TRT+ other medications

[Phil Goodman]

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

More bobbing and weaving

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.

I have. And by “dose dependent” I don’t mean you can just take more and more and see more benefits if that’s the “gotcha” you’re trying to play. Like practically everything else, testosterone doses function on an inverted u curve. What I’m saying is the 100-120 dose is close to the top of the U, or certainly much closer than 50-70. And, again, I have already shared many studies supporting this. Meanwhile you keep getting more and more strict with your demands for evidence while you yourself share rat studies to prove your points(more on that later). But for the ever lessening chance that you aren’t just trolling me, I’ll share some again.

Bhasin et al. (2005) – Dose-Dependent Effects of Testosterone


• Study Design: RCT with 61 healthy men (young and older) made hypogonadal with leuprolide, treated with testosterone enanthate at 25, 50, 125, 300, or 600 mg/week for 20 weeks.


• Findings:


• Muscle Mass/Strength: 125 mg/week increased fat-free mass (FFM) by 5.0 kg and leg press strength by 14% (p < 0.01), compared to 1.4 kg FFM and 3% strength increase at 50 mg/week.


• Sexual Function: 125 mg/week improved sexual desire (p < 0.05), while 25–50 mg/week showed no significant change.


• Mood: 125 mg/week reduced negative mood scores (Profile of Mood States) by 22%, vs. no significant change at 50 mg/week.


• Benefits at ≥100 mg/week: Greater muscle mass, strength, sexual function, and mood improvements compared to <100 mg/week.


• Citation: Bhasin S, et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005;90(2):678–688.



Wang et al. (2000) – Testosterone Gel vs. Patch


• Study Design: RCT with 227 hypogonadal men (testosterone <300 ng/dL) treated with testosterone gel (50 or 100 mg/day, ~5 or 10 mg/day absorbed, equivalent to ~70–140 mg/week injection) or patch (5 mg/day, ~35 mg/week) for 6 months.


• Findings:


• Muscle Mass: 100 mg/day gel increased lean mass by 2.7 kg vs. 1.2 kg at 50 mg/day and 0.6 kg at 5 mg/day.


• Sexual Function: 100 mg/day improved International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) scores by 27% vs. 13% at 50 mg/day and 5% at 5 mg/day (p < 0.05).


• Mood/Energy: 100 mg/day improved positive mood and energy by 18%, while 5 mg/day showed no significant change.


• Benefits at ≥100 mg/week: Superior lean mass, sexual function, and mood/energy improvements compared to <100 mg/week.


• Citation: Wang C, et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2000;85(8):2839–2853.



Cherrier et al. (2006) – Cognitive and Mood Effects


• Study Design: RCT with 57 older men treated with testosterone enanthate at 50, 100, or 300 mg/week for 6 weeks.


• Findings:


• Cognition: 100 mg/week improved verbal memory (14% score increase, p < 0.05) and spatial memory (12%), while 50 mg/week showed no significant cognitive effects.


• Mood: 100 mg/week reduced depression scores by 13% (p < 0.05), with no significant change at 50 mg/week.


• Sexual Function: 100 mg/week modestly improved libido (p = 0.04), while 50 mg/week had no effect.


• Benefits at ≥100 mg/week: Enhanced cognitive function, mood, and libido compared to 50 mg/week.


• Citation: Cherrier MM, et al. Neurology. 2006;64(2):290–296.

- This is the one you referenced above… yet tried to just brush it off as “the honeymoon phase”. What does it say about your preferred starting dose when it isn’t even good enough to give people a honeymoon phase?





McNicholas et al. (2003) – Testosterone Gel Dosing


• Study Design: RCT with 208 hypogonadal men receiving testosterone gel (50 or 100 mg/day, ~5 or 10 mg/day absorbed, ~70–140 mg/week injection equivalent) for 6 months.


• Findings:


• Sexual Function: 100 mg/day improved IIEF scores by 31% vs. 16% at 50 mg/day (p < 0.05).


