiss with an argument such as "These individuals started at too high of a dose, suffered from an excess of estrogenic activity, but instead of reducing the dose they increased it, which happened to help with these symptoms by saturating aromatase. But the resulting protocol is unbalanced and non-physiological." I'm not saying this argument is necessary true, but without scientific support the claims about high doses being necessary don't carry much more weight than my willingness to bet on the negative consequences of pushing up thyroid hormones.

Cataceous · Mar 4, 2024

jmbb said:
... I would argue that 99+ percent of men are on successful TRT protocols that would be considered "supraphysiological" if we are using daily endogenous milligram production as a metric.
...

And I would argue that this perception is skewed by the forums, and further that "successful" is probably only defined as feeling better than when hypogonadal, which is not a very high bar. Where is the evidence that physiological levels were given a chance?

jmbb said:
... But as a rough range for discussion's sake, on certain forums, anything above 100-120mg per week of enanthate/cypionate up to 200mg is considered a moderate/high TRT dose before it starts getting more into the performance enhancement side (this range again is arguable based on many factors).

I respect your opinion, and acknowledge that I may be in the minority on this, but I view the 120-200 mg range as no longer TRT. Rather it is in a "testosterone optimization" gray area.

Subject beaten to death here:

What is TRT and What is NOT TRT

Note: I originally posted this over at T-Nation so hope it's ok if I share it here @Nelson Vergel. Had an interesting and lively exchange over there with one of the proponents of the "TOT" protocol (Testosterone Optimization Therapy as it is called). This short summary gives guys a look of...

www.excelmale.com

If you get far enough in this you'll see that @RobRoy tends to run away when asked to support his positions.

Cataceous · Mar 4, 2024

jmbb said:
I've had this same thought as well. There is no such thing as mimicking natural production while using any form of exogenous testosterone unless the dose is so low and/or so many ancillary drugs are added on that there is still production of GNRH - in which case, you probably don't need the testosterone to get to roughly the same serum level in the first place. Cream/test suspension isn't natural either.

And if you're using injectables/blends daily to try to imitate what the body does naturally, are you going to inject 0.5-1mg of test suspension if you engaged in an activity that would boost a natural male's testosterone? Would you intentionally inject less if you got a poor night sleep or drank the night before? It's not realistic or practical.

You seem to be alluding pretty strongly to my protocol. Without a pump system it is impractical to take enough GnRH to yield normal testosterone levels. Kisspeptin monotherapy may have some potential, but that's yet to be seen. Injecting a testosterone blend daily is a reasonably practical solution. It provides an approximation of normal endogenous levels. Interesting questions about variations, i.e. throwing in testosterone suspension and/or varying the dose. However, in my experience even the benefits of the daily blend are pretty subtle. I'd say that aiming for subtleties on top of subtleties is not worth the effort. I tout the blend for two things: improved sleep for those who are sensitive to constant T levels, and as a way to reduce side effects through lowering the dose — without losing the benefits. Some support for this latter is in the clinical trials for Natesto.

jmbb · Mar 4, 2024

Cataceous said:
In this case the burden of proof is on those claiming that exogenous administration is so different that much larger amounts are required. What is the basis for this hypothesis?

Cataceous said:
And I would argue that this perception is skewed by the forums, and further that "successful" is probably only defined as feeling better than when hypogonadal, which is not a very high bar. Where is the evidence that physiological levels were given a chance?

The reason that forums, websites, and youtube channels like this exist in the first place is from poor protocols. Just as often as T mills overprescribing 200mg/wk with AI and HCG from the start, you have overly conservative or uneducated physicians severely underdosing their patients. You can scour any one of these sites and find dozens of threads on each where guys are prescribed things like 50mg cypionate per week and feel worse than before they started treatment.

Low dosing TRT is not uncharted territory, quite the contrary. People who feel better on those protocols are the exception, not the rule. Again you'll notice on the forums, its generally the same handful of people who keep the threads going, while the larger portion of the population falls in the range of what would be considered normal/moderate TRT dosing. (Not "high end trt" like 200, that causes issues for many as well).

