Post TRT - Libido is DEAD :(

Research consistently shows that a low testosterone threshold requirement exists for libido and sexual function. I believe they found the TT level for this to be in the 400s. Thus testosterone has some veto power over libido, but it alone is not sufficient to guarantee it, regardless of the level. Other hormones and neurotransmitters clearly play a role.



Please do not take this as any kind of personal attack. You need to ask people close to you to give an honest assessment of your cognitive state. This is may be the fourth or fifth time I've had to correct you on this false statement. I hope it's just that your life is so busy and full that details like this don't stick. But the repetition after many corrections gives me pause. So once again, I personally find higher testosterone levels to be dulling and demotivating; they do not provoke anxiety.



To also repeat, on the lowest testosterone doses to date, along with supplementation with gondorelin and kisspeptin-10, libido issues seem to have resolved. Libido was low on higher doses of testosterone, particularly before I tried to counter some of the effects of HPTA suppression.



You suggest I say otherwise, but won't be able to find a single example. The reality is that my recommendations to others are relatively mainstream and practical; you try the easier and safer things first, and then if there are still problems your try other things. With TRT this means trying short-acting testosterone first, then conventional TRT with midrange testosterone levels, then hCG, then higher or lower levels, etc.

As you recall, the late Dr. Crisler was an early and strong proponent of a low-and-slow approach to TRT. This is not arbitrary; it is a sensible approach, in line with clinical guidance, that spares many men from a lot of misery.
I wish you wouldn't talk about Dr. Crisler. It's terrible what happened to him and I'm sure his testosterone levels had nothing to do with it.

 
I see a statement that 100 mg per week is better than 200 mg/2 weeks, not that it's some ideal starting protocol. On the contrary, they say, "In general, smaller dosages at more frequent intervals are preferred over high, less frequent administrations to limit the duration of time spent outside (above or below) the normal reference range."

The fact is that 100 mg/week puts most men above the physiological range, both peak and average levels. There's no good reason to start at this dose, and especially not at higher doses.

I see a statement that 100 mg per week is better than 200 mg/2 weeks, not that it's some ideal starting protocol. On the contrary, they say, "In general, smaller dosages at more frequent intervals are preferred over high, less frequent administrations to limit the duration of time spent outside (above or below) the normal reference range."

The fact is that 100 mg/week puts most men above the physiological range, both peak and average levels. There's no good reason to start at this dose, and especially not at higher doses.

Go to this link:


Hit ctrl + f and type 100. It says the traditional starting dose is 75-100 mg per week or 150-200 mg every two weeks.


From the link you quoted from above, go to this table and tell me what it recommends as a starting dose:




Spoiler alert…


It’s 100 mg. I have pointed this out to you over 10 times now… so which is it; do you see it and refuse to admit it, or do you refuse to even look at it at all so you can continue to plead ignorance to it??
 

ExcelMale Newsletter Signup

Online statistics

Members online
6
Guests online
172
Total visitors
178

Latest posts

Beyond Testosterone Podcast

Back
Top