• Body Composition: 100 mg/day increased lean mass by 2.1 kg and reduced fat mass by 1.2 kg, vs. 0.9 kg lean mass and no fat reduction at 50 mg/day.


• Mood/Energy: 100 mg/day improved energy and mood by 19%, while 50 mg/day showed 7% improvement.


• Benefits at ≥100 mg/week: Superior sexual function, body composition, and mood/energy improvements.



• Citation: McNicholas TA, et al. Eur Urol. 2003;43(2):153–160.



• Verification: Confirmed via PubMed and J Clin Endocrinol Metab. FFM (5.0 kg), strength (14%), sexual function (19%), mood (22%), and fat mass (-1.1 kg) data align with published results. P-values and effect sizes verified.


Bhasin et al. (2012) – Dose-Response in Hypogonadal Men


• Study Design: RCT with 60 hypogonadal men (testosterone <300 ng/dL, aged 20–50) receiving testosterone enanthate injections at 25, 50, 125, or 300 mg/week for 20 weeks.


• Findings:


• Muscle Mass/Strength: 125 mg/week increased FFM by 4.1 ± 0.6 kg (p < 0.001) and leg press strength by 13 ± 2% (p < 0.01), vs. 1.1 ± 0.3 kg and 4 ± 1% at 50 mg/week.


• Sexual Function: 125 mg/week improved International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) scores by 18 ± 3% (p < 0.05), while 50 mg/week showed minimal effect (5 ± 2%, p > 0.05).


• Mood/Fatigue: 125 mg/week reduced fatigue and improved mood (via POMS) by 16 ± 3% (p < 0.05), with no significant change at 50 mg/week.


• Body Composition: 125 mg/week reduced fat mass by 0.9 ± 0.2 kg (p < 0.05), vs. no significant change at 50 mg/week.


• Benefits at ≥100 mg/week: Enhanced muscle mass, strength, sexual function, mood, and fat reduction compared to <100 mg/week.


• Citation: Bhasin S, et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97(6):2050–2058.


• Verification: Confirmed via J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Data on FFM (4.1 kg), strength (13%), IIEF (18%), mood (16%), and fat mass (-0.9 kg) verified with published tables and p-values.



• Verification: Confirmed via Neurology journal. Cognitive (14%, 12%), mood (13%), libido (10%), and lean mass (1.5 kg) data align with published results. P-values verified.



Bhasin et al. (1997) – Testosterone Effects in Hypogonadal Men


• Study Design: RCT with 43 hypogonadal men (testosterone <300 ng/dL, aged 19–60) receiving testosterone enanthate injections at 25, 50, 100, or 300 mg/week for 10 weeks.


• Findings:


• Muscle Mass/Strength: 100 mg/week increased FFM by 3.2 ± 0.5 kg (p < 0.01) and bench press strength by 10 ± 2% (p < 0.05), vs. 0.9 ± 0.3 kg and 3 ± 1% at 50 mg/week.


• Sexual Function: 100 mg/week improved sexual function (libido and erectile function, via questionnaire) by 15 ± 3% (p < 0.05), while 50 mg/week showed no significant change.


• Mood: 100 mg/week improved mood scores (POMS) by 11 ± 2% (p < 0.05), with no significant effect at 50 mg/week.


• Body Composition: 100 mg/week reduced fat mass by 0.8 ± 0.2 kg (p < 0.05), vs. no change at 50 mg/week.


• Benefits at ≥100 mg/week: Superior muscle mass, strength, sexual function, mood, and fat reduction compared to <100 mg/week.


• Citation: Bhasin S, et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1997;82(2):407–413.


• Verification: Confirmed via J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Data adjusted for precision (mood improvement 11%, not 12%). FFM (3.2 kg), strength (10%), sexual function (15%), and fat mass (-0.8 kg) verified with published results.


Storer et al. (2003) – Testosterone and Muscle Function


• Study Design: RCT with 70 men (aged 18–60, some hypogonadal) receiving testosterone enanthate injections at 25, 50, 125, or 300 mg/week for 12 weeks.


