TRT+ other medications

[Phil Goodman]

Fair enough. I will adjust it to 7-7.5 units. It won’t be perfect but close to the target. I’m really want to get to a low-nominal dose and get labs at 6-8 weeks then go from there. I think I got way to comfortable thinking I could just adjust things up and down without a plan in place.

Or maybe that’s my over complicated response to say yes, I was bouncing around.

I expected to have something pop up heart wise just because I have a family history but thankfully it skipped me it seems. I’ve never smoked and I never abused drugs. Had a thing for alcohol in my 30’s quite bad but I moved on from that.

The HCG was pharma. I can’t remember the exact name but it was one of the big US pharma brands. And I was dosing twice a week. Every ~3.5 days,
This is my T, Free T and E2 from last month. Also, with a lipid panel from the same time.

Looks like @Cataceous nailed it with regard to your free t vs total t. Your total t is only slightly above range whereas your free t is way over the top of the range.

Im assuming you were in an AI prior to this test, but dropping that should not only lower your free t, it’ll also give you a better ratio. But as you’re already aware you’ll probably need to lower your dose as well. But one good thing about adding HCG back in is that it would bring your natural production back online (as well ability to aromatize) so that may have been another factor in why it made you feel better.

 

[Cataceous]

1.) people should be treating more than numbers.

Yet this phrase seems to come up when people want to skip directly to high doses without bothering to explore the physiological range first, which ironically is treating by numbers anyway.

I’d even go so far as to say chasing specific numbers is harmful, as we’ve seen from plenty of testimonials.

Yes, there are plenty of testimonials about the harm done in trying to make bigger doses work, as with the OP; terrible lipids, through-the-roof free T. He really does need to cut his dose in half so he can experience actual TRT. The OP who started our previous debate even had a dose in his head that he refused to go below, 80 mg/week. Talk about chasing the wrong numbers.

2.) the group on 50 mg/week also spent time at supraphysiological levels. Do you think that’s ok?

No. Once-weekly injections is a poor protocol. In my opinion, with twice-weekly dosing the 50 mg/week would be a superior starting point compared to any other dose used in the trial, though 60-70 mg could be a little better on average when starting at twice-weekly.

 

[Seagal]

1.) people should be treating more than numbers. I’d even go so far as to say chasing specific numbers is harmful, as we’ve seen from plenty of testimonials. Sure it can be somewhat helpful to track but definitely shouldn’t be the end all be all with regards to treatment. And the group in the study that was on 125 had a good balance of benefits without the negative side effects.

My comment was about the (mis)interpretation of the study. Sticking to science and not making up things and jumping to conclusions that are not supported by the data.

Everyone is obviously allowed to share his opinion and encouraged to share his experience. Everyone is free to experiment and explore 'TRT'.

The best scientific data (vs anecdotes, medical or non-medical proclaimed expertise, opinion) we have wrt TRT is the TRAVERSE study.

 

[Vince]

This is highly misleading due to using trough values on weekly injections. That 125 mg dose is supraphysiological except near the end of each injection cycle.

Yes for you. The amount is too high. I know you said it causes you anxiety issues. For me it works!

Thankfully I've never had anxiety issues like you do.

 

[Seagal]

Yes for you. The amount is too high. I know you said it causes you anxiety issues. For me it works!

Thankfully I've never had anxiety issues like you do.

Yes, it works for you. Perfect. I'm not judging, how could I based on the scarce scientific data.
Table 2 baseline T levels: mean +- SE. There is variation between individual baseline levels. There is no need trying to justify your dose. At least not from my perspective.

It's not about the number per se, it's about the conclusions made based on the data this study provides.
If you look at the T peak baseline mean and the trough on 125mg, we can say that the T levels on the injections were supraphysiological (more than they had naturally).

 

[Phil Goodman]

Yet this phrase seems to come up when people want to skip directly to high doses without bothering to explore the physiological range first, which ironically is treating by numbers anyway.

Well, by your standards practically everyone wants to start on a “high” dose. What makes you say that 120 mg/week isn’t within the physiological range.

But we already know you believe men should start on a dose that almost certainly won’t work them, and certainly won’t provide the full range of benefits of trt to them. So I’m kind of surprised that you are now saying a dose you think won’t work for most patients is the best protocol from that study. Your approach not only doesn’t treat numbers, it doesn’t even treat people.

