Anybody here using a topical testosterone supplement? (Androgel, Axiron) I'm just exploring this idea, currently 56 but had been noticing some things going back a few years. The current trend (Explosion!) of topical testosterone has been making me think. But before I talked to a doc about it I wanted to see if anyone here is or has been using it, and, how is it working for you? Positives and negatives? Any input?

If your doc is any good, he'll insist on a blood test, and won't prescribe it unless you're low. You don't get it 'just because.'

I've been on Androgel for a few years. No noticeable side-effects. Without it, my T reading is around 100, well below the normal range. It's a pain-in-the-@55 to rub the stuff on, especially on cold mornings; so I'm only doing it a couple times a week instead of daily. That seems to get me into the low-end of normal, which is fine to me. I didn't see any big changes with it, and certainly not to my performance.

Started with Androgel and then another topical and neither worked well for me. I'm now on injections and they keep me in the mid-normal range falling to low-normal by the time I take another injection. Topicals have been known to cause side effects, not just for the user but also for any family members to which there is accidental transfer. Talk to your doctor and +1 on getting the test before even considering hormone therapy.

Already know about testing, incidental contact, etc. This is research, so just looking for personal experiences from guys like you who are or have tried it, thanks gents! Anyone else?

Previous threads on this very issue:
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...dvice-on-Low-T

There are some drugs in the approval process right now that will be bioadhesive intranasal gels. No black box warnings is anticipated as there is little chance of contact issues. Probably not available for another 10-12 months but it may be worth keeping an eye on.

Thanks, I searched "testosterone" and got nothing, that's why I posted...

Just remember, with topical testosterone gels, hugging kids is contraindicated. This is just fine, if you hate the little rug-rats.

I seem to remember there was a Diane Rhem show on testosterone supplementation, where one doctor compared it to the post-menopausal estrogen prescription surge of a few years ago, which turned out to have long term bad effects.

Anyway, to the OP, I'm not sure I can tell a difference.

I've been on Androgel for the past 3 years. For me it makes a BIG difference. My blood test before treatment was a big fat 0% now I get tested every 3 months and in the normal range. I'm 65 and also have CHF (congestive heart failure) with an EF of 20% (Ejection Faction, amount of blood ejected from the left ventricle each pump, normal is between 50% and 60%) so between the heart condition and the non existent testosterone level I found it hard to even walk to the mail box. Now I'm classified as a class 1 CHF patient (no symptoms) no change in EF but able to do most of the things I could do before CHF including ride over 8k miles last year. When going to my first follow-up echo about 6 months into my CHF and 4 months or so of Androgel plus heart meds I was sure that my heart had recovered… only to find that they have some damn good drugs out there. Testosterone isn't for everyone and it's not the end all but for some, including me, it can help you enjoy the things you can no longer do. BUT and it's a BIG but the decision to start with the replacement should be based on discussion with your health care provider. Oh and this stuff is NOT cheap. Good luck

Thanks Down, good to hear of your improvements!

Read recent news articles (NY Times, LA Times, etc.) citing studies regarding harmful effects and lack of benefit of testosterone in most men. The easiest way is to plug the word "testosterone" into the Google News web site.

Update: Tide has totally shifted against pro-testosterone commercials An ambulance-chaser lawyer commercial was just on TV, offering to represent you if you've suffered harm as a result of taking doctor prescribed testosterone. I swear, it's not my Ad.

Second Update: Another ad by another law firm offering to represent users of Androgel, etc.

(Sitting in front of TV doing invoices and watching Premier League games. Liverpool!)

I've been on TRT for about 4 years. During that time, I have used Androgel, injected, and had the Testopel implants. All worked to at least some degree. The gel seems to work best for me, so long as medical insurance pays the high costs. I've not noticed any incidental contact problems at home. Current dose is 4 pumps daily of the 1.62% gel. That gets me into about the 3rd quartile of the normal range.

Life is better for me on the gel. Everything works pretty well. But, educate yourself about TRT and don't blindly follow your average doctor. Most don't have much training in hormone replacement therapy for men. An endocrinologist or urologist is a good place to start. Good luck if you go forward with therapy.

