Phil_gretz

I'm now in my 2nd year of using topical testosterone. The results have really increased my quality of living. Motivation, injury recovery, strength, sexual function and libido, mood, alertness...all have improved markedly.

About whether lower T is "normal" as we age, one must ask the question differently. How have serum testosterone levels changed generation-by-generation across our (U.S.) population over the last 3 generations as a function of age? Then look at the data. Then begin the discussion...

smoore

OP, based on your "symptoms", if low T isn't a problem I think I'd consider a heart check up. Seems extreme I know, but 18 months ago I was 132 lbs, felt great, look young for my age, never smoked or drank, ride often and rode 25miles on Sunday. On Monday morning I had a heart attack and barely survived with five bypasses. However, I always did have high cholesterol which is inherited....but NO symptoms until the big one.

Good luck.

the engine

I've been using AndroGel since 2010 ... some small side effects (thinning hair mostly). It has given me more energy to train, and I train harder than I could before ... when my test count was low. I really do feel "young again" by comparison.

Downside; Very expensive (my insurance pays 100%).

I am diabetic (Type 2) and my endocrinologist prescribes it and keeps track with blood work every three months.

Prior to 2010 my cycling efforts began to fall off ... since then I have climbed MT. Washington, and this year I have ridden 6500 miles so far. Check my website for info on the things I've been able to accomplish since 2012: https://www.tek-kneescycling.com

I tried "boosters" on my own before I asked my endo about AndroGel ... they did nothing for me. With AndroGel, don't expect to feel any difference right away, or some miraculous superman transformation. Over time you will notice you have been doing more and performing better.

BTW, your significant other will thank you too

DeadGrandpa

At first, I laughed out loud at this, at how much I identified with the sentiment. I have carefully thought about it for days. I have finally realized I pretty much keep to myself; with not many people to surround me, and that I could be the idiot who is making me depressed. I better get some bee pollen and vitamin D, and go for a bike ride!

Carbonfiberboy 

Those of you taking T or contemplating same might want to read this JAMA link:
JAMA Network | JAMA | Testosterone Replacement Therapy Faces FDA Scrutiny

rydabent

Before jumping on the "low T" bandwagon, I think one would do well to read all the warning on taking some kind of testosterone boosters. Regular exercise petty much overcomes all the the so called low T problems that the drug companies say you have.

Null66

Several (world wide) studies have shown relationship of higher T levels and lower Cardio-vascular events. 2 American studies contradicted this, but in both cases the level of care was abysmal.

The first negative study, they threw a LARGE dose at various males. 2 populations had negative results... Those over 70, and those with recent heart attacks. Both of those populations should have never been treated with T like that. There is some support for the > 70, but proper protocol would have been much lower doses and much better monitoring....

Read the study, most of those reviewed in the study quality of care was near criminally negligent... I had to read it several time to believe what they were saying.

"Among a sample of nearly 250 000 men, only 72% had a claim submitted for testosterone level testing prior to receiving a TRT prescription; 21% never had any claim; and only 6% had claims submitted after receiving their initial TRT prescription. "

No one should get T with out base line levels and on going fairly frequent testing. Also the symptoms of low T can be caused by several other causes and some are very damaging. If they didn't test levels, you can be sure they didn't rule out all other causes first...

Testing should be at LEAST 3x a year, after they have dialed in and stabilized the dosage. Testing as frequently as monthly if having troubles getting levels stabilized.


Topical is really sub-optimum. Perfect way to get a defensible patent. But also perfect way to maximize the conversion to Estrogen. A subset of males don't absorb well at all, others absorb well for a while, then absorption declines.

Frequent subcutaneous injection is most effective for stable levels w/ lower conversion to estrogen...

Not really...
Can help a lot for some. Body fat increases conversion. If this is the cause, then an Amoratase inhibitor may help re-establish function.

Others, exercise won't help at all...

Depends upon the person and their particular biology.

My really low T, most likely due to repeated head injuries.

In perfect world, for my history Doctor should have tried HCG first. But went the Androgel route. It worked for a while, then didn't, then crank dose, rotate application site. Always worked for a while then levels crashed. Switch to compounded (total cost less then just co-pay!) ever so much better... but I still went non responding... (only a few fail to absorb, I'm just lucky, I guess)...

Best so far has been 2 self administered subcutaneous injections week. After going this route, I've dropped about 10% body fat and have been much healthier.

