MD here. Just remember that women live longer than men. Although it'll never be proven that hormones are part of that provess, I think it's a good assumption.
Many males as they get older become more lovable and more pleasent to be around because of natural hormone declines.
There are a ton of health issues such as balding, coronary artery disease, prostate cancer, obstructive sleep apnea that are related to testosterone. Whether these clinics can find the correct cocktail to find a healthy balance isn't clear.
I'm neither pro nor con. I've seen people who have been positively and negatively impacted by steroid supplementation.
Studies[0] do support that eunuchs live longer than average men. You have also a study of the eunuchs of China's Emperor were living way longer than the men having the same lifestyle in the Forbidden City. I sadly can't find the study at the moment.
I wonder if this could be attributed to STDs, jealous lovers, and other risks a sexual active person might be exposed to compared to a sexually inactive person.
After my second orchiectomy related to cancer, I had to wait several weeks before I could see an endocrinologist about testosterone replacement, so in that time my bioavailable testosterone basically declined to nearly nothing. At one point I became so mellow that stuff that would normally bother me just got ignored. In some ways, it was a kind of a bliss-- I even considered not having testosterone replacement therapy.
That was short lived, however. My endocrinologist told me that I needed testosterone to continue being healthy -- to maintain bone strength, etc., so I ended up doing the TRT.
Very interesting, thanks. I'm curious though, did your doc bring your levels up to normal range or lower, and did you ever discuss this (keeping the levels lower than normal)?
My levels are still a little lower than normal but from a health and lifestyle perspective, I'm otherwise normal to the point I was before my operation.
Because of this, my doctor and I both agreed not have my dosage increased. From my perspective, I just didn't want to use more meds than I need to.
This is an excellent point that made me think. Perhaps you could examine through how the data is collected. You could hypothesise that the mean age of death is affected by non-testosterone increased aging such as murder by a jealous lover. These would pull down that average, where as the mode might show the more the 'typical' lifespan.
However you might also hypthesise that high levels of testosterone might cause you to engage in behaviors that would make make other people want to kill you! Also including other risky behaviors such as driving fast this could also be a direct effect of testosterone.
This does not explain the differences between man and woman.
Especially because infection chances are higher for women.
Assuming that males and females have the same number of average sexuall contacts.
The evidence for the longer life spans of eunuchs is actually pretty thin. Endocrinology textbooks regard it as unconvincing.
What is very clear though is the association in non-eunuchs of low T levels with a host of very harmful medical conditions including heart disease and osteoporosis.
Studies have consistently shown Low T is associated with these conditions and many more, but the evidence that T fixes them is unconvincing.
From my extensive review of these studies the problem is that the studies were too small and that those running the studies were too often, like too many people doing medical research, statistically illiterate.
I am happy that an expert without a bias reports about this. What you noted down came back into my mind immediately. These were the reported risks for professional athletes (back in the days when I decided to study physics instead of taking more of this junk and go pro).
There are also natural ways to keep your own T level high, like healthy food, enough sleep, everything that increases your muscle mass (weightlifting), not too much stress, staying lean, and of course the most enjoyable thing you can do with your partner ;o). All this desn't cost a 1000$ a month, its free and its good for you too. No enhanced risk for cancer, no bad wakeup after 20 years of taking it.
I don't think so. If testosterone is the culprit for increased risk of coronary artery disease, prostate cancer and sleep apnea, then doing things that naturally increase testosterone will increase risk also.
Don't succumb to the naturalistic fallacy. The body doesn't care where it gets its chemicals from.
Don't succumb to the reductionist fallacy. The body is complex, and more than the sum of its parts, including its hormones. It's entirely possible that the process that produces testosterone naturally also has other effects that mitigate the downside of testosterone.
Are you referring to the reduction fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause)? I looked around for a "reductionist fallacy" but couldn't find anything. Or are you instead saying that the reductionist view is wrong, and you like to call things you disagree with fallacies.
Another factor often forgotten is that HRT very poorly mimics the natural testosterone fluctuations in the body.
Testosterone fluctuates on a regular daily cycle, the reason for which is not known. Therefore it is not reproduced in treatment. The assumption is "we don't know why, so it mustn't be important".
Also the typical cycle of quarterly shots of T undecanoate or other similar regimes produce unphysiological fluctations from one injection to the next of over 110%. The patient goes from very high levels of test (close to 1000ug/dl) to very marginal levels (around 350).
Perhaps because of this, side effects from taking T supplements, such as hematocrit (excess red blood cell volume) are far greater with supplements than with those experiencing the same level of T from endogenous sources.
In which country is quarterly undecanoate typical? I know the US FDA hasn't approved it and here the standard esther and frequency of injection are cypionate and once per week, as far as I can tell.
It's perfectly reasonable to assume that the healthy living things that drive up T result in a longer lifespan, but I also don't see any conflict in thinking that it would make you live even longer still if not for that higher T.
> If testosterone is the culprit for increased risk of coronary artery disease, prostate cancer and sleep apnea, then doing things that naturally increase testosterone will increase risk also.
states that the result of higher T through natural processes is increased risk. It discounts the possibility that there is a net decreased risk due to the processes themselves decreasing risk to the point that it offsets the increased risk due to increased T.
It also overlooks the fact that when you're taking hormone supplements, it's both tempting and very easy to increase your levels above what you would get through natural means.
Empiricism (especially in its behavioralist variety) is premised on the ability to collect data and draw inductive conclusions from the data.