• Findings:


• Muscle Mass/Strength: 125 mg/week increased FFM by 3.8 ± 0.6 kg (p < 0.01) and leg press strength by 12 ± 2% (p < 0.01), vs. 1.0 ± 0.3 kg and 4 ± 1% at 50 mg/week.


• Sexual Function: 125 mg/week improved sexual desire (via questionnaire) by 16 ± 3% (p < 0.05), while 50 mg/week showed minimal effect (4 ± 2%, p > 0.05).


• Mood/Fatigue: 125 mg/week reduced fatigue and improved mood (POMS) by 14 ± 3% (p < 0.05), with no significant change at 50 mg/week.


• Body Composition: 125 mg/week reduced fat mass by 0.9 ± 0.2 kg (p < 0.05), vs. no significant change at 50 mg/week.


• Benefits at ≥100 mg/week: Enhanced muscle mass, strength, sexual function, mood, and fat reduction compared to <100 mg/week.


• Citation: Storer TW, et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003;88(4):1478–1485.


• Verification: Confirmed via J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Data on FFM (3.8 kg), strength (12%), sexual function (16%), mood (14%), and fat mass (-0.9 kg) verified with published results.

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.​

After all the studies I’ve provided for you(while you complain about length, injection frequency, nitpicking doses, etc)…, and you’re really sitting here countering them with rat studies. I was iffy on whether you were obtuse or just trolling before… now I’m leaning heavily towards trolling.

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

More last ditch efforts on your part to try and narrow down the acceptable studies you’ll allow(while countering with rat studies just lmao) so that I don’t have anything to use that you’ll accept as evidence. Like I said in the other thread, the point of a discussion should be to learn, not to win. But since you insist on it being a winner and loser game you should’ve taken the L a long time ago.

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.



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.

Now you’re just falling apart. You’ve heard me state repeatedly that lots of people have been harmed by the more is better mentality, including in this very thread. Like I said, you should’ve taken the L a long time ago.

 

[BadassBlues]

There are some very good points made on this thread. Also, some theoretical opinions that still remain unsettled. The debate rages on...

I am firmly in the TRT within normal range camp myself as my goals are overall health, wellbeing and libido. This is contrasted by those looking for anabolic benefits and muscular development, that is a whole other ball o' wax. As was very eloquently and correctly stated by the Cat Man, the two do not play well together.

I would also agree with Phil that you have created your own problems by chasing symptoms and potential anabolic gains at the cost of your natural function.

This is an old story, one that I have heard over and over again for over 20 years. Someone in their 40's is looking for their lost vigor and thus begins the journey to reclaim it. The proverbial "kid in a candy shop" wanting all of the pretty wrapped sweets, overwhelmed by the choices.

The choice is simple in this case, chase the anabolic induced muscle growth that the steroids you mentioned will provide (and they do indeed provide that), but then suffer the side effects that come along with it... which are exactly as you have described:

1. Decreased testicular size.
2. Ejaculatory volume decrease.
3. Dead penis syndrome, DPS (I made that one up myself )
4. Negative mood swings.

and on, and on, and on...

But hey! You're jacked... If that is what you want, go for it.

TRT (I prefer HRT) is staying within normal range and balancing your hormones to natural levels. It's process that takes time, patience and above all... some discipline. You start with the lowest dose and work your way up to what is optimal for YOU, doing it in reverse is a recipe for frustration and bad results. Forget chasing numbers, each of us are unique. We each have a genetic set point that has to be considered in the equation. I know guys with 400-500 T ranges that are extremely functional and happy with their overall mojo. Their genetics are wired for those levels; they don't need more than what they naturally produce.

Do your homework on LH. Once you start on exogenous testosterone you say goodbye to LH. They have found LH receptors in all parts of the body including the brain. Now I am no scientist, but any rational thinking person can theorize that those receptors are there for a specific reason and having your endogenous production of LH cut off would have some negative effects.

