Are the benefits of TRT exagerated or is the clomid not working?

[Birdman]

So I was prescribed clomid 12.5 mg a day for my low testosterone. Initially my levels were at 226 ng/dL 348 - 1197 which were taken in late janurary. I started taking clomid on march 5th and after a month of clomid I went in for another test and the results came out to 837 ng/dL 348 - 1197 taken on march 31st.

While there have been some benefits like stronger/more frequent morning wood, increase in one of my lifts, get more sexually excited when hugging certain girls, better focus, slightly more attention from women, I haven't seen the vast and great improvements various bloggers online say TRT gives. Especially given the insane jump in levels.

My voice is still at a similar higher pitch, with little if any difference, most of my lifts have not increased despite lifting 5-6 days a week and eating plenty of healthful steaks/chicken/eggs, my physique isn't all that different (I'll get pictures tomorrow), have trouble creating that spark/chemistry on first dates and my anxiety hasn't calmed down. In fact I out right broke down in tears over external matters, which has never happened in years. Although there was a jump in estrogen levels as well.

I also read a lot on here and other sources about clomid only increasing testosterone on paper.

The last thing I want is to go on TRT only to find out the clomid was working and the effects were just exaggerated.


Do you guys think the benefits of TRT/high testosterone are exaggerated by various bloggers online or does the clomid only increase numbers? Do I just need to give it more time?

 

[CoastWatcher]

It seems you are actually asking two questions.

You haven't responded subjectively to your Clomid protocol - despite an objective improvement on paper. In many men that's all too typical. Not in all...many. So your first question: do we see that? All too often. But what about the estradiol/sensitive level? A good doctor keeps a close eye on your e2 as it can become an issue when Clomid is being used. Where does it stand last check?

Then it seems you want to know if the benefits of testosterone are exaggerated. Why would those of us who have found a new lease on life with TRT spend our time here exaggerating abut its effects? For many, many men. - I am one of them - testosterone via TRT gave us back a life.

Not all of us can say that. It certainly doesn't work for each and every man who tries it. But with a good doctor and patience, yes, you have every reason to be hopeful if you switch to TRT. Work with a capable,doctor and have patience. Don't assume that Clomid's failure, if it failed, means TRT will fail. And don't assume those of us who have found success are being anything but candid.

 

[Birdman]

It seems you are actually asking two questions.

But what about the estradiol/sensitive level?

Estradile before was:

17.5 pg/mL 8.0 - 35.0

Now it is:

31.7 pg/mL 8.0 - 35.0


I think that might explain the crying and mood swings.

It might be reasonable to get TRT, but I was put on clomid due to my age: 26.

 

[CoastWatcher]

Estradile before was:

17.5 pg/mL 8.0 - 35.0

Now it is:

31.7 pg/mL 8.0 - 35.0


I think that might explain the crying and mood swings.

It might be reasonable to get TRT, but I was put on clomid due to my age: 26.

That is a rational approach, Clomid at your age is worth a good faith effort. As far as your e2, while each of us is different that's still an excellent level. I would not do anything to suppress it.

 

[Vince]

Birdman, you are attempting a restart.. Hopefully you will be able to get off anti depression meds adderall, your restart will be successful, and you can avoid going on trt for rest of your life.

 

[Vince Carter]

Guys that do well, long term, on Clomid ar usually called unicorns for a reason, and clomid isn't TRT. Restart given your age is totally appropriate but I think you probably need some more comprehensive labs, you're being given the wrong Estradiol tests, you should use the (Ultra)Sensitive Estradiol LC/MS/MS test. I've *heard E2 going high on Clomid.

 

[Jinzang]

Most of my lifts have not increased despite lifting 5-6 days a week and eating plenty of healthful steaks/chicken/eggs

These are good sources of protein, but also high in cholesterol and saturated fat. If you are going to follow this kind of diet, I hope you are monitoring your cholesterol levels closely. I hear of plenty men dying of heart attacks, I have yet to hear of one dying of protein deficiency.

 

[SoCal Guy]

These are good sources of protein, but also high in cholesterol and saturated fat. If you are going to follow this kind of diet, I hope you are monitoring your cholesterol levels closely. I hear of plenty men dying of heart attacks, I have yet to hear of one dying of protein deficiency.

Consider reading more widely. I found out last night that a close vegetarian friend died of a massive heart attack last week. He was 45, slender and athletic.

The cholesterol hypothesis is collapsing. It was always a scheme to sell statins. Animal fats are crucial parts of the diet, and vegetable oils are associated with cancer and heart trouble.

Normally I would be more circumspect. But today I just cannot abide the relentless vegetarian horseshit.