Yes, there are plenty of testimonials about the harm done in trying to make bigger doses work, as with the OP; terrible lipids, through-the-roof free T. He really does need to cut his dose in half so he can experience actual TRT. The OP who started our previous debate even had a dose in his head that he refused to go below, 80 mg/week. Talk about chasing the wrong numbers.

He also felt great at 150 mg/week. It wasn’t until he decided to increase his dose by 33% that he ran into issues. You keep saying “actual trt” as if 120 mg/week (or even 150 for some people) isn’t trt. And again I’ve already provided you with tons of studies which showed 100-120 is well tolerated and appears to be a good middle ground where patients can get the majority of benefits while exposing themselves to minimal adverse effects. Just out of curiosity since you’ve said that phrase multiple times on this forum… what is the range of “actual trt”? Is 80 the upper limit? 90? 100?

No. Once-weekly injections is a poor protocol. In my opinion, with twice-weekly dosing the 50 mg/week would be a superior starting point compared to any other dose used in the trial, though 60-70 mg could be a little better on average when starting at twice-weekly.

Agreed that once weekly injection isn’t a good protocol. But I absolutely disagree that 50 mg/week at a frequency would be better than 120(particularly if that group could split injections as well). My opinion is backed up by that study along with many others that show the levels required to get many of the dose dependent benefits of trt…, yes, actual trt.

 

[Phil Goodman]

Yes, it works for you. Perfect. I'm not judging, how could I based on the scarce scientific data.
Table 2 baseline T levels: mean +- SE. There is variation between individual baseline levels. There is no need trying to justify your dose. At least not from my perspective.

It's not about the number per se, it's about the conclusions made based on the data this study provides.
If you look at the T peak baseline mean and the trough on 125mg, we can say that the T levels on the injections were supraphysiological (more than they had naturally).

You’ve always been a very reasonable poster so I’m interested to hear more of your thoughts on that topic.

Would you say that anything that takes a users levels to supraphysiological levels is automatically bad, or should be avoided? If going above natural levels is ok, then what do you think the threshold is for being acceptable? Because if we’re doing rough math, then the people who took 50 mg/week with a trough in the 300’s most likely spent at least some time over 600(which is above their baseline levels). And yes, we probably all agree that a protocol utilizing more frequent injections would be better, just trying to get more insight into where you draw the line with regard to supraphysiological, and if you think supraphysiological automatically = bad.

 

[Vince]

Yes, it works for you. Perfect. I'm not judging, how could I based on the scarce scientific data.
Table 2 baseline T levels: mean +- SE. There is variation between individual baseline levels. There is no need trying to justify your dose. At least not from my perspective.

It's not about the number per se, it's about the conclusions made based on the data this study provides.
If you look at the T peak baseline mean and the trough on 125mg, we can say that the T levels on the injections were supraphysiological (more than they had naturally).

As we know most men do great on 125 mg of testosterone and HCG added in to the mix.

I'm so fortunate to have started with defy medical. I started with 140 mg of T and 1000 IU of HCG. Split into two doses. I've never had any struggles.

 

[Seagal]

You’ve always been a very reasonable poster so I’m interested to hear more of your thoughts on that topic.

Would you say that anything that takes a users levels to supraphysiological levels is automatically bad, or should be avoided? If going above natural levels is ok, then what do you think the threshold is for being acceptable? Because if we’re doing rough math, then the people who took 50 mg/week with a trough in the 300’s most likely spent at least some time over 600(which is above their baseline levels). And yes, we probably all agree that a protocol utilizing more frequent injections would be better, just trying to get more insight into where you draw the line with regard to supraphysiological, and if you think supraphysiological automatically = bad.

If I knew what my normal healthy level was before it crushed to about 150, that would be the reference value of my natural physiological T level. Unfortunately most of us do not have this datum.
What can we do? We use the population normal distribution as reference. I would use the population mean level as a starting point for TRT.
Is exogenous administered testosterone physiologically equivalent to endogenous wrt the daily T level fluctuations? We are shortcutting the HPTA. Who needs HCG or dhea or pregnenolone?
Is there a therapeutic exogenous based T level vs the physiological natty T level?
All of this unknown grey area leaves space for trial and error.
On 250mg TU weekly my hematocrit approached 55% and it exacerbated my mild snoring to unbearable. I did not see any physique benefits compared to 125mg weekly which gives me a 750 TT. I believe we should take changes in lipids, hematocrit etc seriously as well as any other changes to the negative.
I have the impression that there is a relatively wide range where things a stable for me, and probably also for many others.
So, based on my age reference range the natural max is 750. My TT level on 125mg TU is basically a constant 750, thus compared to the natural T level it's supra. Was my natural T level ever at the top of the population distribution? I doubt it.
It did start TRT with androgel per prescription which gave me a TT of about 400. I felt on edge depressive towards the evening.
That's my mix of experience and opinion.

