Nelson Vergel
Founder, ExcelMale.com
From the book:
Natural Versus Testosterone Therapy
It always struck me as very arbitrary how testosterone deficiency was defined by most practicing physicians. For years most physicians decided to treat or not to treat based on the bottom value of their lab's total testosterone range. So, for example, consider what this man posted: [1]
"I got a hold of the lab results from my first testosterone test.
Total Testosterone 194 ------ reference range -------> 241-827ng/dL"
Now this man will have no trouble getting treatment simply because his total testosterone reading of 194 is well below the bottom range value of 241. Basically, the physician trusts the labs definition of what low testosterone is and treats accordingly. However, if the man had a value of 242, most physicians would not treat him, which is unfair in my opinion as some of the labs are using incredibly low levels for hypogonadism.
The labs and physicians are simply not using common sense in my opinion. Why do I say that? Testosterone in the 200's is below that of the average 80 year old man! Stop and think about it. Why would we definite clinically low testosterone based on the levels of sickly seniors of a very advanced age?!? You can check the numbers out for yourself in my page on Average Male Testosterone Levels by Age.
Evidence as to just how "old school" this is can be shown by the fact that there is one forward thinking lab, LabCorp, that has raised their reference ranges anyway. And LabCorp is the biggest lab in the nation, so, hopefully, others will follow some day. Look at what this poster on the Peak Testosterone Forum wrote:
"It may just be placebo although I doubt it but since having taken the thyroid medication for this little bit it seems I am seeing far less hair on my pillows and noticeably less in my hands after washing my hair. Metabolism seems to have picked up some as well.
Testosterone serum 343 L labCorp range= gold standard (348-1197 ng/dl)
LabCorp changed their entry level range for what is regarded as hypogonadal serum T levels from 240 ng/dl to 348 ng/dl in October 2011. This has helped many men get a more serious consideration from their otherwise unsympathetic GP's. This new standard has been long overdue for many many years, but finally something has been done about it and LabCorp should be commended. Had this change been made 7 months earlier to when I first had a lab taken at 294 ng/dl in March 2011 my experience regarding testosterone deficiency and the effect it has had on my quality of life may have been very different from what it has been for the past two years."
I think that one can make a good case that 348 is even a bit low, but at least it is a starting point. And, on a practical level, I can tell you that almost all men writing into the Forum with classic low testosterone symptoms are below this level. We do get quite a few young guys with levels even higher than this struggling however.
Read More
Natural Versus Testosterone Therapy
It always struck me as very arbitrary how testosterone deficiency was defined by most practicing physicians. For years most physicians decided to treat or not to treat based on the bottom value of their lab's total testosterone range. So, for example, consider what this man posted: [1]
"I got a hold of the lab results from my first testosterone test.
Total Testosterone 194 ------ reference range -------> 241-827ng/dL"
Now this man will have no trouble getting treatment simply because his total testosterone reading of 194 is well below the bottom range value of 241. Basically, the physician trusts the labs definition of what low testosterone is and treats accordingly. However, if the man had a value of 242, most physicians would not treat him, which is unfair in my opinion as some of the labs are using incredibly low levels for hypogonadism.
The labs and physicians are simply not using common sense in my opinion. Why do I say that? Testosterone in the 200's is below that of the average 80 year old man! Stop and think about it. Why would we definite clinically low testosterone based on the levels of sickly seniors of a very advanced age?!? You can check the numbers out for yourself in my page on Average Male Testosterone Levels by Age.
Evidence as to just how "old school" this is can be shown by the fact that there is one forward thinking lab, LabCorp, that has raised their reference ranges anyway. And LabCorp is the biggest lab in the nation, so, hopefully, others will follow some day. Look at what this poster on the Peak Testosterone Forum wrote:
"It may just be placebo although I doubt it but since having taken the thyroid medication for this little bit it seems I am seeing far less hair on my pillows and noticeably less in my hands after washing my hair. Metabolism seems to have picked up some as well.
Testosterone serum 343 L labCorp range= gold standard (348-1197 ng/dl)
LabCorp changed their entry level range for what is regarded as hypogonadal serum T levels from 240 ng/dl to 348 ng/dl in October 2011. This has helped many men get a more serious consideration from their otherwise unsympathetic GP's. This new standard has been long overdue for many many years, but finally something has been done about it and LabCorp should be commended. Had this change been made 7 months earlier to when I first had a lab taken at 294 ng/dl in March 2011 my experience regarding testosterone deficiency and the effect it has had on my quality of life may have been very different from what it has been for the past two years."
I think that one can make a good case that 348 is even a bit low, but at least it is a starting point. And, on a practical level, I can tell you that almost all men writing into the Forum with classic low testosterone symptoms are below this level. We do get quite a few young guys with levels even higher than this struggling however.
Read More