 

[Birdman]

Vince carter: The tests were estradiol sensitive, but I have heard of clomid not working hence why I asked the questions.
Vince: I actually haven't been on anti-depressants for 3 years but brought it up in another thread as an explanation for low T, but I will weene off the adderall.
Jinzang: Yeah my cholestoral levels were on the higher end of average, so I cut down on the eggs and occasionally eat a PB & J for lunch.

I have an appointment with my doctor coming up. I will confess I did get fastfood/takeout a few times this month and a handful of times last month which could contribute to my less than ideal symptoms. I also have a lot of stress in my life I am trying to handle.

 

[SoCal Guy]

Jinzang: Yeah my cholestoral levels were on the higher end of average, so I cut down on the eggs and occasionally eat a PB & J for lunch.

Awesome! Bread is starch, which the body will immediately convert to sugar. Jelly is of course sugar. And peanut butter is a mix of sugar and hydrogenated vegetable oil with a few peanuts thrown in.


Congratulations on becoming more vegetarian!

 

[Jinzang]

If you reread what I wrote, you'll see that I said you should be more concerned about your cholesterol levels than the amount of protein you eat. High cholesterol levels can kill you through increased risk of heart disease, low protein levels will not kill you. Of course, it's possible to eat a diet that's high in protein and low in cholesterol.

First, high blood cholesterol levels are a risk factor for heart disease. It's standard practice to take a blood sample during a physical and advise the patient to lower cholesterol if it's out of range. This is not some kooky vegetarian idea. If your total blood cholesterol was above 300 wouldn't you take some action to lower it? If not, good luck to you and your family.

Second, it's well established that dietary cholesterol as well as saturated fat and trans fats, raise blood cholesterol levels. But because of genetic differences, the response differs from person to person. Some people respond less and others more. If your blood cholesterol levels are in range, continue eating as you have. If they are out of range, the best way to lower them is to cut cholesterol and unhealthy fats, lose weight, and eat more fiber. Once again, this is standard medical advice.

A vegetarian diet can be high in cholesterol and unhealthy fats. Dairy, eggs, tropical oils, and hydrogenated fats are all vegetarian. Perhaps your unlucky friend ate such a diet. It is well established that vegetarians have lower rates of heart disease, which is as expected, as excluding meat will tend to lower the amount of cholesterol and saturated fats in your diet. However, I am not saying you should become vegetarian. I am saying you should monitor your cholesterol levels and take steps to lower them if they are out of range. This is standard medical advice.

Last, the standard medical advice on cholesterol is not a conspiracy to sell statins. The advice preceded the development of statins, obviously. It's not is if some pharmaceutical company developed statins and then cast around for a reason to prescribe them, they were developed specifically because it was already known that high cholesterol levels are a risk factor for heart disease. There is solid epidemiological evidence that high blood cholesterol levels increase the risk of heart disease and we understand the physical reason why they do. This is established medical knowledge.

 

[SoCal Guy]

Jinzang, I read what you wrote. But the cholesterol hypothesis is bullshit. It's just a lab value, perverted to confuse and terrify people, thus selling drugs and margarine. It's not merely a scientific dead-end, it's a gigantic silent experiment being performed on the entire population, which has gotten fat, sick and diabetic on it. (Which sure sells a lot of meds and dialysis!)

Kindly educate yourself:

proteinpower.com/cholesterol-myths/

...and read anything by Dr. Kendrick, whose blog is here: https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/

Recent post of Dr. Kendrick's:

Cholesterol lowering – proven or not?

Just before I head off on holiday for a couple of weeks, I thought I should make a quick comment on the Repatha trial (PCSK9- inhibitor). I have written much about this new class of cholesterol lowering drugs, and I have been highly skeptical that they would have any benefits on cardiovascular disease. [Mainly on the basis that I don't believe raised LDL causes CVD, and these drugs have one action – to lower LDL].

As many of you will be aware, the data from a clinical trial on Repatha has just been released. It was reported by the BBC thus:

‘Huge advance' in fighting world's biggest killer.'

An innovative new drug can prevent heart attacks and strokes by cutting bad cholesterol to unprecedented levels, say doctors. The results of the large international trial on 27,000 patients means the drug could soon be used by millions.

The British Heart Foundation said the findings were a significant advance in fighting the biggest killer in the world. Around 15 million people die each year from heart attacks or stroke. Bad cholesterol is the villain in the heart world – it leads to blood vessels furring up, becoming easy to block which fatally starves the heart or brain of oxygen.

It is why millions of people take drugs called statins to reduce the amount of bad cholesterol . The new drug – evolocumab – changes the way the liver works to also cut bad cholesterol. “It is much more effective than statins,” said Prof Peter Sever, from Imperial College London.