Epistemology is the study of how things can be known, what can be known, or what the limits to knowability are. How can we justify a belief based on a collection of observations?
davak began with the assertion that testosterone is linked to a number of health problems.
mironathetin notes that studies of the negative health implications of testosterone were often performed on professional athletes, who are going to have high baseline levels of testosterone naturally, and who have in all likelihood supplemented with large doses of testosterone at various points in their career/training. But, mironathetin notes that positive lifestyle changes can increase your body's natural production of testosterone without the need for supplementation.
golemotron is skeptical that naturally increasing testosterone will lead to different health implications than the studies indicated. They posit that there is a direct relationship between testosterone levels and health risks.
vannevar responds that because the body is a system, non-linear and feedback effects are much more likely to control the health effects of testosterone than a simple linear relationship between testosterone and health risk.
kingmanaz agrees and calls golemotron's position reductionist, which means that golemotron implicitly believes that one can understand a phenomenon by understanding and measuring each of its component parts (empiricism). An epistemological critique of golemotron's position would begin with an assertion that the whole is different from the sum of the parts, because the parts interact with each other, producing non-linear effects. One must understand the gestalt, not just the parts. Induction straight from data will often miss things that holism might not.
For an accessible critique of data and inductivism, you might pick up a copy of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's Fooled by Randomness. If you are interested in systemic non-linearity in political science, check out Robert Jervis's System Effects.
"The body doesn't care where it gets its chemicals from"
Sometimes it does, or maybe the supplements are not formulated quite right. E.g. I saw this at LessWrong: "turns out that fish oil pills suck, and you’d need to take approximately 9 times as much to have the same effect as eating fish, at which point they’d have dangerous blood thinning effects."
Link to the study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12848287
Even more concerning with supplements is what has been seen in New York. A significant percentage of herbal supplements sold contained large quantities of bulking material and in some cases that was all they contained.
Which means everyone out there taking supplements would likely be less healthy than people eating food in a balanced manner.
> Don't succumb to the naturalistic fallacy. The body doesn't care where it gets its chemicals from.
Even if that's true, our bodies are also great at offloading tasks. If you train your body to think that Testosterone (or anything else, for that matter) will come from external sources, it will stop producing it naturally, and will become worse at regulating it's own T levels.
This. Pro bodybuilders take a bunch of other stuff to regulate what their bodies regulated naturally, before they jacked up their levels with external stuff.
>I don't think so. If testosterone is the culprit for increased risk of coronary artery disease, prostate cancer and sleep apnea, then doing things that naturally increase testosterone will increase risk also.
True- BUT many of those things mentioned to be thought to improve Testosterone above are also known to reduce risks that are associated with Testosterone itself (heart disease, etc). So there may be some net balancing at play here?
>Don't succumb to the naturalistic fallacy. The body doesn't care where it gets its chemicals from.
This is true in the immediate, but consuming things your body synthesizes (ex. testosterone, cholesterol) will often reduce the rate at which your body synthesizes it... Your body is a complex system with many feedback loops.
The naturalistic fallacy is not the idea that "natural things are better". It is a criticism of deriving ethical principals from natural/physical facts.
The fact that they're necessary conditions for its production doesn't mean they're sufficient, though. It doesn't follow that you can just take a vitamin pill and get some sunlight and you'll naturally have high levels of testosterone.
The evidence is strongly suggestive that vitamin D supplementation has an effect on testosterone levels in men.
On a purely anecdotal, personal level, I had my free test checked some years back, before I started vitamin D supplementation. After supplementing with 10,000 IUs a day for around a year, I had it checked again and it was significantly higher (I don't have the numbers now, sorry).
10 000 IU a day?
Was that a typo? How did you got that target?
Just asking because I was considering 10 000 IU a week following my MDs advice (which is already higher than what it the normal off the shelf dose: 1000 IU a day).
Although safe, according to current search, there's no benefits from supplementing 10,000 UI daily (2,000-5,000 being recommended dose) — http://examine.com/supplements/Vitamin+D/
This doesn't prove that 10,000 is unnecessary, but there's no proof that it's necessary either :) (or is there?)
If you're deficient you'll have lower test levels. That doesn't mean you can megadose vitamin D to get high test levels, just that if you don't have adequate supply you'll have lower than normal levels.
"Women live longer than men" is interesting though.
Does that take into account the horrendous levels of male suicide? Statistically does this bump the average life expectancies down for men?
I'm definitely not disagreeing with you. It seems very plausible that human growth hormone could be linked to some cancers.
On a side note, is baldness actually a "health issue"? I mean I know mainstream media doesn't like to show balding men (40% over the age of 30. In TV and film not so much) but still, it's not actually life threatening.
That makes me wonder though, is the statistic that women live longer than men a first world, modern thing, or is it a historical trend? I'd think as little as a hundred years ago it might not have been as true, or am I off base?
According to this study referenced by Wikipedia [1] ("Why Men Die Younger: Causes of Mortality Differences by Sex" [2]):
>In her extensive review of the existing literature, Kalben concluded that the fact that women live longer than men was observed at least as far back as 1750 and that, with relatively equal treatment, today males in all parts of the world experience greater mortality than females.
A counterpoint to the point made on higher war related male mortality in the past is that mortality rates for females in child-bearing age groups have traditionally been higher than men of the same age, although this is no longer the case. [1]
WW1 (which was by far the most deadly war prior to WW2) killed around 10 million military personal[1]. Assume they were all male.
World population in 1918 was about 1.8B.
Breaking those 10 million deaths over the 4 years of WW1 gives around 1.4 deaths per 1000 people on earth.
Maternal mortality in England and Wales was around 40 deaths per 1000 births in the same period (England and Wales probably had as good a health system as anywhere on earth at this point, so most places were worse).
I'm not sure how to convert from deaths per birth to deaths per people. Women generally had multiple children.
By comparison, a place like Somalia currently has a death rate of around 10 per 1000 births[4].
I like famous baldy John Glenn's take on this:
"The good Lord only gave men so many hormones, and if others want to waste theirs on growing hair, that's up to them."
(I've heard several versions of the quote, so take the wording with a grain of salt.)
