24 Hour TT Profiles in Young, Healthy Functional Men [1973-1983]

I think your post clarified your position better.

I liked your post as I was reading and you were more clear, so I could understand. I actually like your post before I saw another graph. Can I take back my like?

1 Like

Yes definitely simple to understand. The topic is not so simple. And I’d agree with you that I’m doing TOT. I really like that better than TRT. It’s more accurate for what I’m trying to accomplish.

1 Like

There is a truth that all those seeking the perfect testosterone level for maximum gains should strongly accept.

If you don’t genetically have it, you can become a “sink” for AAS disposal, trying to achieve what you are genetically incapable to achieve.


[quote=“disciplined_trt, post:27, topic:277585”]some elite athletes have relatively average Test levels paired with ridiculous genetics.

Phenomenal female athletes are proof of that.

I’m trying to read and understand your chart. If you would give an example, lets say something on the 50th percentile, as I would like to follow the chart better. Sorry, if it’s too elementary for others but I do like science a lot!

Or point me to where I can find if it’s been explained. I apologize to everyone since I am new to the journey and am trying to work myself out of brain fog, depression, and all the other shitty side effects of being crashed.


1 Like

I believe that I am now in the old man curse of poor androgen receptor capacity. It would probably take a boat load of AAS to gain some size and strength. That is way above my risk tolerance.

1 Like

The topic is simple if you put these definitions I provided (which in the end are based on the data @tareload cites here) on it. If you agree with the definitions then the topic is made simple.

I agree also that you are doing TOT. Then answer these questions for me please:

Do you also agree that TOT has a higher likelihood of doing damage to your body than TRT?

Do you agree that TOT should not be standard of care for patients with low T? (I’m not against doing it, but against doing it as a baseline)

Do you agree that the levels on TOT do very very likely not represent a replacement dose of a healthy level?

If the answer is yes to these 3 questions, I think it’s easy. If not, I would need a convincing explanation to why these statements would be wrong. Again, I’m not saying you or anyone for that matter should not do TOT, I’m saying know the risks and present your treatment as TOT preferably including some form of acknowledgement that you are willing to take this risk. That’s how I’ll do it.

TRT defined as tareload? And TOT as I’m practicing? No. I believe there can be real health issues with men who are on trt, and are not taking enough t to relieve symptoms.

No. I think the goal of TRT or TOT should be to relieve symptoms.

I agree it’s not a replacement dose, because 1)we really don’t know what our levels used to be to replace.
And 2) even if we did know, exogenous t is not the same as natural production.

As far as a healthy level, I do believe TOT is healthy. If we relieve symptoms, and try to keep healthy otherwise, then how is that not healthy?

I’m 53 years old. Before trt or tot, my total t was 170, and I was miserable. With the protocol I’m on now, I’m happy with it, feel great, and have pretty much alleviated the shitload of low t symptoms I had. I wouldn’t trade that for some level in the middle of some range that doesn’t apply to me, that won’t give me the quality of life I have now.

I am rather new to this TRT “thing”. I had a long history of AAS use stating in the 1970’s.

Attempting to recover from Dermatamyositis I assumed that my natural testosterone was on the low side. In around 2003 I started testosterone injections under a doctor’s supervision (though I don’t believe she would be considered an expert.) I didn’t feel bad, so I can’t appreciate those who suffer low T symptoms. I noticed no change in the way I felt before or after TRT.

I suppose my belief now is that those who “need” TRT should be treating their symptoms, and not with the hopes of increasing their size and strength.

1 Like

Got rid of a graph for you.

1 Like

Some nice gainz is not an acceptable symptom? I thought we were optimizing here?


I got a simple question kind of going back to our AI argument a while back. I agree with you on the TOT topic, but why does your attitude change entirely when it comes to micro dosing AI and not crashing E2? Why does your mentality completely change and you believe Danny’s studies, which are more ridiculous than the graphs you criticize, as they only show crazy dosing in women with cancer.

Danny never ever, nor has any anti AI person, ever shown concrete evidence of their long term harm if you never crash your E2 and do a reasonable micro dose. I dropped my AI, I am not arguing for them, just never figured out the TOT Danny style group who flip flop on certain issues.

I can assure you there is nothing ridiculuous with the graphs i show unless you are on the wild wacky world of internet forums. Oh yeah, nevermind :innocent:.

I use myself as an example. For 7 years while I was taking anastrozole, my E2 levels were in the 20’s. Right where my doc wanted them. I wasn’t “crashing” my E2, and I had severe joint pain in my ankles that went away after I stopped taking anastrozole.

And as far as Danny never showing any long term harm from stopping E2 conversion with an AI, you’re mistaken. He’s had multiple videos on the subject. The main thing I remember is that different parts of our bodies need E2. And while taking an AI lowers the blood serum levels of E2, it also lowers the E2 in the parts of the body that need E2. If E2 is heart protection, or if E2 protects the brain, and you take an AI, you are taking away protection that your body needs.

I know I am just saying if your graphs are silly, people really need to look at the “cold hard facts” Danny used to back up his claims.

1 Like

But you aren’t everyone, and no Danny never showed a study done on a dude using an AI who never crashed E2 to be bad.

How dare you insult his graphs?!?!

The sheer audacity of some people!!

You will never get anywhere with this. Risk/benefit goes out the window on the context of AI but testosterone and Hct harmless at any level as long as you have symptom relief.

Take my advice, run from this group. I shared with Danny articles demonstrating appropriate use of AI from risk/benefit standpoint. It profiteth nothing. Knowledge resistant cult. Sad.

You asked me why I think taking an AI is bad even if one doesn’t crash his E2. I lived the reason why. I didn’t crash my E2, and anastrozole caused me long term pain.

You didn’t ask if Danny ever showed a long term “study”. You said, “ Danny never ever, nor has any anti AI person, ever shown concrete evidence of their long term harm if you never crash your E2 and do a reasonable micro dose.”

Multiple doctors backed what Danny said. You can take it or leave it.

Yes, AUC is likely to be much higher at same peak dose.

I don’t have the patience to basically regurgitate or rephrase what tareload already said. You are a grown adult, do as you please. The symptom relief point of Danny Bossa and his deciples was always BS. It is in your case as well. Here’s an example

If you have pain in your foot and you take ibuprofen everyday, you’ll likely get a stomach ulcer, a certain percentage of those people that do so, die. But I guess it’s a good thing to take them every day, as there is short-term symptom-relief. The long-term effects, who really cares about that? Oh wait let’s treat the stomach problems with pantoprazole. Alright, stomach has no problems anymore. Now you have a higher risk of dementia and infections. Lucky you, that’s probably even further away in the future.

You could have fixed the foot instead of eating ibuprofen like gummy bears. But you went for more ibuprofen instead.

Do you recognize yourself in that story?

1 Like