Normally I'd say avoid Reddit at all costs because it is an absolute dumpster fire, but due to their high volume of posts alone, you can take a look at their TRT forums they have daily threads about doctors underdosing people who feel absolutely awful until they raise their dose.

This is where I feel its important to be open minded about what works in real life vs looking solely at scientific papers which have limitations, narrow scopes, and replication issues - nearly all men in real life are on amounts that would be larger than what is produced naturally in order to achieve symptom relief. Outside of the bubble of small niche internet forums, virtually nobody is going low enough to replicate exact natural production amounts and getting results.

Edit: I am not implying people need drastically high doses. Just that limiting one's self to a maximum of 10mg of testosterone per day is generally not enough to alleviate symptoms for most.

Cataceous said:
I respect your opinion, and acknowledge that I may be in the minority on this, but I view the 120-200 mg range as no longer TRT. Rather it is in a "testosterone optimization" gray area.

I respect your opinions greatly as well, which is why I'm looking at this as a discussion, not a debate or argument, and hope you feel the same. Minimum effective dose is a good mindset and in my opinion the correct mindset, but at the end of the day TRT is about restoring levels and achieving symptom relief.

Its a semantic debate at this point, but I think most of us believe that TRT is about relieving the symptoms of HPTA deficiency, not just achieving a nice looking result on paper. If we only ever replicated what we could naturally, I would argue that taking a 5000iu capsule of Vitamin D (a hormone), 250mg capsule of magnesium before bed is , 50mg of zinc in a tablet without it being attached to food, are all "supraphysiological" or "optimization" as well.

Cataceous said:
If you get far enough in this you'll see that @RobRoy tends to run away when asked to support his positions.

I'm certainly not in support of everything he says, and believe it or not I align with your thinking more than his in more aspects than you might know based on our interactions so far, but I think gaining knowledge comes from having discussions like this rather than it being an echo chamber, so I appreciate the insight you've shared so far.

Also you mentioned I am alluding to your protocol, which I was not - as I honestly do not know what it is, other than a low dose protocol. However I would be interested to hear it if you don't mind sharing the details.

Cataceous · Mar 4, 2024

This work by @tareload is worth repeating. What it suggests is that the existing research on humans has not come close to possible toxicity limits. But if the animal models have validity then those limits are out there being tested by testosterone users. It is constantly being emphasized that everyone is different and should be treated accordingly. However, without a way to establish a priori the individuals who are more sensitive to testosterone, it is appropriate to err on the side of caution. At a minimum this means ensuring patients understand that there are risks in excess, even if they are not well-quantified.

BigTex · Mar 4, 2024

Cataceous said:
If you get far enough in this you'll see that @RobRoy tends to run away when asked to support his positions.

I always want to give the benefit of doubt. @RobRoy is a practicing medical doctor (fact). I know my doctor after 35 years in practice works 9-10 hours a day 6 days a week and many times doesn't even take time to have lunch. Not sure how much time @RobRoy has to participate in these boards as he may work as much. On the other hand, I post when I have time but I am retired, work very little in my job as an adjunct professor and in the gym only 3-4 hours during the week. I see a whole lot of us on this board quite frequently so I have to wonder what you guys do that you have so much free time.

Charliebizz · Mar 4, 2024

jmbb said:
The reason that forums, websites, and youtube channels like this exist in the first place is from poor protocols. Just as often as T mills overprescribing 200mg/wk with AI and HCG from the start, you have overly conservative or uneducated physicians severely underdosing their patients. You can scour any one of these sites and find dozens of threads on each where guys are prescribed things like 50mg cypionate per week and feel worse than before they started treatment.

Low dosing TRT is not uncharted territory, quite the contrary. People who feel better on those protocols are the exception, not the rule. Again you'll notice on the forums, its generally the same handful of people who keep the threads going, while the larger portion of the population falls in the range of what would be considered normal/moderate TRT dosing. (Not "high end trt" like 200, that causes issues for many as well).

Normally I'd say avoid Reddit at all costs because it is an absolute dumpster fire, but due to their high volume of posts alone, you can take a look at their TRT forums they have daily threads about doctors underdosing people who feel absolutely awful until they raise their dose.