I just finished a run of pro hormones designed to increase T. See my twitter as proof. Within a week my shoulders got bigger and I dropped 6lbs. I had no other change in diet and swam (my workout) less because I'm developing swimmer's shoulder. The downside? I just couldn't take it any more. My mind raced about sex (complete with random boners) and raged about everything else. It was like being 18 again. I realize now why I did so many crazy stupid things when I was 18-24. I ended the supplements and can again focus on work without getting pissed off at everything. Although I must say random boners at 36 came as an oddly pleasant surprise, also my wife enjoyed the extra attention.
I had a look at your Twitter feed but I didn't see where you named the specific supplements you used. Can you list them here? Curious to see what they are. I've only ever found tongkat ali to produce a noticeable effect.
There are a ton of health issues such as balding, ..., obstructive sleep apnea
I thought balding is primarily genetic (men respond differently to some metabolite of testosterone) and obstructive sleep apnea only a serious issue for overweight people. Could you, or someone else, elaborate, maybe link a longer explanation?
Your predisposition is genetic, but like many things, it's not an on/off switch, and will land you in a gradient. Beyond that, there are lots of variables like how much of your T is albumin/SHBG bound, glucocorticoids, 5a-r, etc. Our endocrine and inflammatory responses are crazy complex.
That said, it's easily the leading causal agent, and most people will experience some form of hair loss in their life. Women experience loss at levels that might surprise you. Tellingly, the first defense for women is usually an antiandrogenic (anti-T) called Spironolactone.
I find it remarkable that people state and accept this in such matter-of-fact fashion, rather than seeing it as an issue. Pretty much all statistics that go the other way around are seen as a problem that needs fixing. (If you disagree, please provide a counter-example. I.e. something that shows higher disease or death rates among women that is discussed as a matter-of-fact without any controversy.)
When there is a difference in life expectancy, there is possibly an opportunity for improvement.
>>Many males as they get older become more lovable and more pleasent to be around because of natural hormone declines.
I resent that. I don't have low testosterone but I'd still say I was a loving father and husband and a generally good person. Being "manly" doesn't mean being a dick, quite the opposite.
He's simply talking about the side effect of reduced testosterone -- I think he's just trying to say men simply mellow out more when he says "more lovable".
I can speak to this with first hand experience. I had testicular cancer for a _second_ time in my 30s and while I was waiting several weeks for a chance to see an endocrinologist about replacing the testosterone my body could no longer produce, I noticed a big change in how I saw things.
Traffic, which in my city is a big stressor, no longer bothered me. People would cut me off, and I'd be like "oh well" and move on. Totally unbothered. A lot of "irritants" were no longer nearly as irritating. Now that I'm on testosterone replacement therapy, not so much the case any more. Not saying that I'm more irritable, it's just that I'm not nearly as mellow as I was in those weeks my testosterone levels dipped very low.
I think it is mildly amusing that you are saying being manly doesn't equal the organ that is literally the representation of masculinity (albeit often disguised, as in the Mars symbol).
> There are a ton of health issues such as balding, coronary artery disease, prostate cancer, obstructive sleep apnea that are related to testosterone.
So then, could it be true that getting your protein from soy based foods (e.g., tofu, tempeh, miso) presents an obstacle to being hit by these?
Replacing testosterone is just covering up for the fact that the cells that originally created it in the first place are slowly losing function due to aging. You want to keep those cells healthy if you want to live forever and that's what all the telomere hubbub is about.
This is utter rubbish. The natural age-related fall in T levels is only a few tenths of a percent per year. Healthy men tend to retain good T levels well into old age.
J Clin Endocrin Metab.doi:10.1210/jc.2012-3842 Longitudinal changes in testosterone over five years in community-dwelling men
(abstract at end)
However for many other reasons, T levels can dramatically fall. Some of these reasons in include medications, stress, various diseases.
A common example is men who are on cortico-steroid medication for inflammatory or auto-immune conditions. Cortisol reduces T levels, reduces its effectiveness, and operates in the opposite manner (ie catabolic versus anabolic).
Longitudinal changes in testosterone over five years
in community-dwelling men
Zumin Shi 1 *,MD, PhD, Andre B. Araujo 2 ,PhD, Sean Martin 1 ,
Peter O’Loughlin 3 ,MD, PhD, and Gary A. Wittert 1 ,MD, FRACP
1
Discipline of Medicine, University of Adelaide, S Australia; 2 Epidemiology, New England Research
Institutes, Inc., 9 Galen St, Watertown, MA 02472, United States; 3 Institute of Medical and Veterinary
Science Pathology, Adelaide, S Australia
Context. There are few population-based studies reporting longitudinal changes in total tes-
tosterone (T), luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), and sex hormone
binding globulin (SHBG) levels, and limited information on risk factors for their change.
Objective. The objective of the study was to examined 5-year changes in serum T, LH, FSH, and
SHBG levels among Australian men.
Design. A randomly selected, community based cohort of 1,588 men age 35 or older at recruit-
ment (mean age 54؎11y), with available data at two visits. Men on medications known to affect,
or with established pathology of, the hypothalamo-pituitary gonadal axis were excluded, leav-
ing 1,382 for analysis.
Results. Mean baseline and follow-up T levels were 16.2؎1.4nmol/L and 15.6؎1.4nmol/L; a
change of -0.13nmol/L/y. Annualized T changes were associated with being unmarried, obesity,
and smoking at baseline, but not diabetes, hypertension, or cardiovascular disease. T declined
in men with persistent depression, or who developed chronic disease, and increased in men who
were married, as compared to unmarried, at both time points. In the multivariate analysis,
smoking cessation, development of central (waist >100cm) or generalised (BMI > 30) obesity
resulted in T decreases of 0.36, 0.25, and 0.20nmol/L/y respectively. Quitting smoking, developing
obesity, and having persisting depression were inversely related to SHBG change.