I regularly ride with an MD and recently talked to him about all of these ads on TV. I wasn't thinking about taking the drugs because I'm of the persuasion that taking as few drugs as possible is the best choice. I firmly believe that the more a drug is advertised the less value it likely has except for the profit margin of the so-called ethical drug companies. I have a similar view of nutritional supplements. In any case he said that for a normal man taking testosterone supplements will suppress your own production, possibly shrink the size of your testes, and if you happen to have prostate cancer (common in older men) it can increase the rate at which it grows. That is certainly true as one of the treatments for prostate cancer is suppressing testosterone production. It is expensive, hence they can afford to bombard us with endless ads. The last thing he said was that once the drug companies get you on it, it may be for life as the suppression it causes may not be reversible.

My view has been that some of the more common symptoms were identified in me, and by me, long before all this Low T stuff hit the airwaves. I have looked into this extensively and have worked hard (No pun intended) to separate fact from fiction. It is mostly useless to get info from someone who is trying to sell you something. So where to go? After much web research I have found that the best research is to talk to people that are actually doing it. They have already put themselves out there, taking whatever risks are involved and they represent the best opinions, hence my original post. Many, if not most doctors know little or nothing about this, unless they are selling it, then they know what the Pharmas tell them. Very difficult getting to a doctor that is both well informed and not wedded to a sale. So, any and all opinions from current or past users is most helpful...that is what I posted for.
Thanks all...

I'll just add that there are valid medical reasons that some men can not make sufficient testosterone on their own. Sure, there are some guys who want to amp themselves up with test. You typically find them at the gym trying to be bodybuilders. A good doctor will first attempt to find out why you aren't making test. on your own before prescribing treatment. There are a few treatable conditions that may not require tes. supplementation. But, if your body can't make much test., then treatment is the way to go. Yes, it is a lifetime thing. Yes, supplemental test. will shut down your remaining natural production and shrink your testes, unless you treat that too.

This is a serious problem for some men. We aren't messing with this for ****s and giggles. We do it because it allows us to live a more normal life.

Wow- can you still ride with a 20% EF ?
You sorta lucked out-very very few MDs would be brave enough to prescribe testosterone for someone who must/might have CAD.
Especially now-after some recent study(not a great study since patients were probably given large doses)-indicating increased MI risk with testosterone supplementation
You certainly benefit from it-
and it is faintly possible that it has some cardiac protective effect at " low normal" levels -and the "bad cardiac effects" are at much higher levels.
HRT in women- became Verboten after the BIG STUDY(2001 early release and ended early)- 1,000,000 women study or whatever it was called.
It showed increased risk breast cancer and INCREASED CAD risk- the CAD was the opposite of what was expected-breat cancer risk-not a surprise-good effect on bones was demonstrated and some odd protective effects-bowel cancer decreased risk etc

In any case-ALMOST ALL WOMEN were IMMEDIATELY rapidly tapered off HRT- and far far fewer were started on it

fast forward to 2012 or so- followup results of a DANISH STUDY- good study-released(study actually had be stopped early because of 1,000,000 study) anyway followup demonstrated a PROTECTIVE CARDIAC EFFECT- along with good for bones other cancers-BAD BREAST cancer effect was still present I think.(-edit-MEMORY TRICKED ME-DANISH STUDY SHOWED NO INCREASED BREAST CANCER RISK-)
OPPOSITE CARDIAC result from 1000000 woman study-exact opposite

Well the HRT studies-were different-different drugs-different way of dosing-
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY the Danes gave it to perimenopausal women-50,51 yo
We gave it to 61,62 yo women-who hadn't had "much" in the way of hormones in 10-11 years
so we SUDDENLY dumped high levels of estrogens/progestins- on women who were more or less naive to them
and we got the BAD CAD risk - not a surprising result -in hindsight

Now the Danish study hasn't changed current therapy in the USA- HRT is still frowned on-mainly for breast cancer risk-but MI risk is still-incorrectly-touted as a reason to "not start HRT"
HRT also makes women "feel better look younger" middle aged women-their skin and muscle tone-suddenly aged about 5 years after HRT became "bad"
it is POSSIBLE-big maybe- that HRT women and men-is "better" when not passed thru GI track-meaning making a 1st pass thru liver

Oh well-I have run on-you lucked out-brave MD-amazing what hormones can do-same EF but much better work tolerance
Can you still ride (wife had MI- baddish one-LAD etc)-she still manages occasional brief ballet type workouts-she has vasculitis-so her problems are ongoing-since 2005
Can you ride a little?