This is where I feel its important to be open minded about what works in real life vs looking solely at scientific papers which have limitations, narrow scopes, and replication issues - nearly all men in real life are on amounts that would be larger than what is produced naturally in order to achieve symptom relief. Outside of the bubble of small niche internet forums, virtually nobody is going low enough to replicate exact natural production amounts and getting results.

Edit: I am not implying people need drastically high doses. Just that limiting one's self to a maximum of 10mg of testosterone per day is generally not enough to alleviate symptoms for most.

I respect your opinions greatly as well, which is why I'm looking at this as a discussion, not a debate or argument, and hope you feel the same. Minimum effective dose is a good mindset and in my opinion the correct mindset, but at the end of the day TRT is about restoring levels and achieving symptom relief.

Its a semantic debate at this point, but I think most of us believe that TRT is about relieving the symptoms of HPTA deficiency, not just achieving a nice looking result on paper. If we only ever replicated what we could naturally, I would argue that taking a 5000iu capsule of Vitamin D (a hormone), 250mg capsule of magnesium before bed is , 50mg of zinc in a tablet without it being attached to food, are all "supraphysiological" or "optimization" as well.

I'm certainly not in support of everything he says, and believe it or not I align with your thinking more than his in more aspects than you might know based on our interactions so far, but I think gaining knowledge comes from having discussions like this rather than it being an echo chamber, so I appreciate the insight you've shared so far.

Also you mentioned I am alluding to your protocol, which I was not - as I honestly do not know what it is, other than a low dose protocol. However I would be interested to hear it if you don't mind sharing the details.

I feel exactly the same way you do on this subject. And not trying to argue with @Cataceous. Just having a very important discussion.

Charliebizz · Mar 4, 2024

Cataceous said:
Fair enough.

A recent large study by Collet et al. [43] pooled individual data from 10 prospective cohort studies and concluded that endogenous subclinical hyperthyroidism is associated with increased risks of total and IHD mortality, and incident AF, with highest risks of IHD mortality and AF when TSH level is lower than 0.10 mIU/litre. [R]

In this study, we found that people with low–normal thyroid function (i.e., highest tertile of TSH and lowest tertile of FT4 reference ranges) are expected to live more years with and without NCD than those with high–normal thyroid function (i.e., lowest tertile of TSH and highest tertile of FT4reference ranges). [R]

An age-related subtle thyroid hypofunction appears to be related to human longevity. ...
In conclusion, evidence from experimental studies clearly suggests that reduced [thyroid hormone] levels may prolong lifespan. [R]

You can see why I'm pretty confident I would win that bet. All I'm asking for is informed consent. How many doctors wanting to push up thyroid hormones discuss this issue in detail?

am I reading that correctly ? Endogenous hyperthyroid ? I was talking about hypothyroid patients taking medication to relieve symptoms. And being slightly over top of range to reach symptom relief.

RobRoy · Mar 4, 2024

Charliebizz said:
am I reading that correctly ? Endogenous hyperthyroid ? I was talking about hypothyroid patients taking medication to relieve symptoms. And being slightly over top of range to reach symptom relief.

That's what makes you a lot smarter than Cataceous. Taking thyroid, and raising thyroid levels in a person with sub clinical hypothyroidism or hypothyroidism itself, is not the same in anyway, as a person with true hyperthyroidism. In other words, taking thyroid does not cause the same medical sequela as a person with true hyperthyroidism. And hyper thyroidism there is an auto immune component, and that's what does the damage. So once again, an example of why cat, TaciousAnd hyper thyroidism there is an auto immune component, and that's what does the damage. So once again, an example of why cataceous should not be giving advice. He also doesn't understand the difference between a baseline observation and an interventional study.

RobRoy · Mar 4, 2024

jmbb said:
The reason that forums, websites, and youtube channels like this exist in the first place is from poor protocols. Just as often as T mills overprescribing 200mg/wk with AI and HCG from the start, you have overly conservative or uneducated physicians severely underdosing their patients. You can scour any one of these sites and find dozens of threads on each where guys are prescribed things like 50mg cypionate per week and feel worse than before they started treatment.