Conclusions. An age-related decline in T levels is not inevitable but largely explained by smoking
behaviour and intercurrent changes in health status, particularly obesity and depression."
Obstructive sleep apnea increases cortisol levels which in turn decrease testosterone levels.
Source: I have obstructive sleep apnea and low testosterone, both of which are being treated finally, and my income rose by... triple? quadruple? ever since
I use a CPAP machine. But I don't like it that much, and complicating matters are allergies which stuff up my nose and make it less effective.
I'm looking into getting an operation at some point, but first I have to lose a few more pounds, which I am in the process of doing.
I CAN say that being ON cpap vs. OFF cpap is already a world of difference... as unsexy as that thing is.
See if you can get used to one. The latest ones have a "soft nasal pillow" thing that doesn't cover your entire nose (thank God), look into ResMed Swift FX and any later lines.
The available operations, unfortunately, do not have a 100% success rate... except for one, which is kind of drastic (and basically separates your jaw and moves the whole thing forward and requires like a 6 month recovery).
Thanks for posting about the ResMed Swift FX, I use a Mirage Activa, and kind of want to change so I don't have to shave my upper lip everyday. I might try the Swift FX out shortly, my current mask needs replacing.
I will also add for the other poster(s), properly treating sleep apnea is huge for overall health, and helps you feel a lot better everyday. Risk of stroke goes down and a lot of other big health impacts.
oh, dude. Swift FX all the way. I have a friend whose doctor didn't recommend it (probably recommended one like yours) and I practically forced him to push back on his doc and prescribe this one. It's quite a bit of comfort difference.
I'm actually trying to lose a bunch of weight so that I (hopefully) don't have to use a machine at all (although I have a very strong suspicion that I still had this issue back when I was very skinny, I was always a snorer and always had to take mid-afternoon naps) but mostly because I might want to get one of the operations, but they won't do one until I'm back at a "fit" weight.
My husband has medium-severity OSA and he went to a dentist who specializes in oral appliances for OSA. It's a million times better than CPAP, I cannot recommend it highly enough. Truly life-changing for OSA sufferers.
Thanks, doc. Though I agree most men would prefer to avoid it, I never really regarded my balding as a health issue before now (and especially not the one I'd lead with over cancer and heart disease).
He probably led with balding because it is the most common symptom. An 80% chance of going bald is more important to a lot of men than a 0.1% chance of heart disease.
As someone who went from 430 ng/dl to 1024 ng/dl naturally in about two years time (from age 23 to 25) the only thing I can say is don't jump to too many conclusions here.
- Your testosterone should be naturally high if you're below 30 (and male)
- If not, something is wrong and you need to fix it (start with blood work, check your diet, move)
- If you testosterone is in the normal ranges (blood work recommends between 600 and 1200, which is ridiculous), you'll feel good 80-90% of the time
- the 10-20% are probably psychological worries that you might have, start meditating
- I didn't get huge muscles or less body fat with more testosterone (huge myth that I thought would change for me)
- TRT is used heavily in pro-sports (look for UFC fighters and bodybuilders, they have the most experience, since a lot of them are doing it)
- TRT is a problem if you keep going for too long, because your body just doesn't produce testosterone as it used to, because it expects it from the outside, so below 35 or rather below 40 year olds: don't sign up for this too quickly.
- Cold showers/baths do work, but probably not for increasing your testosterone, still, do it from time to time :)
- Intermittent Fasting helps immensely with boosting your testosterone naturally.
I can provide more info or details/specifics if wanted/needed.
" I didn't get huge muscles or less body fat with more testosterone (huge myth that I thought would change for me)".
For me I almost always drop 20lbs on T and am much leaner than I am off or on clomid. On clomid I generally gain weight.
"- TRT is a problem if you keep going for too long, because your body just doesn't produce testosterone as it used to, because it expects it from the outside, so below 35 or rather below 40 year olds: don't sign up for this too quickly."
You can counteract this by taking ancillaries while on T. There are drugs that can restore the LH and FSH that get suppressed by testosterone but this is a valid concern. 100mg of T per week made me basically infertile but clomid brought me back to normal after a few weeks.
Diet and nutrition is very important if you want to keep optimum T levels. This forum post, not written by anyone in the medical field, has a pretty list of possible causes outside of supplementing with T. http://tnation.t-nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_trainin...
> For me I almost always drop 20lbs on T and am much leaner than I am off or on clomid. On clomid I generally gain weight.
Were you working out? Taking test isn't a panacea, you still need to be active to get significant body composition changes.
> You can counteract this by taking ancillaries while on T. There are drugs that can restore the LH and FSH that get suppressed by testosterone but this is a valid concern. 100mg of T per week made me basically infertile but clomid brought me back to normal after a few weeks.
The body's endocrine system is closed, it has a tight feedback loop. It sounds like you're referring to cycling on / off which is different than taking it continuously long term.
I am working with a fertility clinic but it's a standard lab test. You do your thing in a cup and they run it through some tests for count, motility, shape, etc. They want more than 15m sperm per ml. I had initial tests on 0, 2m, 5m. After treatment with 25mg of clomid for a few months I had 65m. My wife is also on letrozole and we tried IUI and still haven't got pregnant. It's more difficult than I thought it would be.
>- I didn't get huge muscles or less body fat with more testosterone (huge myth that I thought would change for me)
The many studies done on this subject show that testosterone makes a huge impact on muscle growth. Take this 10 week study for instance, http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101. The placebo group working out didn't experience nearly as much muscle gain as those taking testosterone did when they were not working out.
I can only answer with my personal experience here: During the intermittent fasting time (age 25), where I went from from 6xx to 1024ng/dl, I didn't gain significant amount of muscle, although I was working out with heavy (free) weights, 3x per week.
