ExcelMale
Menu
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Videos
Lab Tests
Doctor Finder
Buy Books
About Us
Men’s Health Coaching
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Add and Read Reviews
Doctor and Clinic Reviews
Defy Medical Help
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jon H" data-source="post: 172271" data-attributes="member: 6219"><p>Don't buy into the hype that anything over 1,000TT is supra-physiological. That's simply not the case. Just five years ago, having a peak of ~1500TT would have been considered barely above normal range. LabCorp changed the range 2-3 years ago to 264-916TT.</p><p><a href="https://www.labcorp.com/assets/11476" target="_blank">https://www.labcorp.com/assets/11476</a></p><p>They even admit that they used "a population of lean healthy males" in their earlier study, so they felt they should use men that were more fat for the next study, since fat can lower testosterone levels. In the newer study they said they used healthy non-obese males with a BMI of <30. That means that a sedentary couch potato, 6'0'' tall, weighing 220lbs, (with 50 lbs of abdominal fat and no muscle) would qualify as being non-obese and healthy. It's a slick sales job that makes sick people think they fall into the categories of normal and healthy.</p><p><a href="https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/BMI/bmicalc.htm" target="_blank">Calculate Your BMI - Standard BMI Calculator</a></p><p></p><p>For years before that the range was 348-1197, meaning someone with a TT of 1100 would've been considered perfectly physiological. 20 years before that the range would've been even higher. 10 years from now, the range will probably be changed to 200-650, and doctors will be aghast if someone has a peak level of 800TT. Testosterone, sperm-count, and general virility of males in modern culture has dropped at an alarming rate for decades, and the general medical community's way of addressing it is just to change the definition of "normal". The middle of the current "normal" range is actually not that great, and is nothing I'd want to aim for. I never want to feel "not bad". I want to feel good.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jon H, post: 172271, member: 6219"] Don't buy into the hype that anything over 1,000TT is supra-physiological. That's simply not the case. Just five years ago, having a peak of ~1500TT would have been considered barely above normal range. LabCorp changed the range 2-3 years ago to 264-916TT. [URL]https://www.labcorp.com/assets/11476[/URL] They even admit that they used "a population of lean healthy males" in their earlier study, so they felt they should use men that were more fat for the next study, since fat can lower testosterone levels. In the newer study they said they used healthy non-obese males with a BMI of <30. That means that a sedentary couch potato, 6'0'' tall, weighing 220lbs, (with 50 lbs of abdominal fat and no muscle) would qualify as being non-obese and healthy. It's a slick sales job that makes sick people think they fall into the categories of normal and healthy. [URL="https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/BMI/bmicalc.htm"]Calculate Your BMI - Standard BMI Calculator[/URL] For years before that the range was 348-1197, meaning someone with a TT of 1100 would've been considered perfectly physiological. 20 years before that the range would've been even higher. 10 years from now, the range will probably be changed to 200-650, and doctors will be aghast if someone has a peak level of 800TT. Testosterone, sperm-count, and general virility of males in modern culture has dropped at an alarming rate for decades, and the general medical community's way of addressing it is just to change the definition of "normal". The middle of the current "normal" range is actually not that great, and is nothing I'd want to aim for. I never want to feel "not bad". I want to feel good. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Share this page
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Sponsors
Forums
Add and Read Reviews
Doctor and Clinic Reviews
Defy Medical Help
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top