 

[Phil Goodman]

If I knew what my normal healthy level was before it crushed to about 150, that would be the reference value of my natural physiological T level. Unfortunately most of us do not have this datum.

Makes sense and I think that’s a reasonable approach. One thing I’d disagree with (if this is even what you’re implying) is that the normal natural physiological level each person reaches in their youth is the best level for them. Many things like genetics, diet, lack of physical activity, sleep issues, alcohol or other vices, etc. could all keep a person from reaching their optimal (and yes I know some people here hate that word) level. And yes you did specify “healthy”… but healthy doesn’t necessarily mean the best.

What can we do? We use the population normal distribution as reference. I would use the population mean level as a starting point for TRT.

Again a pretty reasonable approach, but what I’d disagree with on this front is that if youre using an unhealthy population as a reference you’ll likely miss the best mark. For example, based on percentiles for her age, my daughter has always been considered slightly underweight, but in reality it’s just because there’s been an explosion in childhood obesity over the past few decades. That would also mean that now people at the 50th percentile are a lot closer to being obese despite being “average”… and that’s if we haven’t already hit the point where kids right in the middle are actually obese. Just as an example of the things that can happen when using a subpar population to gauge metrics and goals.

Is exogenous administered testosterone physiologically equivalent to endogenous wrt the daily T level fluctuations? We are shortcutting the HPTA. Who needs HCG or dhea or pregnenolone?
Is there a therapeutic exogenous based T level vs the physiological natty T level?
All of this unknown grey area leaves space for trial and error.

Agreed 100% here. And this is one of the things that makes the topic so interesting to me. It’s definitely a fascinating time to be alive to see all the new data and anecdotal accounts coming in. At the same time though it is a little overwhelming, because it’s almost impossible to parse through the info to conclusively state things one way or another. Sure there are some foundational aspects most can agree on, but details and nuances can get puzzling. For example I do great with test, HCG, and DHEA but if I add pregnenolone I feel pretty terrible within five days without fail. Why?? I have no idea lol.

On 250mg TU weekly my hematocrit approached 55% and it exacerbated my mild snoring to unbearable. I did not see any physique benefits compared to 125mg weekly which gives me a 750 TT. I believe we should take changes in lipids, hematocrit etc seriously as well as any other changes to the negative.

Holy crap, I couldn’t imagine running 250/week. I’d be coming out of my skin. But the dose you’re at now is basically right where I am(around 120) and I feel great. And yeah, the negative results should also be closely monitored so people are making the best assessments with regard to their risk/reward ratio.

I have the impression that there is a relatively wide range where things a stable for me, and probably also for many others.
So, based on my age reference range the natural max is 750. My TT level on 125mg TU is basically a constant 750, thus compared to the natural T level it's supra. Was my natural T level ever at the top of the population distribution? I doubt it.
It did start TRT with androgel per prescription which gave me a TT of about 400. I felt on edge depressive towards the evening.
That's my mix of experience and opinion.

I think that’s a good point that gets overlooked a lot, and even the terminology(dialed in) we often use seems to imply that there is a very narrow mark you need to hit to feel your best. The human body is great at adapting to environments(both inner and outer) so as you point out the range where people can feel good with minimal issues is probably wider than most people realize. This is partly due to the fact that anytime an issue arises they feel that they aren’t “dialed in” anymore and look to make changes, preventing their body from doing what bodies often do best, which is strive for homeostasis. Sure you don’t want to be in an unhealthy or unhappy state for extended periods of time, but it is a balancing act between letting your body adapt and knowing when it’s time to change something. And this aspect is further muddled by the aspects you mention above about how there are still a lot of unknown grey areas coupled with the fact that everyone is different. But again I think that’s an important point you make about how the range where someone can be stably healthy and happy is probably wider than many think.

 

[Cataceous]

Yes for you. The amount is too high.

Wrong. Virtually nobody is naturally producing 12.5 mg T per day, so 125 mg TC/week is decidedly non-physiological for anybody. People like you can tolerate it, but that doesn't change my position that it's foolish to start "TRT" with such doses, and it's unlikely that such doses are optimal for overall health. But you're an adult and you can choose what you want to do to your body.