Did you also lose bodyfat at that time? Because it's hard to gain mass if you fast and are at a caloric deficit. That's what Leangains' bulking period is all about - eat 10-20% above maintenance so you do gain mass.
I did do it 6 days per week, although the 7th was naturally a fasting day because I went to bed later and got up later. So you could say almost every day. It gets very easy with time.
I do power lifting (non-competitive), and while I'm noticeably muscular and lift more than most people at my gym (no competitive lifters there, so doesn't say all that much), I'm not nearly at peak muscle volume nor do I look nearly as big as body builders much smaller than me - leanness makes a huge difference to perceived muscle size. Still, from an hour 2-4 times a week (2 times a week at the moment), with no steroids, these are some of the benefits I've noticed that makes the time investment well worth it for me:
- More attention from people I'd want to find me attractive (and from some I don't...). E.g. after I started lifting weights I got my first "wow" responses when people saw pictures of me. I also saw a massive difference in how people responded when I went out to bars/nightclubs, ranging from comments to people suddenly opting to slider their hand on my stomach or chest when they wanted to get past me instead of tapping me on the shoulder, as well as getting my butt pinched. For the first time I had a woman pick me up from a club.
- Being able to do a lot of movements that I'd struggle with before without thinking about it, and lifting heavy stuff, whether it is sliding that 40kg sever into rails above head height without having to get someone to help me keep it stable, or casually lifting my son up or playing with him in ways that I couldn't have if I didn't have the strength I do (he's nearly 6 - he likes to climb onto my back when I'm sitting on the sofa and stand on my shoulders and jump down; people think both of us are crazy and that he'll hurt me, but it feels nice).
- Far fewer situations makes me feel tired or makes my muscles feel fatigured. E.g. I sprint up stairs where I used to walk up slowly (in fact, when I first started exercising, my knees were so weak that it had started to become painful for me to walk up a single flight of stairs, at age 25, because I was sitting all day and used elevators both at work and at home).
- Feeling safe in a lot of situations I'd have been scared in before. Just a few weeks ago someone was assaulted near our house, and I felt safe enough to run out and confront the guy while we waited for police (I'm in the UK, guns are not a concern; I was aware of the risk of knives, though, and made sure to keep my distance until I felt sure)
I don't know about your first point, but definitely all the rest apply to me. I don't look like a body builder, but I definitely feel and look more solid at 43.
Basically for the cost of a few hours a week you can +1 or +2 you strength and consitution scores.
I also notice calming and de-stressing effects from working out as well. I work long hours normally but I would still much rather go to the gym and workout then go home and lie on the couch, as I'd go insane at the lab if I didn't.
Yeah, definitely, but there are drawbacks too. if you already have a woman by your side that you want to spend rest of your life with (and judging by your comment about son, you should be there) - extra ladies attention is annoying as hell. If you are actually mentally a grown up, this ain't an impressive result as it might seem :)
(Yes, been/am there, but to impress ladies you don't need to be creepy muscular type. Just a sporty one. Especially if you care about quality of your partner, not just quantity).
as for strength - I find it much better to have real world-usable one, combined with endurance. Examples you describe are OK, but better use cases for me are - being able to climb that mountain (or just hike it), full day of of-piste skiing (its damn hard on quads) etc. In many sports, too much muscles has negative impact. For high altitude, common knowledge is that gym type muscular types struggle more up there. For climbing same. But that's me.
It also brings freedom in eating - keeping huge amount of muscles while doing some 3-week effort on Aconcagua... not really possible.
>to impress ladies you don't need to be creepy muscular type. Just a sporty one.
This is setting up a false dichotomy. Women (and men) generally don't find an inflated look attractive.
The parent was talking more about strength, rather than muscle volume "I'm not nearly at peak muscle volume nor do I look nearly as big as body builders much smaller than me".
I'm 150 pounds, but I can lift 250. I look strong, sure, but I'm even stronger than I look. I do barbell training, which I'm guessing is what the original comment's author does too.
Women seem to find this lean strength primally attractive. It's true the female attention could cause a problem, but this kind of strength will also make you more attractive to your partner, which is hardly a bad thing.
Strength is versatile too. I can hike a mountain, ski, run, and do pretty much any physical activity you can name. Chronic pain disappeared too. I'm sure I'd lose a bit of strength on a three week trip, but who cares? You can always get that back.
I can't comment on high altitude performance, but it sounds like you're referring to the inflated types there too.
He has a son, probably also a wife, he probably has a steady job. And he goes to the gym 2-4 times a week, for 1 to 2 hours each time. Lifting weights is one of the best things he can do, exercise wise, to his health. A 3-week effort on Aconcagua? When do you think the parent does that, and how often? Does he take his 6 year old son with him? I don't really see any drawbacks from him being powerlifting strong.
I do agree that the extra attention can be unwanted and negative sometimes. For example, I've worked out the whole time I've dated my girlfriend of around ~5 years. However, at the start we were in high school and I was super lean due to MMA and rugby. Now, that I'm older and lifting has finely started to obtain noticeable results/ having lost a bit of baby-face my girlfriend started to become a bit jealous/insecure with herself. No matter what I said, she wouldn't believe that I found her more attractive then everyone else. She understands its irrational but its hard to fight insecurities. At this point she has started going to the gym and is a much harder worker then me there.
With regards to fitness, I definitely agree that I prefer a practical definition of fitness level. I may not look gigantic compared to some of the guys in the gym, but I can both lift a lot of weight, run fast sprints and long distance runs. Its that type of fitness that is great for rugby.
Testosterone has a benefit in endurance sports too. It can help with the growth of both slow-twitch (lean, endurance muscles) as well as fast-twitch (bulk, power muscles).
Even if you ignore the muscle building, it can help with recovery which leads to being able to recover from harder (endurance) training sessions.
