JDS: I have a post where 
Dr saya agrees that hCG is suppressive to the HPTA.  It's tough to find anything online regarding hCG mono as it's fairly  uncommon compared to TRT.
https://www.excelmale.com/showthread...ll=1#post50319
R. 09-15-2016, 02:12 PM 
#10Dr Justin Saya, MD: Certainly review the previous discussion about gradual shutdown of 
endogenous LH/FSH as noted. 
I  have no argument with this. I'm not sure why you think, I think  otherwise? I've stated this throughout my posts that HCG shuts down  endogenous (natural) LH. So I'm not sure why you are trying to convince  me of this fact?
JDS: On 8/31/16 your LH was 15 while you were injecting hCG but NOT taking clomid, correct?
R. Mostly HCG, correct.
JDS: Well if it's mostly hCG, and some clomid, it matters how much clomid, as that can explain the lack of HPTA suppression.
R. Again, I'm not sure what you mean when you say: "as that can explain the lack of HPTA suppression."
It is a given that when you inject exogenous HCG, you are gradually shutting down your 
endogenous LH/FSH as Dr. Saya states. Your 
endogenous LH/FSH levels are already suppressed. There's nothing to explain, its a given you will shutdown your 
endogenous LH/FSH when injecting HCG.
R. My thinking is if you inject HCG, you raise your LH levels  accordingly. The HCG mimics LH and binds to the LH receptors, 
which  means your natural LH gets suppressed. So it stands to reason the HCG is  doing the work.
JDS: No, hCG does NOT raise LH levels. It mimics them, therefore LH isn't needed anymore. 
R. Can you post a study or article that explains your first assertion that: "
hCG does NOT raise LH levels." 
As to your second assertion that: "It mimics them, therefore LH isn't needed anymore."
I  agree here that LH mimics endogenous LH and the body thinks it has  enough LH and stops production of same. But again, I'm not sure why you  are trying to convince me of this? If the production of 
endogenous LH is stopped there is nothing to measure, except for the 
exogenous HCG you inject.
JDS: You just said yourself, your natural LH gets suppressed. 
R. Correct, so what's the beef?
JDS: But yours is  not. I personally think that's due to insufficient replacement.
R.  Correct on the first statement. But respectfully, and this is where I  believe your wires are crossed. Its a grey area to explain, its easy to  get confused, but I'll give it a try. Appears you are looking at my  elevated LH labs and wondering why are my LH levels are elevated?  Something has got to be wrong? Actually, nothing is wrong, my  labs indicate that. 
It appears you are confusing 
endogenous and exogenous LH with one another. My 
exogenous LH levels will show elevation on my labs. While my 
endogenous levels are suppressed/shutdown at the same time and there is nothing to read. Same concept as doing 
exogenous Test and being shutdown/suppressed, its a given. 
Ex: If you inject 500 mgs. of Test, will your labs reflect your 
endogenous  Test that has been suppressed/shutdown by your exogenous 500mgs of  Test? Or will your labs reflect the 500mgs of Test you injected? The  answer is fairly obvious.
JDS: I've never seen any labs where a  person is not completely suppressed when taking an exogenous source of  testosterone or hCG. 
R. Again, I'm not sure why you keep trying to convince me of this fact when I agree with this as noted above.
JDS: hCG does not raise LH, 
R. Can you post a study or article that supports this assertion?
JDS: it does not appear on a lab test as LH, 
R. Ditto, can you post a study or article supporting this assertion?
JDS: they are  separate chemicals with enough differences that lab tests can tell them  apart, 
R. Can you post a study/article supporting this assertion?
JDS: it's just the body that cannot. 
R. This part I agree with.
So that's what I'm not getting, you believe the more HCG one injects  the lower your LH levels should be...? If you can post a link that  supports that assertion, maybe I would understand.
JDS: I don't just believe, it's fact. Once you administer an exogenous source  of hormones, the HPTA shuts down. You are administering exogenous  hormones. 
R. Once again, what makes you think I don't understand  this? That's pretty basic stuff. But my question was: You believe the  more HCG one injects  the lower your LH levels should be...? Your LH shouldn't be elevated,  something is wrong?
As you stated previously: JDS: Either way, you are not sufficiently replacing your testosterone.  
