Wondering if other members feel that the potential of this TRT section as an open discussion platform and information resource is curtailed somewhat, by the lack of topic organisation?
The search function works well but assumes the searcher knows what to search for… some members have a hard time here, often posting duplicate topics. Similarly, posts with productive, informative and developed discussions often get pushed out of view.
Maybe the moderators could give some input whether some kind of multi-level subject-grouped hierarchy might ever be considered if the demand was there for it🙂? @Mod_Phoenix
I think there are a few threads worth pinning already to be honest. Not to go plugging other forums, but I’ve seen at least 2 other prominent forums (one for gym stuff, the other specific to Testosterone) which have pinned threads as an “intro to TRT” if you will.
It carries the risk of possible mis-guidance, but i feel the community could properly snuff out these inaccuracies together. Perhaps a TRT forum moderator or two could be interviewed to help keep us all honest.
In addition, a structure kind of like the below example sprang to mind- essentially it’s just a few more compartments to organises common threads. Perhaps users would see all the topic containers at a glance upon landing at the TRT sub section of Pharma. Users would then navigate from there. Perhaps each sub section would have its on pinned topics.
Pharma
Testosterone Replacement
FAQs
Intro to TRT
Blood Work- Get Members Opinions
Units of Measure & Conversions
Troubleshooting
Sexual Function
Protocol Discussion
Fertility Topics
EDIT: Some of these heading are indented with white space. This seems to have been removed although we can easily guess which headings would be children of a particular parent heading.
These posts have great information in them but absolute statements can be unhelpful even if only for a small minority.
I feel one of the strengths of the TRT section compared with some other sites/groups is the acceptance/contribution by members of differing opinions on divisive topics. For example the pro AI and anti AI mobsters happily have a good punch up now and again and more often than not something informative comes out of it. Differences of opinion are often what creates interesting discussion and debate. Having topics pinned that voice strong absolute and biased views could maybe harm this.
Similarly, we are all quite different and one size can’t fit all. Some need 80mg some need 250mg(apparently) but everyone is entitled to run a protocol that they feel works for them. Pinned posts should be factual I feel but that’s just my thoughts. Where subjectivity is unavoidable which is often the case with TRT, the topics should probably signpost members to further reading/investigation rather than an explicit answer that won’t work for all.
It would be a bad idea to discard useful posts from being pinned because of slight bias though. At the end of the day, readers must do there own due diligence.
I agree with this thinking too but wonder if there’s a slim chance that when the endogenous tap is switched off there is a loss of some mystical “something or other” that means men on TRT need 1.5x the amount to feel “optimised”. Cases where HCG improves libido jumps to mind.
The more likely answer…… men are injecting a bit more for the aesthetic benefits. Nothing wrong with that IMO.
Or
Clinics diagnosed them Hypogonadal with a bang average hormone profile and they need more Test to feel a difference.
There are so many useful topics that some structured method of grouping them all in an unbiased manner might serve better than pinning in the long term.
@Mod_Phoenix would it be possible to have “dynamic” pinning. Posts would be pinned based on number of hits/interactions or some other measure of worth?
One category I’d like to see is one for discussing research papers, meaning no discussion tangential to the specific research paper being discussed.
I’ve seen so many threads where papers are thrown left and right, but there is no rigorous discussion about the contents of the paper. The threads with DBossa and those endless E2 discussions come to mind, among many others.
I feel those threads are incredibly inefficient at getting to the crux of the problem being discussed. It would be nice to have a space where a specific research paper is being discussed and arguments are rooted in scientific rigor at least to a certain degree.
For example, what is the objective of this paper? What are the methods being used? What sample size? What do we think of the conclusions being reached? Is there any transfer to men or women on TRT? What’s the value of animal studies? In vitro studies? Etc…
Having a place like that would be nice, because I think there’s a lot of value to anecdotal evidence, especially in the absence of scientific research which is limited in its scope (not everything is being researched and experimented on, and also not around the parameters that necessarily apply to men and women on TRT/HRT).
However right now, anecdotal and scientific evidence are mixed together in a very disorganized way in every thread, and I think it takes away from the value of both ultimately.
So it might be good to have a more anecdotal place to discuss personal experiences (and research papers can and will still be quoted in there), and also a place to discuss specific research papers in depth with whatever scientific rigor we’re capable of.
One advantage would also be that some of the research papers more casually quoted in anecdotal threads could be referenced to a more rigorous thread about that specific paper.
I’m not expressing this very well, writing and thinking on the fly, but hopefully this makes some sense. I think if we implement this well it could be incredibly valuable
I’d hope to see one caveat where applicable. I see lot’s of facts posted, graphs put up and discussions on where the numerical point should be, which is fab.
However I don’t understand lots of this and after looking at something and not understanding it I may ignore the rest of the post and miss stuff I do understand and may benefit from.
I’m not saying dumb everything down, far from it but maybe where the jargon is very specific it wouldn’t seem out of place if a thickie (i.e. me) posted asking for a clearer explanation where possible?
(And so I don’t come off as too dumb, I have read literally hundreds of scientific papers, proof read before being sent for review a dozen or so and co-authored half a dozen. But in a very specific field where if it delved into genetics or some other such devilry it would be someone else leading that part.)
Great points @disciplined_trt there might be some value in conversation medley’s of anecdotal and research based argument though. We don’t want to end up segregating the two, creating cliques based in the sections of the forum that gravitate towards some group confirmation bias. Having the anecdotal and the scientific mashed together persistently challenges certain beliefs and stimulates ideas/discussion I think.
