Dbossa, Interviews About AIs?

I guess I should of added some info there. At 50mg EOD and my E2 at 99.4 I felt better in the way of overall energy, mood and mental clarity. I was experiencing shortness of breath though. It felt like I had a heavy weight on my chest at times. That’s why I backed my dose down. I was told on this board it could be the elevated E2. Now that I have backed it down to 40mg EOD I am not getting that like I was. I also don’t experience morning wood very often and that has been the case at any dose.

1 Like

You are absolutely right in saying that suppressing estrogen to 0 (or close to) by using an AI has detrimental effects on libido, bone health etc. As long as T is within physiological levels (let’s say up to 1000 to 1500 ng/dL) there is no reason to use an AI.
If one struggles with high E2 symptoms, it’s most likely not E2 but either the effects of high T itself or the change of any other hormones affected by TRT. The solution is to lower the T dose.

However, there is not a single study that shows that the benefits of estrogen are still present beyond the physiological range (let’s say 50 to 70 pg/ml) even if the T to E ratio is kept in a healthy balance.
In biological systems there exists almost always a U shaped relationship between a chemical and its impact on health. Take cholesterol, take any electrolyte, take T, DHT, antioxidants etc etc as examples.
Too low is bad, then there is an optimum and too high is again bad.

Some time ago you posted a video of a guy explaining the neuroprotective effects of estrogen (talking about Orlando er al 2007). In the discussed experiments T along with E had neuroprotective properties at moderate concentrations. Both, too low and too high concentrations of T along with is metabolite E had diminished neuroprotective properties.

It’s not black or white. It’s most likely very individual and we don’t really have an idea where the optimum concentration of E is in the U shaped dose response relationship.

7 Likes

Evidence based medicine includes:

  1. The desires, expectations, wants and needs of the patient.
  2. The best available evidence in the literature.
  3. The experience(s) of the clinician.

I think you might be surprised at how much health care is delivered without literature evidence to back it up. I know a couple of psychiatrists who use BHRT/TRT in their practices. One stated she will give up to 2000mg progesterone (bioidentical) daily to women with anxiety with great results.

Another, this one an orthopedic surgeon, stated that 95% of what he does has no evidence in the literature. He probably had to try an offbeat way of stapling or tying something for some reason, it worked very well, he tried it again, etc.

I can see doctors believing results seen in your their practice over something published in a journal with who knows who behind it.

By the same token, where is the evidence supporting unchained Free T and E2? There is no literature or evidence supporting this because the widespread use of TRT has created a never before seen subset of men with very high Free T and E2 levels. They self report to feel great. Posterity will be the judge when we see the health outcomes of these populations. Higher rates of prostate cancer, heart disease, early death, etc are possible outcomes. Maybe its nothing and we’ll have 100yr old pornstars. Sign me up. But the truth is we just dont know. My issue is that its propositioned as something that is good as long as you feel good. This screams confirmation bias. A group of guys that are focused on T, that have had it hammered into their heads that more T equals more of a man, all of a sudden these guys find that life with Free T in the 20’s(excellent for the top quartile of all healthy young men) isnt enough for them? Face to palm.

3 Likes

Let’s reorder it:

  1. The best available evidence in the literature.
  2. The experience(s) of the clinician.
  3. The desires, expectations, wants and needs of the patient.

That was not prioritized. I think the intent of EBM was to force clinicians to pay more attention to the literature research. In reality, I think the clinician decides the order of importance and that decision is made on an individual case by case basis.

For example, in some cases, like TRT, treatment is more elective than with others, like treatment for osteosarcoma. While the patient can always refuse care, in some instances that is more of an option than others.

On the other hand, if confronted with a condition in which the doctor has very little, or no, experience, the literature is going to direct decision making.

However, I would think if a doctor gives 100 patients X, and the result is Y, they’re going to go with that even though something in the published literature indicates otherwise.

How do you justify raising T though exogenous testosterone and then not expecting E2 to rise along with it, as it should, as expected? It’s doing precisely what it is supposed to do.

Just wondering if any of you have ever actually looked into the safety profile of testosterone? I’m not talking about synthetic derivatives. Testosterone specifically.

You are worried about harm where, so far, no evidence has been found. Yet you are completely dismissing the incredible benefits optimized T will give you that you would have never had otherwise. If you want to go through life without these benefits in order to avoid a fear that has currently no evidence, so be it. I’d rather have all the benefits which will provide a significantly better quality of life. Silly me.

1 Like

You won’t find this to be any better on other bodybuilding forums… if anything it’s far worse, oestrogen is unfairly demonised, cops a lot of flack for inducing many TRT/AAS mediated sides that have nothing to do with oestrogens

hmmmm depends, there is certainly a fairly large body of evidence that suggests high dosages of testosterone (vastly supraphysiogic) induces harm at a rate comparable or even worse than (esp for older individuals prone to say… hypertension) synthetic derivatives. Now, I’m not talking about a TT of 1500ng/dl… I’m talking about like 4000ng/dl, free T 5-10x the top of the reference range etc. Theres certainly a body of evidence that suggests, especially for the unhealthy individual, that such high doses leads to long term detriment.

The cardiac side effects would be the most (potentially) concerning

Considering we are discussing TRT, let’s keep it sub 2000 ng/dL. I have not found any harm there.

2 Likes

The point is I should be investing more time in my own FB group where people have joined instead of arguing with bro science gurus here. I’m doing it because I thought I could make a difference.

Yeah, it’s so bad. I’m on a few other Facebook groups and forums/reddit and this is the only one even remotely OK with estrogen. The rest treat it as the anti male hormone that will make your dick fall off and boobs grow in overnight. EVERY symptom gets blamed on e2 no matter what else is going on

I would like to join your FB group because I believe there is a lot of good information there. I am new to the TRT scene and that info would be useful. I don’t have FB though and don’t plan on having a FB account.

This is a forum. Constant new members seeking info. So it’s time consuming to get your point of view each time.

You can respond to these folks by sharing a link to one of your post on here so you don’t have to retype. Just a suggestion.

But yes it can get very time consuming.

People like systemlord are retired and got lots of time.

It does get frustrating having to contour false and misleading info on here. So hopefully you last longer. As I believe AI has no business in trt.

Don’t post here if you refuse to post the research… You are not going to maintain two repositories of info, but you have no issue posting comments? With your logic, you should only be on your FB group.

I’ve missed no point, your comeback is to claim I’m supporting the use of an AI? I never have done that. You also say only a guy with a low IQ will challenge your comments. Hahahaha.

You would do better if you chose your words better. BTW, you did not send me a picture of your tits. If you say you are going to do something, you need to do it to maintain credibility.

3 Likes

My wife asked me why I would want to send a shirtless photo to a stranger on the Internet so he can jerk off to it. I said, you’re right, I have no idea.

1 Like

You have no issue posting your videos, post the papers too. Seems easy enough.

1 Like

Have you ever asked me for a specific paper, pervert?

I’m not gay! You can count on that. I think you have boobs and I’m wondering if it’s because your estrogen is too high.

Currently I prefer in shape white women. You are half way there as in being white.

2 Likes

I know you believe that you are intelligent, and feeling that you will succeed in putting me in my place somehow. However,the fact that you have admitted to being turned on by the fact that I would send you a shirtless pic in a previous post is pretty creepy. I’ve received upwards of 2000 men message me and nobody has ever asked me for a shirtless pic. Ever.

If anyone here has lost credibility, it isn’t me.