Ok, well then we could’ve saved a lot of time by having you present this ton of evidence that shows dosing at physiological levels is better than higher doses. Surely you will now present all this evidence. If that’s your claim, then the burden of proof is also on you to support your claim, or does it only work one way??
Ask yourself why we even have reference ranges. They are used to diagnose and treat disease/dysfunction. The dysfunction is clearly associated with levels above or below the range. I hope you aren't claiming otherwise.
Testosterone increases muscle mass and strength and regulates other physiological processes, but we do not know whether testosterone effects are dose dependent and whether dose requirements for maintaining various androgen-dependent processes are similar. To determine the effects of graded doses...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
For all the supporting studies you claim to have, all you can do is return to this one that didn't even look at intermediate doses for once-weekly injections, such as 75-100 mg TC/week. It is not relevant to the discussion here that once-weekly injections of 50 mg TC leads to periods of hypogonadism and poor results. I have never advocated such a protocol. It appears that a single straw man argument is all you have.
Are the millions of people that take creatine every day being absurd? ...
Do I need to explain the differences between a nutrient and a hormone?
Again, it isn’t “unproven benefits”… I’ve shared other studies with regard to well-being and mood along with other benefits.
Not one that compared mid-physiological levels to supraphysiological levels.
Sure some people may have risks from higher levels of testosterone, some have risks from taking it at all. Some people have risks from peanuts. People have risks from all types of things. We don’t base medical approaches on outliers.
There you go. Exactly what I've been saying. You don't begin treatment as if everyone is an outlier who needs high doses of testosterone. You start at average levels and work from there. Case closed.
...
The studies and real-world approach by the vast majority of trt doctors show people at 100-120 do better than people at 50-75. That doesn’t mean all, but it means it’s a reasonable starting point.
Now you're inventing stuff again. Where's the study showing that 100-120 mg TC/week is better than 75 mg/week? Just because some TRT doctors cater to the more-is-better mentality doesn't mean that results are actually better. On the contrary, anecdotally we see a lot of suffering from this approach.
2 things… well actually 2.5 things here
1.) you’re just using the tried and true persuasion technique of over-stating the benefit of what you’re supporting and also over-stating the risk of what you’re opposing. You fail to mention the risk of starting at 50 mg/week and ending up worse than when you started(which has been shown in a study).
Just can't let go of the straw man, can you?
You can claim that it doesn’t apply because levels were artificially dropped before starting the study, but actually the lack of endogenous testosterone would be a very real factor for people taking 50 mg/week. So there are risks to starting at 50 mg/week.
What I would actually claim is that the risks in starting with 50 mg TC/week
in divided doses are less than the risks in starting with 100+ mg/week at any dose pattern.
Not the least of which is the patient stopping treatment before getting the benefits that could be provided at higher doses. It’s also extremely likely that they would not receive the full extent of benefits at that dose.
This exposes a further flaw in your reasoning. Unlike in the study, normal men beginning TRT have endogenous testosterone, to which the exogenous testosterone is added. Given that 100 mg TC/week is already supraphysiological for most men, the exogenous boost initially sends levels well above even marginally high. So you get the honeymoon, followed by an anti-honeymoon crash when endogenous production shuts down. Starting with 50 mg TC/week
in divided doses would do a much better job of keeping patients physiological during the transition period. But then you don't think that being physiological is meaningful, do you?
this is supported by the studies I’ve shared(which for some reason you continue to lie about).
A single study that only supports a straw man argument. In what world are choices for TRT limited to 50 mg or 125 mg TC once a week?
And I even shared one in this very post that shows 125 per week is a great sweet spot for maximizing benefits while not introducing significant risks.
Same study, endless repetition.
2.) you’re just making stuff up and claiming it’s a tiny percentage of guys who need levels above 80 mg/week, and that the vast majority do fine with 80 mg per week or lower. Those claims are not supported by any studies I’ve seen or the real-world data or the countless anecdotal reports of people who need more than 80 mg week to get the most benefits.
Well at least 80 mg TC/week is an improvement over 100 mg. Grok estimates that about 20% of healthy young men make this much or more testosterone, on average. However, I question your estimation of "countless anecdotal reports". In my estimation, the number of reports of men starting TRT at say 60-80 mg TC/week and switching to 100+ mg for the long haul is quite small, and negligible compared to the number who start at 100+ mg and complain about intractable problems.
...But don’t lie and say there isn’t tons of evidence that additional benefits come along with higher doses(as in 100-120) without a substantial increase in risks.
Yet you still haven't provided evidence for this. Quote a study that says as much. Not one where the comparison is to hypogonadism, e.g. 50 mg TC once a week. The study should also focus on overall health and quality of life rather than body composition.
People making that calculation aren’t being “absurd” as you like to claim.
2.5) you’re being hypocritical by just making stuff up and not providing any evidence for your claims while demanding that the burden of proof is on others any time they make a statement.
Your logic only applies if the physiological range is some meaningless construct.
Which reminds me… weren’t you supposed to be sharing a “ton of proof” that shows doses of 50-75 mg provides as many or more benefits than 100-120 while being a lot safer??
Only if decades of medical science is to be ignored.