Carbonfiberboy 

I mostly posted this because on our local classic rock station there are a couple of "men's clinics" who basically say, come on in and we'll get you fixed up with some T. It's a huge business, and my guess is that you're right and the level of medical care delivered by these clinics is abysmal. Hence the remarkably high percentage of men with prescriptions who were never even tested for T. Some doctors will just write.
Note that the FDA panel voted 20 to 1 to exclude men from T prescriptions in the case of age-related low T. Because that's the problem, not those who have a medical need for T.

Meanwhile there are several ongoing studies and the possibility of new studies which may shed further light on these issues.

VNA

You have to be very mistaken because it has to be administered as an intramuscular injection which can bring some mild discomfort (pain).

rydabent

I have never taken the stuff, but I bet that it come with about a half pound of paper telling you all the side effects. That cant be good.

Null66

Nope, commonly accepted myth...

Study out of University of Toronto achieved more stable levels with lower conversion to Estrogen with SC injections. Study was replicated.

One major benefit was much lower levels of infections due to injections and when they did occur, were much less serious.



Sorry, I tend to look at all studies and let them stand for themselves.
US studies are almost all associated with pharmaceutical companies. They do nearly no studies on non patent-able substances. Case that highlights this. Humans have been using Colcrys for gout for like 5000 years. The FDA recently granted a US patent on it in exchange for a company doing an efficacy study on it. There are literally dozens of studies prior to this showing its safety and effectiveness... Price went from a dime to $10...

In fact FDA almost exclusively only accepts US studies. Claim control of methodology as reason. As if the whole world is not filled with competent scientists. Some of the best research and studies come out of the UK and EU. Places where they have better medical outcomes and lower per capita spending...

Company based studies are subject to far too many perverse incentives. Interestingly they allow the companies to NOT report negative studies, so what happens... Only positive studies are reported. This blows a hole a mile wide in methodology... There was a movement in the FDA to require all studies be reported, but last I read this had failed.

But back on topic.
T was shown (replicated, double blinds) to positively effect lipid profile. Few negative side effects were noted (outside of populations that were contraindicated..

Compare that to our current drugs for cholesterol management. Most of those have negative side effects, such as muscle weakness or memory loss occur so often in people they are expected. These negative results are accepted as a cost of treatment.

In the US, I would suggest everyone study and attend to their own health. I have taken the position of trust but verify. My recent experience with BP meds, and subsequent studies are shifting me more towards a precautionary principle. I might end up taking a Buyer Beware position as I review the math underlying the treatment assumptions.

My experience with BP meds have been quite negative and destructive to my health. Mostly due to my particular individual responses to the various drugs. It certainly does not generalize. In this one thing I am most definitely not very lucky.

VNA

"The question gets asked by many men when they begin testosterone therapy with BTP. The answer is yes! The risk is always in forming an abscess, but in our experience, using .5 mls of less per sub-Q shot leaves very little risk of that.
While intramuscular injections are the preferred manner of administration, sub-Q shots are gaining popularity among men across the country who restore their testosterone."

"Conclusions: A once-week SC injection of 50-100 mg of TE appears to achieve sustainable and stable levels of physiological T. This technique offers fewer physician visits and the use of smaller quantity of medication, thus lower costs. However, the long term clinical and physiological effects of this therapy need further evaluation."

From:
https://bostontestosterone.wordpress...rone-partners/

I looked at several sites and as of today the accepted and recommended injection of testosterone is still intramuscular.
Not sure why there would be fewer doctors visits or less medication using subcutaneous method?

Null66

Well, they don't like people self administering IM because of risk of infection. SC infection much less frequent and much less severe. So most on injection end up going to Dr every other week for injection. PITA (literally) and induces huge swings in levels... I did that for over a year, better then topical for me.

I did IM weekly for quite a while. Far better then 2 week Dr visit. But my thighs are low enough body fat (bf) that I would bleed a good bit as often as not. As BF gets lower it hurts more...

I dropped about 5% bf when I switched to twice a week sc from once IM at 100mg... blood levels about 200 higher from prior stable(ish) levels...

I like and do better with the additional 200, so didn't drop the dose...

Interesting that the org that insists on relatively dangerous IM (so therefore prefer every 2 week at dr) also insists that the option is topical or rather TRANSDERMAL... uh, anyone else see the faulty logic here????

Or maybe they want to defend the patented andogel, (dilute, wide area application). Setting up false dependencies which make the alternatives less desirable and less effective.

