Yet you don't deny the historical explanation for this quirk with dosing of testosterone cypionate, and the obvious contradiction in the call for mid-normal levels. You also can't deny that it's set apart from dosing of the other modalities, which are physiological at 3-8 mg T/day.
Just word salad on your part that says nothing about your inconsistency in approaching the source.
With your intelligence and large amount of time on
ExcelMale I know you're aware of what dose-response charts look like, including
this one that I've cited many times. Of course charts of total testosterone actually understate the problem due to the dose-dependent suppression of SHBG. This request for information that you already have is an obvious deflection for your lack of any evidence in support of your position.
When did you share that chart during this discussion? It’s possible that I overlooked it if so then that’s my bad, but if you haven’t shared it then don’t lie and try to say I’m deflecting. But kudos for actually going out and trying to scounge up some kind of data. Honestly though, all it shows is there is a dose-dependent response to testosterone. Aside from the fact that most of it is self-reported with exactly zero data-validation measures in place, there are other issues as well.
What was the frequency of dosing?
What were the symptoms of the patients on the various doses?
What were the side effects of the patients on various doses?
What were the hematocrit levels of the patients on various doses.
So congrats for showing that more testosterone results in higher levels I guess?? I’ve never said that wasn’t the case.
I showed one to you
here. Either your memory is short or you are again deflecting from your inability to support your position.
Yes, and I already had plenty of discussion with you regarding that chart. No need to rehash it here, as anyone can just go here and read it -
Latest Labs. Slight elevation in hematocrit - Page 2 - ExcelMale - #1 TRT & Testosterone Forum | Expert-Moderated Men's Health Community
After plenty of valid points being made by me you just resorted to saying I was “quibbling” and that it was still a pointless risk to take.
But congrats for showing that there isn’t much difference between 50 and 55%…. And again that’s before even getting into the other factors that play a role in viscosity. But like I said, we’ve already discussed this so if you’d like to continue that conversation do it in that thread.
For the sake of this conversation, that chart does nothing to tell us where users on trt fall.
What you should be looking for is evidence like this -
Comparative assessment of outcomes and adverse effects using two different intramuscular testosterone therapy regimens: 100 mg IM weekly or 200 mg IM biweekly - International Journal of Impotence Research
In a subanalysis of men who had a baseline hematocrit below 54% before intramuscular testosterone therapy initiation, we found the following: men who received 100 mg weekly injections were significantly less likely to have hematocrit levels rising above 54% (1/102 (1%)
And that’s on weekly injections of 100 mg. That number would almost certainly be lower if the dose was further divided as it should be for most men. So at least in that study less than 1% of guys on 100/mg per week went over 54%
Or this study where even on 200 mg every two weeks there was only a 4 point increase.
Intranasal testosterone gel does not appear to significantly affect hematocrit levels. Men who wish to avoid polycythemia or changes in estradiol or 17-hydroxyprogesterone levels may benefit from short-acting testosterone therapy formulations such as intranasal gel.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Now go back and look at your chart(which isn’t the evidence you think it is) and tell me how much difference there is in viscosity between 43 and 47. And a four point increase is pretty standard for injectables.
Again, THAT is the kind of evidence I’m looking for. Not just random charts that show an increase in viscosity.
Tossing in some vague chart after a blanket statement doesn’t strengthen your case. Especially when I can refute it with multiple actual real world studies that refute the doom and gloom you preach with regard to various doses.
Here's an interesting one. In older men peak bone density occurs with TT ~400 ng/dL.
View attachment 56536
Ref.
Finally… something that resembles actual evidence for your case. Sure it is on a single front(bone density), but at this point I’ll take whatever I can get since you seem so reluctant to share good data.
However, I’d argue that there are plenty of studies which show that trt increases bone density, and that the dosages I advocate for increase density more than yours. In my mind, numerous studies showing an increase for trt users and some showing better increases at different doses is more relevant for this discussion than one that just looked at a small group of elderly men… but again kudos for sharing something that actually resembles real evidence.
Yet estradiol-related side effects are undeniably dose-dependent and are reported regularly in these pages. Further deflection on your part.
It’s also extremely varied from person to person. For example one person can run 150 week with no issues while you can do less than 50/week and see issues. If your doctor had started you out on 50 mg/week would he have introduced you to unneeded risks? The answer is yes. So why don’t we just have everyone start even lower than 50 to make sure we don’t hurt people like you?
