It is completely imaginary since you cannot point to a single study or even credible real-world examples where men absorbing healthy physiological amounts of testosterone daily acquire "substantially" less muscle mass, retain "substantially" more body fat and have noticeably less bone mass improvement than those absorbing 10-12 mg of testosterone per day.
These are dose-dependent effects, but as madman has discussed many times, you have to go much higher with dosing to really move the needle. You've already pretty much stipulated that minor improvements in body composition are not a net benefit to health, accompanied as they are by a deterioration in other parameters such as HCT, lipids, etc.
Please link to these examples, especially the ones on
ExcelMale.
Mostly the trainer lately, about 45 minutes at ~200 watts most days. Outside, occasional rides of around 25 miles, with groups sometimes 60-100 miles. Both time and intensity are much reduced from earlier years. Now it's more about staying healthy than being competitive.
False. The numbers are based on the period before the recent lowering of testosterone levels. Otherwise we might be calling 4-5 mg T/day normal for young men rather than 6-7 mg.
You have offered no evidence that higher dosing is reasonable compensation for unnatural delivery patterns. With respect to injections, when dosing is too infrequent relative to the ester half-life then frequency should be increased—not cumulative dose.
So the point of treatment is to resolve hypogonadism while minimizing the risk of side effects. As with the exhortation: "First, do no harm." This is why standard practice calls for levels to be started in the mid-normal range; it is statistically the safest place to be, while also giving a good chance of resolving symptoms.
You're the one trying exceptionally hard to rationalize your dosing strategy with only a "trust me", even though you haven't tried anything else. You have offered zero evidence in favor of starting beyond what human physiology is capable of. Do not keep relying on the straw man of hypogonadism as your point of comparison. There's no question that many parameters are lousy with this affliction.
I go where the evidence takes me. In totality it leads to a low-and-slow approach to TRT dosing. With respect to initial dosing in particular, I am emboldened by your inability to offer any cogent argument or tangible evidence opposing this sensible practice.