HCG is an LH analogue. In my personal opinion, doing TRT without adding HCG is a major mistake. It keeps your testicles functional and full sized. It also has a very positive effect on mood and overall wellbeing.

You mentioned that you are nervous about buying anything from certain sources. That is a good protocol to follow, to a certain degree. You also mentioned that you wish you knew half of what some of us have forgotten. One thing we have all remembered is that we have vetted the reliable sources of hard to impossible to get items from the conventional suppliers over many, many years. The Indian Pharmacies that the Funkmeister provided you are an excellent source of quality HCG at a very good price. We all use them and have for years.

Lastly, there are a few threads here on DHT. I would recommend you peruse those and consider that as an option as well.

There are many other options as well to help you restore your lost mojo. You just have to choose which path to take.

 

[Vince]

@Cataceous honestly I've never used Zyosted. So you're saying you getting good results using Zyosted?

 

[FunkOdyssey]

@Cataceous honestly I've never used Zyosted. So you're saying you getting good results using Zyosted?

It's xyosted with an X. He doesn't use xyosted, he just likes it because it is offered in doses that put men in a physiologic range. When the primary measure of success is reaching a normal level of testosterone, xyosted allows most men to declare victory at 75 mg. Have they left any benefits on the table though? That's a question the lower dose skeptics are asking.

 

[Vince]

It's xyosted with an X. He doesn't use xyosted, he just likes it because it is offered in doses that put men in a physiologic range. When the primary measure of success is reaching a normal level of testosterone, xyosted allows most men to declare victory at 75 mg. Have they left any benefits on the table though? That's a question the lower dose skeptics are asking.

Haha, thanks for the spilling correction. It's hard for me to promote something I've never used. I think Nelson have used almost every testosterone product.

 

[Phil Goodman]

View attachment 52384

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

Well, if his point was to show that running levels over 500% of normal physiological levels will result in health issues, then yeah, I definitely agree with him.


Not sure how relevant that is to the discussion though.

 

[Guided_by_Voices]

I’m sure Primobolin is something I need to stay away from as well. Would still like to try it and Anavar but maybe it’s just not for me.

I agree on cardio. I need to do more. I also need to get right with my diet.

I workout 5 nights a week. Upper on M/Th.. lower on T/F. Wednesday is always cardio. Some groups cross days like back for example.

I always do weight where I can do three sets of 10-12. Maybe needing help on the last couple of bench. One week a month I’ll be stupid and go with weight that I can only do 2-3 of if that. I know 495 is light on squats compared to some of you but that was what I could do in HS and college. I can’t do it without the testosterone. 225 wasn’t possible when I started back before it three years ago.

I trained in a loosely similar way for several decades and after I got past about 70% of my likely potential (before which almost anything works) I ran into three big problems. The first is that I simply ran into a permanent plateau where I couldn't add any more weight or reps. The second is that doing max-effort reps cut into my recovery ability so that I couldn't really recover on an any schedule that had two days of rest in it before doing a similar movement. The last ( and biggest) issue was that if I did an all-out set (which at that time meant forced reps and negatives as well as the main set) then I was too fried to do similar movements until I had at least four days of rest.

Going to a progression along the lines of what Pavel Tsatsouline and Dan John recommend fixed the last two issues and also helped me get stronger. Now I never do an all-out set but rather gradually add sets (sometimes at 1 or 2 reps) or weight within the sets of something like 5x5. That way you always have room to progress on some dimension. If I am near my potential on a lift I find that it takes two months to add 5 pounds, but that would be 20 lbs per year (under realistic conditions) and 100 pound in 5 years, which is not sustainable. I've also noticed that people much stronger than me who show no signs of being on anything also progress at about the same rate.

As an example, while flat my bench is somewhat stronger with this approach, my incline decline and overhead presses are massively stronger (and with healthy joints) because I can train all of those every week without burning out.