He organised the bit of the trial taking place in the UK with funding from the drug company Amgen. Prof Sever told the BBC News website: “The end result was cholesterol levels came down and down and down and we've seen cholesterol levels lower than we have ever seen before in the practice of medicine.”

And so on, and so forth. So, the Repatha trial was a huge success. Obviously, it certainly lowered LDL to levels never seen before. Or, maybe it was not quite such a huge success. Michel de Logeril, a professor of cardiology in France – who set up and ran the famous, and successful, Lyon Heart Study sent me this comment.

‘This is just junk science.

The calculated follow-up duration required to test the primary hypothesis was 4 years as written by the authors themselves (but only in the second last paragraph before the end of discussion&#8230 but the actual median duration of follow-up has been 2.2 years; it is thus a biased trial (a similar bias as in JUPITER: 1.9 years instead of 4 years): early stop!

In addition, contrary to the misleading claims in the medias, there was no effect on both total [444 deaths with evolocumab vs. 426 with placebo] and cardiovascular [251 vs. 240] mortality; which is not unexpected with a so short a follow-up.

They pretend that they are differences for non-fatal AMI and stroke but there is no difference in AMI and stroke mortality… Very strange… It would be critical to get access to the raw clinical data to verify the clinical history of each case in both groups.

Well, in my opinion and given the present state of consciousness among US doctors, FOURIER is a flop!

Best
Michel'

What he is saying, is that there was a reported reduction in non-fatal heart attacks and stroke. And less need for revascularization procedures e.g. PCI/stents. As you may gather Professor de Logeril would like to see the raw data to verify this. There is very little chance that this will be made available.

Anyway, that was the upside.

The downside is when you look at cardiovascular deaths.

• The total number of deaths from cardiovascular disease in the Repatha group was 251
• The total number of deaths from cardiovascular disease in the placebo group was 240
• So, 11 more people died of cardiovascular disease in the Repatha group

The overall mortality data:

• The total number of, overall, deaths in the Repatha group was 444
• The total number of, overall, deaths in the placebo group was 426
• So, there were 18 more deaths in those taking Repatha.

The differences here are not large enough to be statistically significant. However, there were more, not less, deaths in the Repatha group, and more, not less, CV deaths. This study was also terminated early, which is extremely bad news for any clinical trial, and casts enormous doubt on any findings. It was supposed to last four years, but was stopped at 2.2 years. Why? Were the mortality curves heading rapidly in the wrong direction?

Alongside this, should be set the knowledge the Pfizer also had a PCSK9-inhibitor undergoing clinical trials, and they pulled the plug, right in the middle of it all.

Pfizer Ends Development Of Its PCSK9 Inhibitor

‘November 1, 2016 by Larry Husten

Immune issues and diminishing efficacy doomed the new drug.

Pfizer announced on Tuesday that it was discontinuing development of bococizumab, its cholesterol-lowering PCSK9 inhibitor under development.

“The totality of clinical information now available for bococizumab, taken together with the evolving treatment and market landscape for lipid-lowering agents, indicates that bococizumab is not likely to provide value to patients, physicians, or shareholders,” the company explained.

Pfizer said that it would halt two very large ongoing cardiovascular outcome studies with bococizumab, the 17,000 patient SPIRE 1trial and the 10,000 patient SPIRE 2trial. The trials were fully enrolled.'

Pulling the plug when 27,000 patients had been fully enrolled. What on earth did they see. Something more than slightly worrying. I guess we will never really know, but that is one hell of a write off.

It is also interesting to note that Amgen – the company selling Repatha, has announced that:

‘Amgen to refund cholesterol drug if patients suffer heart attack

Pledge aims to convince insurers to pay for $14,000-a-year medicine.' 2

As reported in the Financial Times.

This is a big vote of confidence … not! I think, perhaps, we are looking at a doomed drug. Probably a doomed class of drugs. Has the cholesterol hypothesis been verified, or contradicted? I know I am biased, but I know what I think.

1: http://cardiobrief.org/2016/11/01/pfizers-ends-development-of-its-pcsk9-inhibitor/
2: https://www.ft.com/content/34154cdc-0a86-11e7-ac5a-903b21361b43

___________________

[h=3]RECENT POSTS BY DR KENDRICK[/b]

• What causes heart disease – part XXIX
• Cholesterol lowering – proven or not?
• What causes heart disease part XVIII
• What causes heart disease part XXVII
• What causes heart disease part XXVI
• What causes heart disease part XXV
• Vitamin C – an update
• What causes heart disease part XXIV
• What causes heart disease part XXIII
• The diet heart hypothesis suffers another attack – hoorah!
• High cholesterol low heart disease – The Sami
• Those who promote a high fat low carbohydrate diet are silenced around the world
• Saturated fat and heart disease
• Buy this new book
• What causes heart disease part XXI

 

[Jinzang]

There are two separate questions here. The first is whether a diet high in cholesterol, saturated fats, and trans fats raises your risk of heart disease. The second is whether statins lower your risk of heart disease. I'd say that the answer to both questions is yes, but they are two separate and distinct questions. Disproving one would not disprove the other. Since I argued for the first, showing evidence that the second is untrue does not contradict me.