I know you said it causes you anxiety issues. For me it works!

Thankfully I've never had anxiety issues like you do.

Reading comprehension? I said I find high doses to be sedating and demotivating. I also told you I haven't experienced anxiety since starting TRT.

 

[Vince]

Wrong. Virtually nobody is naturally producing 12.5 mg T per day, so 125 mg TC/week is decidedly non-physiological for anybody. People like you can tolerate it, but that doesn't change my position that it's foolish to start "TRT" with such doses, and it's unlikely that such doses are optimal for overall health. But you're an adult and you can choose what you want to do to your body.



Reading comprehension? I said I find high doses to be sedating and demotivating. I also told you I haven't experienced anxiety since starting TRT.

It's too bad you feel that way with. Most do good at higher levels. Few men are like you, struggle on higher levels. I'm sorry you have so many issues but not everyone have the same issues. It is good for members who struggle and you can help them with their issues. I commend you for that.

I know this angers you but like I said before "one size does not fit all".

 

[Cataceous]

Well, by your standards practically everyone wants to start on a “high” dose. What makes you say that 120 mg/week isn’t within the physiological range.

Because virtually nobody is producing 12 mg of testosterone per day naturally.

But we already know you believe men should start on a dose that almost certainly won’t work them, and certainly won’t provide the full range of benefits of trt to them.
So I’m kind of surprised that you are now saying a dose you think won’t work for most patients is the best protocol from that study. Your approach not only doesn’t treat numbers, it doesn’t even treat people.

This mischaracterizes what I said. It may not be optimal for a slight majority, but in divided doses it would resolve some of the worst symptoms of hypogonadism. The reason for the low-and-slow approach is that many would find they do better at this dose than at higher ones, and might not otherwise be inclined to lower the dose if they had started higher—due to the pervasive more-is-better mentality.

He also felt great at 150 mg/week. It wasn’t until he decided to increase his dose by 33% that he ran into issues. You keep saying “actual trt” as if 120 mg/week (or even 150 for some people) isn’t trt.

Because it is literally not testosterone replacement therapy. It is dosing at well over replacement levels. Some have the chutzpah to call it testosterone optimization therapy, but the more appropriate name is testosterone overdose therapy.

And again I’ve already provided you with tons of studies which showed 100-120 is well tolerated and appears to be a good middle ground where patients can get the majority of benefits while exposing themselves to minimal adverse effects. Just out of curiosity since you’ve said that phrase multiple times on this forum… what is the range of “actual trt”? Is 80 the upper limit? 90? 100?

You've provided no evidence that 100-120 mg is a middle ground. The 100 mg dose is top-end for Xyosted, and this about where I draw the line. There's zero evidence that higher doses are better for overall health.

... But I absolutely disagree that 50 mg/week at a frequency would be better than 120(particularly if that group could split injections as well). My opinion is backed up by that study along with many others that show the levels required to get many of the dose dependent benefits of trt…, yes, actual trt.

Those studies do not support your opinion.

 

[Cataceous]

... Most do good at higher levels. ...

You have no supporting evidence for that. Most men do well on one of the three doses of Zyosted, and only a small minority is even on the 100 mg dose.

Few men are like you, struggle on higher levels. I'm sorry you have so many issues but not everyone have the same issues. It is good for members who struggle and you can help them with their issues. I commend you for that.

I know this angers you but like I said before "one size does not fit all".

No, what irks me is your banal stream of misinformation, which ends up harming men by encouraging them to start with excessive doses or to maintain excessive doses in the presence of obvious side effects. These two recent threads help to prove my point, but you can't get yourself to admit it.

 

[Phil Goodman]

Because virtually nobody is producing 12 mg of testosterone per day naturally.

Ok, well going by your logic then any injection of 12 mg or more is supraphysiological because they are seeing levels they wouldn’t obtain naturally. So your touted protocol of 25 mg twice per week results in them doubling their natural production twice per week. Quite the “testosterone overdose therapy” you’re advocating for there.

This mischaracterizes what I said. It may not be optimal for a slight majority, but in divided doses it would resolve some of the worst symptoms of hypogonadism. The reason for the low-and-slow approach is that many would find they do better at this dose than at higher ones, and might not otherwise be inclined to lower the dose if they had started higher—due to the pervasive more-is-better mentality.