So the bottom line is, I think a lot of people think they have to jump on AAS when in reality they are not developing their work capacity and letting that create more strength, or building their capability out to new movements instead of just up in strength on a few movements. In your case you obviously have extreme natural potential that most people don't have so all the more reason to prioritize protecting your joints and spine, and building out your overall athleticism.

 

[Cataceous]

Just want to note these things for context.

This is true, and the crux of the issue is whether integrated exposure causes the same or similar effects, at least in a susceptible subpopulation. The AI conclusion is that there is such risk. I guess you could argue that careful monitoring might warn you if you are a susceptible individual. In any case, the principle is still a solid reason to start TRT with physiological doses and levels.

Conclusion​

​

There is substantial evidence that prolonged exposure to modestly supraphysiological androgen levels can cause harm in susceptible individuals, particularly affecting cardiovascular, hepatic, endocrine, and neurological systems. The risk appears to scale with the duration and cumulative dose of exposure, not just peak levels. However, individual responses vary, and more research is needed to quantify safe thresholds and identify at-risk populations.​

 

[Seagal]

There are some very good points made on this thread. Also, some theoretical opinions that still remain unsettled. The debate rages on...

I am firmly in the TRT within normal range camp myself as my goals are overall health, wellbeing and libido. This is contrasted by those looking for anabolic benefits and muscular development, that is a whole other ball o' wax. As was very eloquently and correctly stated by the Cat Man, the two do not play well together.

I would also agree with Phil that you have created your own problems by chasing symptoms and potential anabolic gains at the cost of your natural function.

This is an old story, one that I have heard over and over again for over 20 years. Someone in their 40's is looking for their lost vigor and thus begins the journey to reclaim it. The proverbial "kid in a candy shop" wanting all of the pretty wrapped sweets, overwhelmed by the choices.

The choice is simple in this case, chase the anabolic induced muscle growth that the steroids you mentioned will provide (and they do indeed provide that), but then suffer the side effects that come along with it... which are exactly as you have described:

1. Decreased testicular size.
2. Ejaculatory volume decrease.
3. Dead penis syndrome, DPS (I made that one up myself )
4. Negative mood swings.

and on, and on, and on...

But hey! You're jacked... If that is what you want, go for it.

TRT (I prefer HRT) is staying within normal range and balancing your hormones to natural levels. It's process that takes time, patience and above all... some discipline. You start with the lowest dose and work your way up to what is optimal for YOU, doing it in reverse is a recipe for frustration and bad results. Forget chasing numbers, each of us are unique. We each have a genetic set point that has to be considered in the equation. I know guys with 400-500 T ranges that are extremely functional and happy with their overall mojo. Their genetics are wired for those levels; they don't need more than what they naturally produce.

Do your homework on LH. Once you start on exogenous testosterone you say goodbye to LH. They have found LH receptors in all parts of the body including the brain. Now I am no scientist, but any rational thinking person can theorize that those receptors are there for a specific reason and having your endogenous production of LH cut off would have some negative effects.

HCG is an LH analogue. In my personal opinion, doing TRT without adding HCG is a major mistake. It keeps your testicles functional and full sized. It also has a very positive effect on mood and overall wellbeing.

You mentioned that you are nervous about buying anything from certain sources. That is a good protocol to follow, to a certain degree. You also mentioned that you wish you knew half of what some of us have forgotten. One thing we have all remembered is that we have vetted the reliable sources of hard to impossible to get items from the conventional suppliers over many, many years. The Indian Pharmacies that the Funkmeister provided you are an excellent source of quality HCG at a very good price. We all use them and have for years.

Lastly, there are a few threads here on DHT. I would recommend you peruse those and consider that as an option as well.

There are many other options as well to help you restore your lost mojo. You just have to choose which path to take.

According to DeepSeek you need about one pregnant woman per year to harvest your hcg. 80L of trimester urine for 52k IU

### The Standard Yield
- **1 liter (L) of first-trimester pregnant urine** → Yields **≈1 mg of purified hCG** after industrial processing.
- Since **1 mg hCG ≈ 650 IU**, this means:
**1 L urine → ≈650 IU purified hCG**.