That's often the reason that endurance cyclists use it (illegally of course).
Not to mention that a large percentage of females find muscle mass attractive when combined with a low body fat percentage in males. Indirectly this can lead to a boost in self-confidence levels in an individual, which has other positive spinoffs.
This. Times ten. I can't stress this enough to my non-lifting, skinny, geek friends who wish they were more attractive to women. I always tell them that the number one thing they can do is to begin lifting weights. They'll look healthier, more athletic, manlier, and their self-confidence will go up. Oh, actually weights are number two. Number one is to ditch the anti-girlfriend geek t-shirts with programmer's inside jokes (you know, the 'only 10 people who know binary' stuff) ;-)
Benefit to everyone, not just men, is running my back muscles occasionally at 200% percent safe capacity in general daily life, lead to punishing pain though I was still a teen at that time. Under advice and monitoring of the docs, following all the trainer recommendations, good form and trainer approved plans etc, I bulked up to the point that daily life occasionally peaked my back muscles at maybe 50% of safe capacity. You can guess the effect on my quality of life. Sometimes simply not feeling pain anymore is a gift from the gods. I suppose it was either lift, or start a life long opiate addiction.
On the other hand, I know most of the guys at the gym with me were just addictive personalities. Rather than wanting that lvl80 in WoW, or feeling the uncontrollable desire to get drunk, they wanted to bench 300. There certainly are worse grind addictions than lifting.
There are studies that show an inverse correlation between lean body mass and all cause mortality.
So the tongue-in-cheek 'strong people are harder to kill' has some actual data behind.
The problem is of course stats 101, correlation =/= causation. It could simply be that genetics or some other factor X increases lean mass and decreases all-cause mortality.
Pragmatically speaking though, quality of life in old age is a big deal that benefits from more lean mass.
Something others haven't mentioned is better quality of life as you age. One of the biggest causes of decrease in life quality in the elderly is reduced mobility. As you age your muscle mass decreases. By increasing your muscle mass when you're younger (and able) and maintaining physical activity you will have a much better life when you're older.
I also find that being strong(er) is more useful in my daily life than increased aerobic capability i.e. picking my nine year old daughter up and carrying her on my shoulders, moving heavy stuff in the garden etc.
The original poster had High T levels to start with. Maybe he didn't notice much of a change. I noticed a significant change going from <120ng/dl to 500ng/dl (still less than OP). I always drop weight when I am on T and get much leaner without changing anything else. Well it does make it easier to work out and diet but even without any changes it makes a big difference. Each time I go off and onto something else like clomiphene I gain 20-30lbs that is not lean at all.
I believe he said he got close to 1000ng/dl naturally, which I consider on the high side based on lab ranges. 400ng/dl is actually interpreted by some doctors as low depending on symptoms even though it's "in range".
Yeah most of what I read seems to indicate you should be on the high side in your early twenties but ultimately if you are at 400-500ng/dl and you don't have symptoms that is probably normal for that person.
2 - The dosage. Having a slight amount over the normal dosage won't cause a big gain in muscle mass. (600mg is a significant dosage, see Table 3 on the article for the sorological difference)
I'm not sure I'm understanding your point. Of course exercise changes muscle gains, but the surprising result was that the men who did not exercise had more muscle gains than those on the placebo who did exercise.
As for the dosage, yes, this study had really high dosage and reports no negative side effects for the 10 week period it was used.
Personally, I'm not very surprised by this (testosterone causing larger increases than exercise). There are plenty of examples in nature of relatively "lazy" animals with large amounts of muscle (e.g. gorillas, lions, etc).
Of course, we're comparing animals with large genetic differences to each other, but my point is that exercise does not seem to be the primary cause of muscle, in general. It just happens to be the main parameter we're in control of.
TRT is a problem if you keep going for too long, because your body just doesn't produce testosterone as it used to, because it expects it from the outside, so below 35 or rather below 40 year olds: don't sign up for this too quickly.
This is the reason why my doctor wouldn't prescribe it for me (38 year-old male, hoping to have a kid with my wife in the next year or two). When on testosterone supplements, the body can start to rely on the outside testosterone and gradually stops producing its own. He said it can result in a situation where you're essentially locked into taking testosterone forever.
Strangely, I didn't see that risk mentioned in the linked article. Did I simply miss it?
Can you link to any studies showing IF increased T levels substantially? I am genuinely curious. I have been considering doing IF (since I am half way there already) just for the longevity boosts and general body composition benefits.
How could there be a placebo for meditation? A placebo has to replicate the experience of going through the 'real' treatment being trialled. How could you create the experience of meditation without the subject actually meditating? The claim being tested is simply that the experience of meditation is beneficial, so I don't know what form a placebo could take.
It would be OK to do a trial where one group is instructed to meditate and the other is not given any instructions, and you check back with each group in a couple of weeks and ask them how they feel. If there's a difference in the meditation group, that proves there is value in meditating. Placebo doesn't come into it, because no one is claiming there is any benefit to meditation that doesn't come from simply experiencing it.
For comparison, I once heard of a way of testing acupuncture against a placebo – someone invented needles that look and feel the same but don't actually penetrate the skin. So they could compare the reported benefits of 'fake acupuncture' with real acupuncture, and see if there's any health benefit to the physical intervention, or if it's all just theatre. And if it is all just theatre, that's OK – it doesn't negate the health benefits of acupuncture, it just helps us understand that it's all about the experience of having someone slowly and dramatically stick pins in you, which is interesting. It's not the same as saying that acupuncture doesn't work.
There are a mountain of studies that have been done on meditation. Among those that are controlled, there a few different strategies.
The best strategy is an "active control" group which receives some combination of education, attention from instructors, group therapy and the like which is matched with the meditation group for time and attention. This has subsets of "specific active control" in which the control is a known procedure (like exercise or progressive muscle relaxation) or "non-specific active control" in which the control procedure is not a known effective procedure and so is expected not to have any effect.