It’s not a “mischaracterization” at all. This is what you said:

“I agree that 50 mg TC/week is likely to be too low for most men. ”

Because it is literally not testosterone replacement therapy. It is dosing at well over replacement levels. Some have the chutzpah to call it testosterone optimization therapy, but the more appropriate name is testosterone overdose therapy.

Again, you’re advocating for testosterone overdose therapy as well since they’d be seeing over double their natural production twice per week.

No worries, though… again going by your logic there are tons of compounds that people take at “overdose” levels while being completely safe while doing so and reaping tons of benefits.

You've provided no evidence that 100-120 mg is a middle ground. The 100 mg dose is top-end for Xyosted, and this about where I draw the line. There's zero evidence that higher doses are better for overall health.



Those studies do not support your opinion.

You keep saying this, so at this point I’ll just accept the fact that you’re unable to properly comprehend the material I’ve provided to you. I’ve provided TONS of studies that support my views.

Meanwhile you have provided zero studies or other evidence to support the claims you continue to mkae.

 

[FunkOdyssey]

You have no supporting evidence for that. Most men do well on one of the three doses of Zyosted, and only a small minority is even on the 100 mg dose.

I don't think clinical trials for Xyosted can be used to argue that 75 mg is optimal for most men, because dosages were adjusted based on targeting a 350–650 ng/dL trough, so the only men who increased to 100 mg landed below 350 ng/dL. They were more interested in achieving physiologic levels than symptom resolution, so their trials tell us little about whether those physiologic doses were actually effective (or especially, whether higher doses would have been more effective).

 

[Cataceous]

Ok, well going by your logic then any injection of 12 mg or more is supraphysiological because they are seeing levels they wouldn’t obtain naturally. So your touted protocol of 25 mg twice per week results in them doubling their natural production twice per week. Quite the “testosterone overdose therapy” you’re advocating for there.

I suggest you learn about pharmacokinetics.

...
“I agree that 50 mg TC/week is likely to be too low for most men. ”
...

Now include the details that are in the subsequent posts. For example, that "too low" is based on the assumption of levels for healthy young men, as opposed to relative to an age-adjusted healthy reference range. There's also the fact that relatively low amounts of testosterone are needed to rescue sexual function from a testosterone deficit. So it's not as simple as working or not working. It's likely to be a significant improvement for most hypogonadal men. The above statement means that some men, possibly a majority, will do better by going higher. But by starting at this dose, the ones who don't do better with more will be able to recognize it and return to the better dose.

Again, you’re advocating for testosterone overdose therapy as well since they’d be seeing over double their natural production twice per week.

See Law of holes.

...
You keep saying this, so at this point I’ll just accept the fact that you’re unable to properly comprehend the material I’ve provided to you. I’ve provided TONS of studies that support my views.
...

Get back to me when you find one saying that supraphysiological dosing of testosterone is healthier overall than physiological dosing. Meanwhile the anecdotal evidence about side effects is overwhelming. Who are all the guys complaining about high HCT? The ones on >100 mg TC/week.

I don't think clinical trials for Xyosted can be used to argue that 75 mg is optimal for most men, because dosages were adjusted based on targeting a 350–650 ng/dL trough, so the only men who increased to 100 mg landed below 350 ng/dL. They were more interested in achieving physiologic levels than symptom resolution, so their trials tell us little about whether those physiologic doses were actually effective (or especially, whether higher doses would have been more effective).

I don't have to prove optimal here. That burden falls naturally on those claiming it lies outside of the physiological production range. I just have to demonstrate comparable results to 100+ mg TC/week with a better side effects profile. Xyosted went through the NDA process. It was shown to be safe and effective for treating hypogonadism, just like Depo-Testosterone.

 

[Phil Goodman]

I suggest you learn about pharmacokinetics.

More bobbing and weaving by you.

Now include the details that are in the subsequent posts. For example, that "too low" is based on the assumption of levels for healthy young men, as opposed to relative to an age-adjusted healthy reference range. There's also the fact that relatively low amounts of testosterone are needed to rescue sexual function from a testosterone deficit. So it's not as simple as working or not working. It's likely to be a significant improvement for most hypogonadal men. The above statement means that some men, possibly a majority, will do better by going higher. But by starting at this dose, the ones who don't do better with more will be able to recognize it and return to the better dose.

