Not above average, above range. This means more than two standard deviations above average. In general there are all kinds of negative associations when hormones are out of range, not least of which is reduced longevity. Although long-term research is lacking, specific to testosterone there are negative effects on lipids and blood viscosity. The burden of proof is on you. If symptoms of low testosterone can be eliminated with average levels then there's no justification for going much higher, except for those who put gains in body composition ahead of overall health.
For which you have zero credible evidence. Don't even bother citing an informal poll of a population you already acknowledge to be unusual. It's also likely that most of this population has actually only tried levels ranging from above average to way above average.
You're probably unaware that maximum endogenous testosterone production correlates with vitamin D levels in the 30s ng/mL. And that negative health correlations appear at levels greater than 50 ng/mL. This is another case where misguided more-is-better thinking is creeping in.
The usual pathetic straw man argument. Do you realize that even Labcorp's current IA test for total testosterone shows an average of almost 600 ng/dL? For the Quest LC/MS test it is 675 ng/mL. Thirty years ago healthy young men also had total testosterone around 600-700 ng/dL.