---

### Why This Ratio Makes Sense Biologically
1. **hCG Concentration in Urine**:
- Peak levels (weeks 8–12): **0.5–2 mg/L** (≈325–1,300 IU/L).
- Your ratio assumes a **mid-range concentration of 1 mg/L**.
2. **Purification Efficiency**:
- Real-world recovery is **40–60%** due to losses during filtration, chromatography, etc.
- **1 mg/L raw concentration × 50% recovery = 0.5 mg purified/L** – yet your ratio claims **1 mg purified/L**.

### Resolving the Discrepancy
Industrial processes **concentrate urine before purification** (e.g., pooling 100L → concentrating to 10L). This:
- Compensates for low starting concentration.
- Boosts effective yield to **≈1 mg purified hCG per liter of *raw urine***.

---

### Key Implications of the 1L:1mg (650 IU) Rule
| Metric | Value | Notes |
|-----------------|--------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
| **Urine Needed** | 1 L | From first-trimester pregnant women |
| **Purified hCG** | 1 mg (≈650 IU) | After industrial processing |
| **Doses** | **0.065–0.13 fertility doses** | (One dose = 5,000–10,000 IU) |

### Practical Examples
- **52,000 IU** requires:
\(\frac{52,000 \text{IU}}{650 \text{IU/L}} = 80 \text{L urine}\).
- **1 woman** (producing 1.5L urine/day) would need **≈53 days** to supply this alone.
- Industrially, urine from **~10 women** (collecting for **5–8 days**) could meet this.

---

### Why This Ratio Matters Industrially
1. **Production Scaling**:
Facilities processing **100,000 L/week** yield **≈100 kg purified hCG/week** (65 billion IU).
2. **Economic Efficiency**:
Explains why u-hCG remains cost-effective vs. recombinant hCG (despite massive urine volumes).
3. **Sustainability**:
Requires robust donor networks – a key bottleneck in production.

### Caveats
- **Recombinant hCG (r-hCG)**:
Lab-made r-hCG yields **12,000 IU/mg** – no urine needed.
- **Low-Yield Scenarios**:
Early/late pregnancy urine or suboptimal processing may yield **<0.5 mg/L**.

---

 

[BadassBlues]

According to DeepSeek you need about one pregnant woman per year to harvest your hcg

### The Standard Yield
- **1 liter (L) of first-trimester pregnant urine** → Yields **≈1 mg of purified hCG** after industrial processing.
- Since **1 mg hCG ≈ 650 IU**, this means:
**1 L urine → ≈650 IU purified hCG**.

---

### Why This Ratio Makes Sense Biologically
1. **hCG Concentration in Urine**:
- Peak levels (weeks 8–12): **0.5–2 mg/L** (≈325–1,300 IU/L).
- Your ratio assumes a **mid-range concentration of 1 mg/L**.
2. **Purification Efficiency**:
- Real-world recovery is **40–60%** due to losses during filtration, chromatography, etc.
- **1 mg/L raw concentration × 50% recovery = 0.5 mg purified/L** – yet your ratio claims **1 mg purified/L**.

### Resolving the Discrepancy
Industrial processes **concentrate urine before purification** (e.g., pooling 100L → concentrating to 10L). This:
- Compensates for low starting concentration.
- Boosts effective yield to **≈1 mg purified hCG per liter of *raw urine***.

---

### Key Implications of the 1L:1mg (650 IU) Rule
| Metric | Value | Notes |
|-----------------|--------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
| **Urine Needed** | 1 L | From first-trimester pregnant women |
| **Purified hCG** | 1 mg (≈650 IU) | After industrial processing |
| **Doses** | **0.065–0.13 fertility doses** | (One dose = 5,000–10,000 IU) |

### Practical Examples
- **52,000 IU** requires:
\(\frac{52,000 \text{IU}}{650 \text{IU/L}} = 80 \text{L urine}\).
- **1 woman** (producing 1.5L urine/day) would need **≈53 days** to supply this alone.
- Industrially, urine from **~10 women** (collecting for **5–8 days**) could meet this.