We’ve been over this multiple times… or at least I’ve brought it up multiple times but you fail to acknowledge it; there are many other dose-dependent benefits that go along with trt. Using your approach there could be lots of men who start low, say to themselves “I kinda want to stick my dick in things again”, then stop there without getting many of the other benefits that trt could provide them.

See Law of holes.

More bobbing and weaving

Get back to me when you find one saying that supraphysiological dosing of testosterone is healthier overall than physiological dosing. Meanwhile the anecdotal evidence about side effects is overwhelming. Who are all the guys complaining about high HCT? The ones on >100 mg TC/week.

I’ve found and provided you lots of studies showing that guys on doses between 100-125 get more benefits from trt than those using <100 per week. And they do so with very low rates of negative effects. You’re clearly a pretty intelligent person, so at this point I’m starting to think maybe you’re just trolling me.

I don't have to prove optimal here. That burden falls naturally on those claiming it lies outside of the physiological production range. I just have to demonstrate comparable results to 100+ mg TC/week with a better side effects profile. Xyosted went through the NDA process. It was shown to be safe and effective for treating hypogonadism, just like Depo-Testosterone.

Again, I have shared extensive amounts of evidence which indicate optimal benefit/adverse effect ratio is found by those at supraphysiological levels. You haven’t shown anything that indicates the same symptom resolution and benefits are found at lower doses while having a markedly better risk profile.

 

[Cataceous]

More bobbing and weaving by you.

Hard to have a discussion if you won't admit to knowledge of even rudimentary aspects of TRT.

We’ve been over this multiple times… or at least I’ve brought it up multiple times but you fail to acknowledge it; there are many other dose-dependent benefits that go along with trt. Using your approach there could be lots of men who start low, say to themselves “I kinda want to stick my dick in things again”, then stop there without getting many of the other benefits that trt could provide them.

Cite studies showing benefits, aside from improved musculature, that extend into above-physiological dosing and levels in a dose-dependent fashion. The only one I found showing benefits is this one. A substantial limitation is the relatively short six-week duration. The benefits could easily be a result of the honeymoon period. Meanwhile

Cardiovascular and Other Risks: Supraphysiological doses are associated with increased risks, particularly cardiovascular. A 2020 study in Frontiers in Immunology found that supraphysiological testosterone levels induced vascular dysfunction via activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome, suggesting potential dose-dependent risks rather than benefits [6 (#citations)]. A 2016 study in Journal of Endocrinologyon rats showed that doses of 5–20 mg/kg induced pathological cardiac hypertrophy, with effects that were not clearly dose-dependent but consistently detrimental [7 (#citations)].​

To summarize, while muscle-related outcomes show clear dose-dependent benefits, non-muscular outcomes do not consistently demonstrate dose-dependency at supraphysiological levels, and higher doses often increase risks.​

I’ve found and provided you lots of studies showing that guys on doses between 100-125 get more benefits from trt than those using <100 per week.

Cite one that doesn't involve that same comparison to 50 mg TC taken once a week, which is not a physiological protocol.

Again, I have shared extensive amounts of evidence which indicate optimal benefit/adverse effect ratio is found by those at supraphysiological levels.

Zero. On the contrary, the risk profile goes up while non-muscular benefits are static or retreating. Lipids deteriorate, absolute estradiol can be excessive, HCT goes up, sleep impairment is common.

You haven’t shown anything that indicates the same symptom resolution and benefits are found at lower doses while having a markedly better risk profile.

Ok, ignore the Xyosted data, along with the large quantity of anecdotal evidence showing side effects at higher doses. Continue to deny that the OP and others have been harmed by more-is-better thinking.

 

[FunkOdyssey]

Supraphysiological doses are associated with increased risks, particularly cardiovascular. A 2020 study in Frontiers in Immunology found that supraphysiological testosterone levels induced vascular dysfunction via activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome, suggesting potential dose-dependent risks rather than benefits

A total T 5.2x the level of controls was associated with vascular dysfunction in that study. The human equivalent dose of the 10 mg/kg used in the mice would be 0.81 mg/kg, or 73 mg test prop daily in a 90 kg individual such as myself.

Just want to note these things for context.

Frontiers | Supraphysiological Levels of Testosterone Induce Vascular Dysfunction via Activation of the NLRP3 Inflammasome

Research Topic: Effects of Androgens on Immunity to Self and ForeignBackground: Both supraphysiological and subphysiological testosterone levels are associat...

www.frontiersin.org