The other main control group used is a "wait list" or "usual care" control, in which the participants don't receive any treatment or only receive the treatment you would usually get for the condition under study, which isn't matched with the meditation group for time and attention.
A control group that does not do anything and does not receive anything is not using a placebo.
A placebo is very specifically a substitute for whatever you want to measure the effect of.
You can have both a control group and a group using a placebo and get substantially different results for them, and that's exactly why placebos are used: People report substantial effects from sugar pills and the like when they believe there should be an effect.
Your source does not support your claim that research has not shown that meditation beats a placebo.
Apart from pointing out that "meditation" is a wide ranging concept that includes a vast number of different, often contradictory, practices, and that a lot of the research is of poor quality (given the number of "research" papers coming out of TM affiliated sources alone - see blow -, that should not be a surprise), it relates a claim in a report from 2007 that amongst others claim "Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence". Without looking at what was covered in the papers that report looked at, this is not enough to support your claim.
The closest the article comes to dealing with the issue of placebo explicitly, is in referring to another article focusing on TM. TM is a cult-like money-grabbing business promoting one very specific form of meditation, and hardly representative of all forms of meditation practices. They're also one of the groups doing a lot of work to assist in churning out pseudo-science research papers to support their business, and as such did a lot to damage the overall quality of meditation research.
It might be possible to do a double-blind study on meditation, but you would have to be incredibly strict about the procedure for achieving a meditative state, and you would have to select people who know nothing about "meditation" as a practice both to administer bouts of meditation and to participate in the study. Then your part in the study would be to teach the controls the "placebo" practice and to teach the non-controls the strictly-defined meditative practice, and to convince all of the participants that they're meditating either way.
Unless you're testing Zen meditation in which case the placebo group and the real group may not (should not?) be distinguishable from one another.
It's often taught as "just sitting" so by the time you get the control group to sit down, shut up and hold still for half an hour every day they're doing the practice. Heck, they may be doing it better than the Zen meditators because they won't have anything extra attached to it at all :)
However, study of emotional response can be part of the scientific process. In fact, that's the basis of the advertising industry.
If I have tested meditation and found it predictably alters my moods (and similar examinations have been done for friends/family), is it fair to claim that is not science?
It is not science, but in the context of the original "start meditating" quip on this thread, it is what matters: If it works, it solves the original problem, whether or not it works because o the placebo effect or something else.
Research has not shown that meditation beats a placebo
Isn't that sort of irrelevant here? I think the OP's point is that it helps, not that it helps better than something else (wahtever that may be, even a placebo)?
A placebo often helps substantially. That is why we tend to test with a placebo rather than nothing at all, in order to measure the effect of what we want to test rather than the ability of our mind to influence our body.
And the effect is not merely psychological. Often placebo produces measurable responses.
Still though, the idea behind placebos is that they 're the most convenient thing to do compared to the alternative. It doesn't justify the suggestion to "meditate to increase T" more than "take a sugar pill to increase T"
The idea of placebos is to attempt to introduce a "noise floor" of sorts that lets you get an idea for how much of the measured effect is actually caused by what is being measured.
Generally you want a placebo that makes the test subject unable to tell which is the placebo. That will not be the case with just handing people a sugar pill and being honest about what it is. To have an effect of a sugar pill in such a setting you would have to tell people there is a chance the pill is some form of medication intended to produce similar effects.
The problem with that is that if the effects of meditation are just placebo, what you end up measuring is the strength of peoples beliefs about the efficacy of meditation vs. the efficacy of drugs - you're not comparing like with like, and can't rule out additive effects of combining the two (whether or not they're both caused by the placebo effect) either.
And even if it is all placebo, that does not mean it may not be justified to suggest to meditate. In fact, it is a long standing debate of medical ethics whether - and if so when - it might sometimes be justified to utilize placebos as medical treatment, because it can often have real, measurable physical effects on peoples health.
The issue with that is that you'd be lying to a patient, and it might undermine peoples trust in the medical profession. That is not an issue with an off the cuff suggestion to people to meditate from someone not claiming to be a doctor.
Also, I haven't seen anyone here suggest meditating to increase T, but giving an off the cuff remark suggesting meditating to address "psychological worries" people might have 10-20% of the time. Serious psychological issues needs professional treatment, but I took his comment, given the context, the term "worries", and the implication they'd only be there 10-20% of the time to mean general stress and light performance anxieties, in which case meditation either works for you or it doesn't.
If it does, it does not matter if it works because of the placebo effect or not. If it doesn't, then no harm done and you can consider TRT.
The point of his comment seemed to be that most people do not need TRT, but fall in the normal range and should consider other factors first. I'm saying that as someone who will seriously consider TRT when I'm older (I'm turning 40 this year)
Wordplay? If it helps just as much (which technically is also 'not more'), it could still help since a placebo might help. Hell, even if it would help 'less' than a placebo it might still be helping since I didn't quantify exactly how much :P
Yeah again, if you only want to go after research, you might run in circles. Meditation has helped me and a lot of people I know, a lot. Whether it will work for you in your circumstances is a different question. But then: The study won't be much help, because you might have different variables in your life.
The question is not if Placebo is an efficient method. We know for sure that it is. The question is if training and practicing meditation is better than doing nothing.
If you don't beat the placebo, it could mean that there's nothing to train and practice.
It is meaningless to speculate on this without a concrete paper doing a concrete comparison of a specific concrete form of meditation vs. a concrete form of placebo, and without knowing whether or not the placebo was compared to a control group doing nothing.