Low dosing TRT is not uncharted territory, quite the contrary. People who feel better on those protocols are the exception, not the rule. Again you'll notice on the forums, its generally the same handful of people who keep the threads going, while the larger portion of the population falls in the range of what would be considered normal/moderate TRT dosing. (Not "high end trt" like 200, that causes issues for many as well).

Normally I'd say avoid Reddit at all costs because it is an absolute dumpster fire, but due to their high volume of posts alone, you can take a look at their TRT forums they have daily threads about doctors underdosing people who feel absolutely awful until they raise their dose.

This is where I feel its important to be open minded about what works in real life vs looking solely at scientific papers which have limitations, narrow scopes, and replication issues - nearly all men in real life are on amounts that would be larger than what is produced naturally in order to achieve symptom relief. Outside of the bubble of small niche internet forums, virtually nobody is going low enough to replicate exact natural production amounts and getting results.

Edit: I am not implying people need drastically high doses. Just that limiting one's self to a maximum of 10mg of testosterone per day is generally not enough to alleviate symptoms for most.

I respect your opinions greatly as well, which is why I'm looking at this as a discussion, not a debate or argument, and hope you feel the same. Minimum effective dose is a good mindset and in my opinion the correct mindset, but at the end of the day TRT is about restoring levels and achieving symptom relief.

Its a semantic debate at this point, but I think most of us believe that TRT is about relieving the symptoms of HPTA deficiency, not just achieving a nice looking result on paper. If we only ever replicated what we could naturally, I would argue that taking a 5000iu capsule of Vitamin D (a hormone), 250mg capsule of magnesium before bed is , 50mg of zinc in a tablet without it being attached to food, are all "supraphysiological" or "optimization" as well.

I'm certainly not in support of everything he says, and believe it or not I align with your thinking more than his in more aspects than you might know based on our interactions so far, but I think gaining knowledge comes from having discussions like this rather than it being an echo chamber, so I appreciate the insight you've shared so far.

Also you mentioned I am alluding to your protocol, which I was not - as I honestly do not know what it is, other than a low dose protocol. However I would be interested to hear it if you don't mind sharing the details.

Rob Roy doesn't run away from anything but he's extremely busy and only has a few minutes every now and then to make a few post. All my positions are well stated and well supported by the medical literature.

RobRoy · Mar 4, 2024

Cataceous said:
And I would argue that this perception is skewed by the forums, and further that "successful" is probably only defined as feeling better than when hypogonadal, which is not a very high bar. Where is the evidence that physiological levels were given a chance?

I respect your opinion, and acknowledge that I may be in the minority on this, but I view the 120-200 mg range as no longer TRT. Rather it is in a "testosterone optimization" gray area.

Subject beaten to death here:

What is TRT and What is NOT TRT

Note: I originally posted this over at T-Nation so hope it's ok if I share it here @Nelson Vergel. Had an interesting and lively exchange over there with one of the proponents of the "TOT" protocol (Testosterone Optimization Therapy as it is called). This short summary gives guys a look of...

www.excelmale.com

If you get far enough in this you'll see that @RobRoy tends to run away when asked to support his positions.

Rob Roy doesn't run away from anything. Everyone of my points or videos is based purely on the medical literature. I can provide you with dozens of studies that show you that raising testosterone levels to the mid physiologic range doesn't work. If I have to tell you what studies they are, then that means you know nothing about testosterone. That's the point you want me to teach you what it's taken me over 20 years to learn. The T trials is one of those along with the traverse trial that just came out. And I can provide you with many other studies that show your testosterone didn't work. In every single one of those studies, they only raiseAnd I can provide you with many other studies that show your testosterone didn't work. In every single one of those studies, they only raised testosterone levels a little bit. Problem with men like you and even tear load is that I can tell you what the medical literature says, but I can't help you understand it and I can't help you lose your confirmational, bias and belief, perseverance. There are plenty of positions that understand that testosterone should be treated like insulin or other drugs, and titrated to affect and not specifically aim for a mid physiologic number. Take a look at Rebecca Glaser and women and learn a little bit. You gotta think outside the box and you have to look at what we see from a clinical standpoint, utilizing testosterone for decades. We also have to look at the studies where they didn't give a lot of testosterone, and what did or didn't happen. You can see urologist around the country, giving lectures on how bad testosterone is and how it shouldn't be prescribed because it doesn't work. And those lectures every single study they put up to support their view is a study where they gave a little bit of testosterone, and it didn't work. Tear load had no idea what he didn't know. I repeatedly asked him to provide a medical study or Tere load had no idea what he didn't know. I repeatedly asked him to provide a RCT where testosterone caused harm. He could never do it. He was stuck in in vitro studies and not in vivo studies. Look, I could care less how little testosterone you use or anyone else. The problem is the bad advice you give.