I am indeed very lucky at this point. When I was first diagnosed my docs were talking about heart transplant list but after a few months of drugs/ diet change/ etc even they were surprised at the results. I'm due for another echo later this spring and we'll see if there has been any change of EF. BUT I've learned a lot in the past 3 years about my condition and the ef numbers are just that numbers. It's a lot more important what a patient can do and how he/she feels while doing it. Currently my T replacement therapy consists of one pump/day of the gel. After the first 3 months my levels were restored to normal for my age. That was over two years ago and I get tested each 3 months. As my PCP likes to say I'm in great shape I just have a BAD heart. Oh well

As is normal in Media based reporting of health / science issues that went for the hysteria.

Notice the population of the study. 1/4 not tested, just prescribed. Only 3 months duration. Only those with previous heart attacks in younger population and >65 males. But limited population who experienced negative results was not clearly communicated.

Undoubtedly, nearly all topical. No mention of estrogen control.

Same thing happens with "the little blue pill" but much less publicity on that. GO figure.

Guys go from years as a couch slug to VROOM... and little wonder some kick. Would love to see longer mortality rate study as a persons activity, including CV intensive activity tends to radically increase.

Or perhaps study should be restricted to properly treated individuals, and perhaps treatment should include education and risk mitigation... Perhaps slowly ramp up levels and activities?


Topical experience:
Marvelous for 3-9 months. frequent increased dosage. After that low absorption. All in cost $300-400 month including insurance contribution. My co-pay was $40.

after about 15 months switched to 5% compounded. MUCH BETTER and cheaper. $10-30 month. Less transfer as the application was just on wrists. Unfortunately stopped absorbing this eventually.

Now at 2x week injections at .5. Life is much better. Bottle is like $15 and lasts 3 months. Needles are a couple bucks.

You do realize that most Female HRT uses Horse estrogen as it degrades slower and was patent able.
Analagous to using anabolic steroids as seen in Bodybuilding, Pro sports and etc. such as Trenbolone, or Nadrolone.

When studies are done using actual estogen and progesterone (both are necessary and best protocols vary the ratios) breast cancer is reduced. But those are not patent able and hence will not get expensive studies done in US.

yeah 20% is fairly low, but actual life function-being able to walk to mail box-maybe walk dog walk with SO- sleep without getting breathless-

You no doubt know PLENTY about cardiac function etc-I learned more about autoimmune vascilitis than I ever planned to(wife has polyarteritis nodosa or Churg Strauss syndrome depends on which rheumatologist we consult)
Yeah great motivator
My wife still have unstable angina-28 episodes since her last discharge-5-1-2013-after her LAD MI-angioplasty stenting- re-admission angioplasty- then another readmission angiography-all in 13 days or so-they did what they could all the usual meds+ renexa-NTG -no good answer to "why does she still have angina chest pain-always at rest?"
Well- we had more time-so we finally figured out-the WHY -it was what should have been obvious-but never is-her vasculitis wasn't adequately controlled-
Rheumatologist are kinda between a rock and a hard place-very toxic meds vs toxic disease

Hope you get good news EF wise-but function is improving-so....
You lucked out that your DOC had the guts to treat you with Testosterone-the anti-testosterone lobby"not a disease state just part of aging" backlash from officious busybodies(who are probably getting T or HGH on the quiet) has started
Granted it probably is being over prescribed-and probably does increase MI risk in many cases
but quality of life-worth some risk-these folks are adults...... make it their choice

Your case is OBVIOUS- HOME RUN-heck low T might have contributed to your MIs-it is a multifunction hormone-who knows....