Ok, now it's your turn to cite a study supporting this claim for long-term outcomes. The study I cited was long-term and found a linear increase in risk that included the normal range.
And I’ve already pointed out issues with your study that took a single snapshot of 19 year olds and used that as the datapoint. We have no idea what their levels were the week after, year after, or even 30 years after that first test. Not the strongest supporting evidence. When the signal for risk “eventually emerges” as you say, we can discuss it further at that point.
Calling various statistical arguments a "blanket statement" is just another straw man argument. This is about increased risk, undertaken for no proven benefits to overall health. Where does your HCT sit, by the way?
No, you just keep making blanket statements and saying it’s evidence for why your dose is what should become standard practice.
My hematocrit is always between 51-53 ( last was 52.7 and never gets over 53). I’m on 100-120 mg/week and have been for almost 5 years. Now go back and look at your chart and see what the difference between 50 and 53 is with regard to viscosity… and again that’s before even getting into the things a guy can do to improve viscosity.
Glad to see you finally admit it. Tell that to Vince, who keeps parroting the one you originally came up with. However, that study and the resultant publications are still useful to show how dose linearly affects HCT:
The key follow-up article specifically dedicated to this is the 2008 secondary analysis by Coviello et al. ("Effects of Graded Doses of Testosterone on Erythropoiesis in Healthy Young and Older Men," published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism). It pooled and deeply examined the Hb and Hct data from both the young and older cohorts in the same dose-response protocol.
Key findings from that erythropoiesis-focused follow-up:
- Hb and Hct increased in a linear, dose-dependent manner in both young and older men (P < 0.0001) across the 25–600 mg weekly doses.
- The increases were significantly greater in older men than in younger men at equivalent doses.
- Changes correlated with achieved total and free testosterone levels (but not clearly with erythropoietin or soluble transferrin receptor changes, suggesting other mechanisms).
The burden of proof for non-physiological dosing is completely on you due to the dose-dependent increase in risks that I have laid out.
Clever little “gotcha” there but clearly I was stating that none have been shared by you. And a new one even emerged lately.
But for the sake of argument, in those studies how much did hematocrit increase for the 50 mg/week group and how much did it increase for the 100 mg/week group?
Turns out your favorite study shows the HCT dose-dependency.
We all knew hematocrit increases are dose-dependent. What were the differences in increase between the different doses?
More deflection by you because you can't address the arguments.
Lmao
Ha. The fact that you cannot demonstrate harm in starting with physiological dosing is important because I have demonstrated that there are dose-dependent increases in risk and you have not demonstrated benefits. Your approach is all pain, no gain.
The funniest thing about this is that you are a walking, talking example of someone who was harmed by physiological dosing. So why start out at 50 mg/week when that clearly caused you harm? Why don’t we lower it to 25 mg/week to start everyone off just to be safe?
You know why, because we have literally decades of data, millions of patients, countless doctors, and dozens of studies that have all pointed us towards this direction. And sure it’s possible that it’ll continue to change over time, but it certainly isn’t “all pain no gain” as you suggest. The dose is a great spot for TONS of men and appears to be a dose that provides symptom relief, health benefits (which you ignore for some reason), and is very safe for the vast majority of patients. Sorry that you’ve spent the past 5 years preaching about the evils of it… if you hadn’t then your cognitive dissonance wouldn’t be nearly as strong. But alas, here we are.
You just admitted the one study you keep citing does not compare our approaches. You have ZERO evidence supporting your recommendation.
Lmfao at the intellectual dishonesty. But actually, besides the comic relief, as someone who is always fascinated with psychology I love observing very intellectual people suffer from cognitive dissonance. For one it’s always good to get more real-world experience with it, and secondly it’s always a good reminder that no one(not even myself) is immune to it and it reminds me to try and steel man my arguments/keep an open mind when discussing things. It also reminds me not to speak with such conviction (which is why I’ve said more than once in this thread you might actually be right)… lest I lure myself closer to cognitive dissonance myself by painting myself into a corner so bad I refuse to see something right in front of me.
Gels often suck due to inconsistent absorption in some that can worsen over time. That is irrelevant however, because starting doses are still intended to be physiological. The point remains that cypionate dosing is perpetuating an obsolete tradition.
Not an argument
Indeed, I'm sure it's hard to keep a straight face while telling whoppers like that one.
Get back to me when you find a study advocating for above-physiological levels at the start. Not happening.
Class dismissed