BigTex · Mar 4, 2024

Cataceous said:
This work by @tareload is worth repeating. What it suggests is that the existing research on humans has not come close to possible toxicity limits. But if the animal models have validity then those limits are out there being tested by testosterone users. It is constantly being emphasized that everyone is different and should be treated accordingly. However, without a way to establish a prior the individuals who are more sensitive to testosterone, it is appropriate to err on the side of caution. At a minimum this means ensuring patients understand that there are risks in excess, even if they are not well-quantified.
View attachment 42078

But like you said, this has not been show in humans. Animal studies valuable for initial screening and understanding but their results cannot always be extrapolated directly to humans. So this is a really cool graphic, but the number of humans who are doing very high doses of anabolic steroids for many decades is kind of proof that the toxic level is way up there. I am not even sure, ethically, a study could get approved for doing the supraphysiological mega doses bodybuilder have been doing for the past 50 years. As Dr. Lipshultz said on the video, he has supervised quite a few bodybuilders doing big doses and NOT ONE has and problem.

BigTex · Mar 4, 2024

Very informative video.

BigTex · Mar 4, 2024

RobRoy said:
Rob Roy doesn't run away from anything but he's extremely busy and only has a few minutes every now and then to make a few post. All my positions are well stated and well supported by the medical literature.

Something told me this was the case.....of course common sense told me that. Of all the doctors I have seen post on this board (which are a small hand full) @RobRoy has spent more time here offering help than any. Why aren't any of his clients here? Who knows, maybe they are happy and feel no need to post on any board? The only patients of any doctor I see posting here are those of Defy. Of course they are a sponsor here which makes a huge difference. Many went to Defy because of this board. By the way, my doctor is not posting here either and doesn't even know the board exists.

Systemlord · Mar 4, 2024

RobRoy said:
I can provide you with dozens of studies that show you that raising testosterone levels to the mid physiologic range doesn't work.

I'm on oral testosterone undecanoate, average levels 489 ng/dL. Sometimes midrange levels does show excellent results.

My Experience On Jatenzo (Oral TRT) Log

That’s very true. it Was some weird bro science (even drs like crisler used to say it in the past) that daily injections were more ”natural” and mimicked the daily rhythm. if it was about my fluctuations I would have been fine on injections. Even 3x a week I would see a 400 pt difference in...

www.excelmale.com

My Experience On Jatenzo (Oral TRT) Log

That’s very true. it Was some weird bro science (even drs like crisler used to say it in the past) that daily injections were more ”natural” and mimicked the daily rhythm. if it was about my fluctuations I would have been fine on injections. Even 3x a week I would see a 400 pt difference in...

www.excelmale.com

Cataceous · Mar 4, 2024

jmbb said:
... You can scour any one of these sites and find dozens of threads on each where guys are prescribed things like 50mg cypionate per week and feel worse than before they started treatment.
...

I view this as a problem more with the distribution than the amount of testosterone. Delivered as one injection weekly it yields unnaturally large oscillations, likely leading to the reported problems. Delivered as 7.14 mg TC — 5 mg T — daily, a significant fraction of men would do well, setting aside potential issues related to HPTA shutdown. This is in the context of the 6-7 mg of testosterone that's typical of endogenous production in healthy young men. How many have actually tried this?

jmbb said:
...
Low dosing TRT is not uncharted territory, quite the contrary. People who feel better on those protocols are the exception, not the rule. ...