As I said, people differ in how much dietary cholesterol affects their blood cholesterol for genetic reasons. If you can tolerate a diet high in cholesterol and saturated fat, as shown by your blood levels, then continue eating as you have. If not, please modify your diet and continue monitoring your blood cholesterol levels.

I'm aware that some studies have failed to find that statins reduce the risk of heart disease. However, I believe that if you look at the totality of the evidence, there is a risk reduction, especially among those at high risk for heart disease. I would discourage people from using statins unless they are at high risk. I believe that for the general population the risks outweigh the benefits and it is preferable to lower cholesterol through diet and exercise.

 

[madman]

These are good sources of protein, but also high in cholesterol and saturated fat. If you are going to follow this kind of diet, I hope you are monitoring your cholesterol levels closely. I hear of plenty men dying of heart attacks, I have yet to hear of one dying of protein deficiency.

Depends on the genetics of the individual, at one time I was eating 12 dozen whole eggs a day for over 3 months and had blood work done and lipids were all in range. I currently eat 2.2 pounds extra lean red meat daily for almost a year straight now and lipids on my most recent labs came back in healthy range. How one responds to dietary cholesterol is individual depending on ones genetics and your liver produces far more cholesterol daily than anyone could consume in a given day.

 

[SoCal Guy]

I'd say that the answer to both questions is yes

Ah, the "Jinzang said so" evidence.

If you can tolerate a diet high in cholesterol and saturated fat, as shown by your blood levels, then continue eating as you have. If not, please modify your diet and continue monitoring your blood cholesterol levels.

...thus ignoring the fact that cholesterol is just a bullshit lab value. Did you read the blog post I entered above for you? Can you explain how it is consistent with what you keep repeating?

I'm aware that some studies have failed to find that statins reduce the risk of heart disease.

Did you read the study above? Where a statin increased mortality? So much that they had to shut down the study before it wrecked their precious drug by showing that in addition to lowering people's cholesterol more than ever before, it also tended to kill them?

Any thoughts on that, Jinzang?

Hello?

However, I believe that if you look at the totality of the evidence, there is a risk reduction, especially among those at high risk for heart disease.

Ah, so Jinzang is acquainted with the "totality" of the evidence. PubMed has a quarter of a million hits for "cholesterol". But it's cool, cuz Jinzang's on top of it.

Translation: Jinzang reads veggie blogs. And he can't recall ever seeing anything on them that said that people aren't eating enough animal products.

Anyway, I'm done. You can resume posting your cherry-picked studies.

But I know this for a fact: these profitable, politically-correct lies are killing people.

If they so choose, vegetarians are entitled to die for their false beliefs. But they are not entitled to kill others with them.

 

[madman]

I would say trans fats/oxidized fats are the culprits not saturated fat/cholesterol and even than cardiovascular disease is multifactorial as many other things can contribute to damage to ones vascular health, mainly inflammation/environmental and food toxins/stress/lack of exercise/drugs and cigarette smoking. HDL/LDL ratio and c reactive protein levels are far more important than total cholesterol.

 

[Will Brink]

There are two separate questions here. The first is whether a diet high in cholesterol, saturated fats, and trans fats raises your risk of heart disease.

Actually, that's 3 separate issues right there. Dietary cholesterol has little impact on serum levels and studied having men eating a dozen eggs per day found little impact. A small sub set of the population does find increased serum cholesterol from dietary cholesterol and the only way to know that is via blood work. The association between dietary cholesterol and serum levels is weak.

Trans fats suck

Role of saturated fat in CVD is still a controversial issue and data often conflicting and likely depends on other variables such as intakes of other fats, total cals consumed, etc.

 

[Birdman]

From the consensus it seems like TRT is the way to go. I have an appointment coming up so I will bring it up with my doctor.

 

[CoastWatcher]

Let's wind up the diet debate or move it to another thread of its own. After all, this is Birdman's thread. Birdman, keep,us informed of how this plays out for you.

 

[Birdman]

Let's wind up the diet debate or move it to another thread of its own. After all, this is Birdman's thread. Birdman, keep,us informed of how this plays out for you.

Ok. I decided to talk to my doctor about it but I want to keep my options open in case my doctor decides to not prescribe TRT due to my age. Any recommendations for a backup doctor who will prescribe TRT to a man in his 20s in the southern California area?