R. Even though my after HCG labs showed an increase in bot Tot. and Free Test?
JDS: Your body is screaming for more, as evidenced by the 15 LH level. It's higher than BEFORE you started hCG.
R.  Again, respectfully, this is where I believe you have your wires  crossed. The 15 LH level is attributed to the exogenous HCG, not my  bodies endogenous LH which was replaced with the HCG and is shutdown and should be  non-detectable.
JDS: but if you do google it, you'll notice every single forum post says it's suppressive. 
R. Noooooooooo....really??? 
 
newguy128 R. 12.5mg of Aromasin EOD is a less than a half a normal dose of 25mg  every day. Those on HCG Monotherapy should use a AI to control  excess estrogen caused by HCG in order to reap any benefits from the HCG  monotherapy.
JDS: There's no such thing as a "normal dose" of AI. 
R.  According to the Aromasin dosage info there is. You are generalizing my  statement by saying "There's no such thing as a "normal dose" of a AI."  When I am in fact speaking specifically of Aromasin, not any or all  other "AI's."
JDS: Many men do NOT take AI,  
R. If we polled 10,000,000 men in the USA, likely less than 1% would be taking an AI or even know what it is?
 
JDS: and it's not a necessary element of TRT. 
R. Not necessary, but helps eliminate excess estrogen.
JDS: Men that ARE taking AI, are  not taking anywhere near 25mg aromasin a day, 
R. The first part  is generally vague as to what name brand of AI are you referring to?  What dosages of Test are they taking? What is their lifestyle like, diet,  general health, etc. etc?
JDS: I am fairly sure that is a  dose that will achieve near 99% aromatase inhibition, therefore leaving  a person with near zero estradiol production. 
R. I'm not taking 25mgs every day, rather only 12.5mgs EOD of Aromasin, big difference.
JDS: In other words that's a  breast cancer treatment dose. 
R. Correct, 25mgs is a daily dose for breast cancer treatment.
newguy128: R. If I was on TRT my HCG dose would probably be the same.
JDS: Why would that be? 
R. Reread my posts on my HCG dosages...EOD.
JDS: hCG's purpose on TRT is to maintain testicular  function, not produce replacement of testosterone levels. 
R. I'm not on TRT, but thanks for the enlightment.
JDS: Therefore a  lower dose is used.
R. Generally speaking yes, but I take what I  would consider a equivalent TRT dose of 500-1000IU per week, so amounts  to about the same.
JDS: You're taking minimum 250IU a day. Multiply that by 7 and it's 1750IU per week. 
R. Respectfully, that's totally incorrect and why you need to reread my 
HCG dosage posts.
JDS: You said up to 350IU a day. So that's between 1750IU - 2450IU per week. Not the same as 500-1000.
R. Once again, totally incorrect and way off base, take another look at my posted HCG EOD dosages. 
newguy128: R. FSH. HCG supplies LH/FSH.
R. And why I and others on HCG Monotherapy should use a low dose AI like Aromasin EOD.
JDS: Which makes sense if they're achieving a level which is fully  suppressing them, you are not, which I find odd. 
R. Redundantly, I  don't understand why you keep saying I am not suppressed? When in fact  my endogenous LH and likely my FSH are both suppressed.
The whole  idea of my statement to use an AI like Aromasin is to control excess  estrogen caused by the HCG. And to keep the T/E ratio balanced to an  optimal level.
JDS: I believe you consult  
Dr saya, so if that's true, and he thinks it's fine, ignore what I'm  saying haha. He's way way more informed than I am so listen to that man  over me.
R. Fer sure, 10-4 that!
JDS: I don't intend any of that in a rude way, or a "I'm smarter than you"  way, so don't take it that way. 
R. Thanks, but I'm not taking it  out of context. Its just that you believe you are correct in what you  said and I don't understand some of your assertions. But if you can post  supporting evidence to your assertions, then I will be more than  willing to read it to learn new stuff. That's what the forum is for, to  hopefully educate one another on various subjects.
JDS: I simply am passing on what I have  learned.                         
R. Thanks, I appreciate input, but sometimes we learn  things the wrong way or get accustomed to thinking a certain way whether  its right or wrong. If I am wrong after reading any studies or articles  supporting your assertions, then I've learned something new and I'll  retract whatever I've said if its wrong or I've given incorrect info. So  as to not mislead any future readers, including myself.