Right-USA STUDY used PREMARIN- a mixture of different estrogen type molecules that was/maybe still is- extracted from the urine of PREGNANT MARES- hence the "mare"
It is LONG out of patent protection-but it was a HUGE SELLER money maker-and they hoped to extend its indications with the 1,000,000 women study
I was wrong about Danish study and breast cancer-I said I "thought" it showed same breast cancer risk-i but it showed NO increased breast cancer risk-now I wouldn't take that answer to the bank-there are good theoretical reason to expect increase breast cancer risk(but they MIGHT be no worse than average cancers-or even not too aggressive cancers that show up earlier because of a growth Boost

In any case the 1,000,000 woman study-in hindsight- was a goof-not a great idea to suddenly dump potent hormones on women who haven't had them in 12 years-yeah-hindsight 20/20 "seemed like a good idea at the time"

Of course-anti HRT thinking became "standard of care" and it won't be reversed very quickly
We-USA-E-INS are puritans-and taking something "just because it makes you look better feel better" is frowned on
Here is a report on the Danish study- COMPLETE OPPOSITE FINDINGS of the other study-except BOTH found "good for bones"-a BIG DEAL since FX hip spine-ticket to NURSING HOME for older folks
BELOW IS REPORT DANISH COULD BE GAME CHANGING HRT STUDY


October 12, 2012 (Hvidovre, Denmark) — Hormone-replacement therapy (HRT) in postmenopausal women with a mean age of 50 significantly reduced the risk of the combined end point of mortality, MI, or heart failure in a new randomized Danish study published online October 9, 2012 in BMJ [1]. The participants, who used HRT for more than 10 years, were not at significantly increased risk of breast cancer or stroke either, report Dr Louise Schierbeck (Hvidovre Hospital, Denmark) and colleagues.

"This is the longest randomized trial with hard end points, and we found a 50% reduction in cardiovascular end points for the women who took HRT, and there was no increased risk of cancer," Schierbeck told heart wire . The women were also followed for a further six years after discontinuation of randomized treatment, she noted.

Schierbeck says the findings, in 1000 women, confirm the "timing hypothesis." In 2002, primary results from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) showed no cardiovascular benefit from HRT--something that had been suggested by numerous observational trials--and even an indication there may be harm; this led to the widespread abandonment of this therapy. But subsequent analyses of WHI, and data from other studies, have suggested that the time at which HRT is first prescribed is key. The women in this Danish study were 13 years younger, on average, than the women in WHI (mean age 63 years). "It doesn't make much sense to start treating women 13 years after menopause for menopausal symptoms. It's important to initiate the treatment at menopause and not many years later," she observes.

Now, don't laugh. I had my doc check my Testosterone level May '13 and he found I was a few points below minimum normal. Instead of putting me on Testosterone, pills or gel, I was put on Chlomiphene Citrate, a female fertility drug. Chlomiphene Citrate, or Chlomid, blocks estrogen at the pituitary and hypothalamus glands. Yes, men produce estrogen and estrogen acts like a stop signal for testosterone manufacture. After a couple of months, the next test showed my T levels doubled making it well into the normal range. One of the good things about this type of treatment is your body is making the testosterone and you don't have the problems with side effects that someone on Testosterone replacement drugs can experience.

Absolutely. I used it for a couple of months as a sort of experiment (prescribed, not self-medication) during rehab after an illness in 2011. The nurses were scared of it--they wore gloves when they brought it to me, and when I was unable to apply it myself, they were careful to avoid ALL contact with the gel as they rubbed it on. My primary care doc didn't think it was worth the risk of side effects and took me off it as soon as I got out of the hospital. FWIW, I didn't notice any effects at all, either side or therapeutic, but I was pretty much out of it for several weeks.

You are fortunate to find a Doctor willing to go this route!

HCG protocol also works for many.

Glad it works for you. It works for many people. Some sort of estrogen blocker is likely best for anyone on T replacement. But such is our current medical establishment.


T to Free T to E2 are critical ratios!