What is TRT and What is NOT TRT

Still… you very, very rarely see a ref range that goes up to 36 nowadays. I’ve seen ref ranges cut off below 20nmol/l

1 Like

There actually is a moderate body of evidence suggestive of generational decline. It isn’t particularly significant (i.e 1500ng/dl to 500ng/dl) it’s closer to 650ng/dl - 450/500ng/dl.

2 Likes
1 Like

We are basically saying the same thing.

1 Like

Anyone able to answer my question about the change in FSH ref range?

That’s more than “up there”, that’s suspicious as hell… Even women with PCOS have a TT below 150ng/dl, above 200ng/dl is indicative of a tumour or something. A woman with a TT of almost 1000ng/dl tis probably doping.

A TT of 40 1154ng/dl within a man is possible, but such a number is rare, esp for an elite athlete wherein overtraining prior to competition may adversely alter endocrine parameters. I’d argue many can get away with using testosterone in competitive sports as the standardised test to look at testosterone/epitestosterone ratio, if you fail a carbon isotope ratio test is typically conducted, but the test is expensive to perform. There is a genetic mutation (I’d have to look it up again) regarding this ratio that could theoretically allow a subset of athletes to seriously abuse testosterone (like 400mg/wk) and not get popped.

The cutoff criteria for T/ET rato is 4:1, very few have such a ratio naturally. One study I’ve looked at indicates a fair portion of me can use a decent amount of testosterone (enough to statistically enhance performance) without getting popped.

I happen to personally know one individual who competed in the Olympics within a predominantly anaerobic sport. If you look at pictures of him before/after his competitive days he goes into professional athletics as a relatively skinny guy with a full head of hair, comes out looking like a brick shithouse with no hair. Might have been natty… but I’ll suspend my disbelief

3 Likes

Is that the one where guys took 300mg of TE and several still managed to be under the 4:1 ratio?

I haven’t seen that one. The study I refer to was using a set dose calculated by bodyweight.

Back onto the topic of doping… Poor women, the virilization incurred through raising your TT to 40nmol must be enormous.

You’re practically giving yourself a sex change at that point

There was a thread I read somewhere about a medical practitioner giving a woman 100mg test C/wk to put on weight/muscle mass following (either an eating disorder or chronic Illness)…

Like for God’s sake man, if you’re going to use an anabolic agent in a woman opt for nandrolone (if c17-aa aren’t available or tolerated).

Other superior alternatives for woman (depending on country of residence)

Tibolone
Stanozolol
Oxandrolone
Etc etc…

Another study I looked at compared the pharmacokinetics of testosterone gel in woman vs men. Equivalent dosages for whatever reason lead to a lesser peak/nadir in women comparative to men. Most women noted virilization, making me wonder how said study passed the ethics committee… Like what did you think would happen if you were to administer women 5-10mg testosterone/day. Relative to their baseline production that’s a big increase.

It increased muscle mass and strength, but also led to hirsutism, acne, facial hair growth etc… Shocker…

1 Like

As I’ve said repeatedly, TRT is medication, nothing more. It is not meant for some bodybuilding endeavor. It is meant to restore normal function, period.

If my life expectancy was less than ten years I’d be okay with a HELL of a lot more than “trt+”. Especially if the prognosis was degenerative in nature.

I personally like 125mg/wk. It puts me right at the top of normal, slightly over it at peak and I feel great.

1 Like

I’m at 260mg a week with my 1500 HCG units. I’m slightly outside the free t range, but I enjoy it.

I’m calling bs on this. Of course it’s performance enhancement for someone like myself, who was struggling with low t. Being on testosterone has allowed me to be able to work out, and build muscle at the same level I did 25 years ago.

It brings someone back to normal functioning. TRT is not PED.

1 Like

Technically, testosterone is a steroid. That makes it a ped. If it didn’t enhance performance, what would be the point of injecting it?

My T was 170 before starting TRT, and my performance sucked. Now my total t is more in line with a healthy male, and my performance has increased in many ways. It’s not rocket surgery.

So you’re comparing the performance of a eugonadal
Man to a TRT-treated man with normal T values.

I’m not sure what you’re saying.

I replied to a post that said that TRT wasn’t meant for performance enhancement. I explained why it is precisely meant for performance enhancement. If performance wasn’t enhanced by injecting testosterone, then there would be no point in injecting it. I had most symptoms of low t, and I wanted a better life, so I started on testosterone injections. My performance has been enhanced in so many ways. It’s been life changing. I’m not sure why you’re even arguing against TRT enhancing the performance of someone like myself, who had a medical necessity for TRT. It’s not rocket surgery.

I didn’t argue against it. Of course performance will be right by going from untreated to treated. But you’re simply performing at a level allowed by normal T values. I take TRT for medical necessity also.

You said, “ It brings someone back to normal functioning. TRT is not PED.”

Testosterone is a PED. It enhances performance. It’s a hormone, and a drug. That makes it a PED.

This isn’t even controversial. It’s well established science. So again, im not sure what you’re arguing against here.

I don’t think of it as a drug, but as a hormone, something we make naturally and we are supposed to have.