Last I saw androgel was somewheres north of $300 / month with some insurance coverage. It was $90/month co-pay for me with decent insurance. Androgel maximizes conversion and worse maximizes chance of transfer to others. I switched to compounded, was $40 / month with out any insurance, and worked for me about a year before I failed to absorb it.

Now admittedly I was up eventually up to absurd dosage on androgel as I am a non absorber. I might be close to worse case. So initial dose was like magic, then slow descent. Increase dose, not quite as good as before but better, then descent... switch sites, better, eventual descent... Topical was 2x the concentration and worked well for a while, then again switch sites, increase dose, same pattern... Eventually cruddy levels.

I read a study that suggested that insulin resistant guys may be more likely to fail to absorb and may have higher conversion rates... Not definitive, just that study showed that this was likely the case and should be studied itself. So yeah that's me... I am an outlier. Most don't go this route. Many find a small dose of androgel works wonders for them. Enough to start a positive feedback loop, such that they lose fat (convert less) levels go up (more importantly T to estrogen levels improve

Back to main topic of thread... For men of a certain age or high, those with levels below 400, incur most of the Cardio Vascular events, even more so for the fatalities. 400-600, much, much less. Those over 600, no CV events occurred. Very large N, long term study... Since this is dominant killer of men... I'll keep my levels as high (within normally occurring ranges) as they'll allow.

Please study and make informed decisions about your health per your values.

Bikey Mikey

I like my regimen...½ a 50mg tab of Clomiphene daily. This helps my body make it's own T by blocking estrogen stop signals--my body stil makes it's own Testosterone. Last T level was 671 ng/dl. I prefer this method than artificial applications of Testosterone.

VNA

Did you mean: Clomiphene?
In any case that medication has some serious side effects:
Clomiphene: Uses, Dosage, Side Effects - Drugs.com
!

VNA

That article is exactly what I was trying to convey earlier. Testosterone replacement/hormone replacement is for people/patients who have a real medical need. Such as hypopituitarism and usually have to take more than one hormone replacement because that little gland controls many hormonal functions.

Bikey Mikey

Yes I did. I was typing really fast before going out. Thanks for the correction--it's fixed now.

As for side effects, most medications have side effects and many have serious ones too. Remember, I am taking ½ the minimum dose that is used for its intended use, fertility for women.

FYI, I've never experienced any of the side effects.

Null66

Interesting point here...
I'm also on levothyroxine, was insulin resistant (not as bad as many) and have zip for cortisol (not mitigated)l...

fietsbob

So, anyone contingency Lawyered up, in a Suit against the Companies making them, over the bad side effects?

Operators are standing by at Law firms that pay for advertising on TV..

Dolanarc1

Q) excuse my ignorance with the subject, but for all you guy's supplementing with "T" boosters, would you pass a drug test if you competed in something like Nationals or World Masters?

trackhub

Is Jack Daniels a testosterone booster?

Gyrine

There is so much wrong with this...
1) FDA does not grant patents. They couldn't care less about a drugs patent status.
2) FDA accepts non-US human clinical studies in support of marketing applications all the time. Acceptance of a clinical study, in fact, any data in support of an application,
3) FDA does not allow or "not" negative studies to be published. They don't regulate what is published or not published. If a company publishes or not and what they publish or not is no concern to FDA.

qcpmsame 

Could result in a doping hit if you got tested and USA Cycling does test at events, especially the Nationals, and bigger events, like the Worlds, are going to get the podium and random selections tested by the UCI. There was a big dust up about a master being DQ'ed last year I believe, someone in California, but that wasn't for T. You can file for a medically necessary substance exemption, but as I understand from the guys in the Masters Racing Forum, that is a tough one to get the exemption for. Maybe one of the members that is actively racing will see your question.

Some of the big time events, GFNY for one, contract through USA Cycling/USADA for testing and they caught a few a couple of years back. They were pretty sure doping was happening, and their prizes were expensive, so they decided to foot the bill. Guy got caught and was banned for several years. He was an amateur, but was hyper-competitive, and felt the need to dope so he could rake his buddies over the coals.

Bill

Dolanarc1

This is the sad part when it resorts to doping

rick458

I might try the bee pollen approach, I tested just right above low two years ago.
If I stay really active I have good energy, but a few shifts on the control board etc.. and I feel out of energy.
I tried Vitamine B but that caused joint pain.