Is this a subjective impression or do you have any hard data? How many guys on TRT use protocols that keep testosterone in the physiological range every day? Is this "low dosing"? My thoughts: There may be a decent-sized cohort on Androgel and equivalent that actually absorb well enough to qualify. DHT might be a little elevated, but they still do fine and thus are not often seen in the forums. Those on Xyosted and following the guidelines also qualify, except for the ones with low SHBG whose doctors do not use free testosterone as their metric. Users of Natesto also qualify, as would many on testosterone undecanoate.

So I agree, physiological dosing is not uncharted territory. There's plenty of research on the above protocols. But contrary to the assertion, a lot of men do feel better on these protocols, or the products wouldn't even exist in the TRT market. The uncharted territory is in injecting 120+ mg TC/week for years, or more broadly, in taking in an average of 12+ mg T daily, which applies to many on high-concentration topical products. I'm not going to argue that the average risk is high, particularly at the lower end from 120-150 mg TC/week. However, based on the toxicity research I consider it likely that some modest fraction of users would be harmed by long-term use of these doses, even in the absence of overt side effects.

jmbb said:
...Edit: I am not implying people need drastically high doses. Just that limiting one's self to a maximum of 10mg of testosterone per day is generally not enough to alleviate symptoms for most.

I believe there is virtually no evidence for this — the claim that most men on TRT somehow require more testosterone than 99+% ever make naturally. If you're relying on anecdotes then I have plenty of my own where guys fare worse on such doses.

jmbb said:
...Its a semantic debate at this point, but I think most of us believe that TRT is about relieving the symptoms of HPTA deficiency, not just achieving a nice looking result on paper. If we only ever replicated what we could naturally, I would argue that taking a 5000iu capsule of Vitamin D (a hormone), 250mg capsule of magnesium before bed is , 50mg of zinc in a tablet without it being attached to food, are all "supraphysiological" or "optimization" as well.

Interesting choices. With both vitamin D and zinc there is evidence that these doses can be harmful. With vitamin D, supplementation yielding serum levels over 50 ng/mL is problematic. 50 mg/day of zinc is high enough on its own to potentially be hazardous. Note that 40 mg is considered the tolerable upper limit for adults. I would refer you to Curt Moyer's well-researched articles on these supplements, but alas the site no longer exists.

jmbb said:
...Also you mentioned I am alluding to your protocol, which I was not - as I honestly do not know what it is, other than a low dose protocol. However I would be interested to hear it if you don't mind sharing the details.

The core is 3.2 mg testosterone enanthate and 2.4 mg testosterone propionate injected daily early am. There's also 600 mcg of progesterone injected at bedtime. For HPTA activity, 15 mg of enclomiphene is taken daily PO, and 20 mcg of GnRH is injected 5.25 times per day.

jmbb · Mar 4, 2024

All I can say at this point is I am observing vastly different anecdotes on this type of dosing on nearly every forum I've ever read in the 10 years I've been on TRT, including this one. They all have threads about daily low dose injecting and if it was as successful as you're claiming it would be to give all the benefits and alleviate all risk, we would see more people sticking with it. If the goalpost is being moved to say it has to include all of the other things you mentioned in your protocol, then I agree probably nobody else has tried it. I would also argue that you would get a near zero compliance rate for even a dedicated population, let alone the average, and that the risks of 120+ are minimal and mostly fear-mongering based off extrapolation and assumption on what may or may not be possible. It's speculation at best, to be quite honest.

Cut the vitamin D and zinc doses in half or less then, you know the exact point I was trying to make. The body was never intended to get even 1000iu of vitamin D orally every day, it is a hormone that is not being dosed in an amount or delivery method that would be natural. Its supraphysiological dosing by the same standard. Minerals and vitamins at the doses in common supplements were would never be found in nature.

Your protocol is interesting. I was a patient of Dr Gordon for a long time. He was having me take a low dose testosterone blend of prop/cyp, first every 3 days but eventually on daily injections at physiological doses. He also had me taking clomid which he believed would keep hpta function at normal levels, and if my LH and FSH being zeroed out were any measures of that, it definitely did not, all it did was cause side effects. As well as a laundry list of other supplements and hormones. I can see how you thought I was referencing yours since there are a couple of similarities.

First post. Can’t get E2 under control, starting to worry

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Attachments

Active Member

Active Member

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Super Moderator

Member

Share this page

Sponsors

Online statistics