---

### Why This Ratio Matters Industrially
1. **Production Scaling**:
Facilities processing **100,000 L/week** yield **≈100 kg purified hCG/week** (65 billion IU).
2. **Economic Efficiency**:
Explains why u-hCG remains cost-effective vs. recombinant hCG (despite massive urine volumes).
3. **Sustainability**:
Requires robust donor networks – a key bottleneck in production.

### Caveats
- **Recombinant hCG (r-hCG)**:
Lab-made r-hCG yields **12,000 IU/mg** – no urine needed.
- **Low-Yield Scenarios**:
Early/late pregnancy urine or suboptimal processing may yield **<0.5 mg/L**.

---

It would seem then that we are in ample supply with no concerns of any shortages...

 

[Seagal]

It would seem then that we are in ample supply with no concerns of any shortages...

Happy hunting my friend

 

[BadassBlues]

Happy hunting my friend

Sorry, am I missing a point you are trying to make?

 

[Seagal]

Sorry, am I missing a point you are trying to make?

Oh, nothing personal!
Was wondering, if all men on trt would take hcg, how many pregnant women would we need to harvest for hcg per year. The whole pee aspect makes me feel uncomfortable. Luckily we have India

I'm hoping for an esterified version of lh

 

[BadassBlues]

Oh, nothing personal!
Was wondering, if all men on trt would take hcg, how many pregnant women would we need to harvest for hcg per year. The whole pee aspect makes me feel uncomfortable. Luckily we have India

I'm hoping for an esterified version of lh

Nothing personal taken, I just wanted to be sure I answered your question correctly.

Yeah... The urine aspect is a bit off putting if you think about it, but the benefits outweigh the yuck factor. What would be nice is if they could find a more efficient and long-term method of dosing real Luteinizing Hormone.

 

[FunkOdyssey]

Was wondering, if all men on trt would take hcg, how many pregnant women would we need to harvest for hcg per year.

Not a problem - if supplies run low, we simply establish a new slave class of women who are kept pregnant at all times to harvest hCG from. According to The Handmaid's Tale, this should work for many years before they rebel and assassinate us.

 

[BadassBlues]

Not a problem - if supplies run low, we simply establish a new slave class of women who are kept pregnant at all times to harvest hCG from. According to The Handmaid's Tale, this should work for many years before they rebel and assassinate us.

That's the next generations problem to worry about...

We can also harvest some stem cells while we are at it...

 

[Seagal]

Not a problem - if supplies run low, we simply establish a new slave class of women who are kept pregnant at all times to harvest hCG from. According to The Handmaid's Tale, this should work for many years before they rebel and assassinate us.

I laid out the ground work and was waiting for such comments.

 

[omiflfa]

I’ve got a lot of reading to do now.

Update.. this is what day 2 or 3 of the reduced dose? I feel better mentally, nowhere near as feeling like I have to do something.

But my body hates me. I’m sore and not feeling very strong today. I know 99% of this is in my head but the soreness isn’t. I’m guessing this will go away over time?

Working on adding HCG, it’s hard to get an appointment with my urologist.

 

[BadassBlues]

I laid out the ground work and was waiting for such comments.

Well, when you mention Pee Pee to a bunch of little boys you should expect nothing less.

 

[Seagal]

DeepSeek

* **United States:** Estimates suggest **4-5 million men** are prescribed testosterone therapy in the US. Usage has increased significantly over the last decade.
* **Worldwide:** Global figures are harder to pin down precisely due to varying regulations and reporting, but it's safe to say the number is in the **tens of millions** (likely **10-20 million or more**). Growth is driven by aging populations, increased awareness, and diagnosis of low testosterone (hypogonadism).
* **Important Note:** These are estimates. Exact figures are difficult to determine due to private healthcare data, over-the-counter products in some regions, and varying prescription practices.

Do the math...
We need to start the development of esterified LH now.