You're right, it could mean there's nothing to train and practice. It also could mean there'd be a substantial placebo effect and a big gap from "doing nothing" to either the placebo or meditation, in which case, even if meditation were to turn out to be 100% placebo effect it would still be worthwhile to train and practice unless said researchers were to come up with a placebo that works just as well with less time spent.
What I know is that meditation has substantial subjective benefits for me. I don't care if that's 100% placebo effect and/or if I'm just tricking myself in other ways.
Because you know what? It doesn't matter.
Meditation makes me feel relaxed. It makes me feel as if I get insights into my mind and thought processes. It makes me feel like I have more energy. It make me feel more in control and in touch of my emotions and the world in general.
No matter the actual biochemical and psychological reasons for those feelings, they're still just as worthwhile outcomes to me.
That's easy to lose sight of.
Beating a placebo is an important measure when looking at drugs, because they pretty much all have potential risks and downsides (including the downside of cost). Showing provable effects is also important if considering prescribing meditation practice for psychological disorders, for example, because it could mean avoiding other treatment.
It is also worthwhile in order to learn more about the processes involved, and see what effects can be proven.
But it is largely uninteresting when considering casual meditation for someone who expects only subjective effects on mental state. In that case, what matters is mainly whether the perceived effects are sufficiently positive for someone to find it worthwhile to continue.
If it's all a trick of the mind, then fine. It still feels great.
Great answer, and I agree with you. As a practicer it doesn't really matters as long as you get your dose of well-beingness.
I was more thinking of all the "train yourself to meditate" thing which can end with more frustration than relaxation for some, relatively of the scientific measure of this training (which is imperfect as we just saw).
On a side-note, I practice relaxation on the evening and I don't see such huge effects on my mind but "only" a greater sleep (which is already great). Could you share some of your practices ?
I only practice mindfulness meditation with varying frequency, sitting anything from about 5 minutes to 30 minutes, rarely longer.
Typically mindfulness meditation starts with basic breath meditation: Sit in a stable, comfortable position, focus on your breath and notice it going in and out. If thoughts appear, try to keep focus on the breath but don't force the thoughts away, just try to let them dissipate without continuing them.
The big difference for me with unstructured relaxation was that it was hard at first to focus on the breath. My mind produced all kinds of objections to sitting there and paying attention.
Sitting for 5 minutes like that caused my mind to practically rebel. Then I went through a period with dream-like states (one of the most memorable effects, which I've only had a few times, was like seeing a dream unfold around me, but while dreams always feel "fuzzy" and unclear for me this was as if I was standing in the middle of a theatre set, seeing everything clearly, yet knowing it was not real).
Then I had a period of what is something referred to as "monkey mind" - all kinds of distractions piled on. Then I went through a period where I would suddenly get an intensely strong belief that I'd forgotten to set my alarm and was going to be late. I knew I'd set my alarm, but the feeling would become unbearable until I looked at my (set) alarm. I had to solve that by triple check the alarm before I started, and telling myself it was set, and telling myself it didn't matter because I had lots of time free after it was set to go off, and then it stopped happening (and I don't triple check my alarm any more).
These distractions were not constant, and I could sit longer and longer before they'd set in. After a few weeks of daily practice they were weakened enough that I started feeling I was getting somewhere.
Once I'd gotten past those distractions, it changed nature very strongly. Now I slowly sink into more and more relaxed states depending on how long I sit. At about 20 minutes I will generally start feeling as if I am noticing the pulsing of blood in my eye lids and pressure on my eyes (I have no idea if those are real physical sensations or not - doesn't matter to me) and see patterns similar to what you might see if you squeeze your eyes firmly shut and feel a sense of blissful calm that makes it tempting to just stay like that.
If I sit longer and focus, those feelings dissipates as I get calmer and more concentrated and I can best describe it as if my mind is "emptying" and clearing of whatever feelings the sense of bliss brought, and it feels more steady and crisp. It's very hard to relate the sensations of it with words.
If I sit to the "bliss" state or past, I will feel an immense feeling of calm once I finish that will often last for hours afterwards.
I'd recommend the frequently recommended Mindfulness in Plain English (available for free online, or from Amazon etc.) or Introduction to Mindfulness (free podcasts) by Gil Fronsdal. Both are no-nonsense secular introductions and very simple, basic practice to try out and see if you like the effects.
If someone is stressed (from work, relationships, etc) we accept that it can and does have negative effects on our physical being. I would have thought that meditation would easily fall into the category of doing the opposite. Seems pretty obvious to me.
"Clinicians should be aware that meditation programs can result in small to moderate reductions of multiple negative dimensions of psychological stress. Thus, clinicians should be prepared to talk with their patients about the role that a meditation program could have in addressing psychological stress. Stronger study designs are needed to determine the effects of meditation programs in improving the positive dimensions of mental health and stress-related behavior."
This directly contradicts the GP's claim that meditation is ineffective, and supports the OP's claim that meditation is a good way to deal with "psychological worries".
More information to satisfy the complaints of my critics regarding the date, definitions, forms of meditation, etc:
A systematic study on the efficacy of various forms of meditation programs (inc mantra, transcendental, and mindfulness meditation), commissioned by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, was published in 2014.[67] After a review of 17,801 citations, the study based its conclusions on 41 randomized controlled trials with an active control, involving 2,993 participants.
The assessment found "no effect or insufficient evidence of any effect of meditation programs on positive mood, attention, substance use, eating habits, sleep, and weight."
Amazingly, you have cherry-picked the part of your source that agrees with you.
This is the full quote, including the bits you left you:
"Mindfulness meditation programs had moderate evidence of improved anxiety... depression... and pain... and low evidence of improved stress/distress and mental health–related quality of life. We found low evidence of no effect or insufficient evidence of any effect of meditation programs on positive mood, attention, substance use, eating habits, sleep, and weight."
The same source goes on to conclude,
"Clinicians should be aware that meditation programs can result in small to moderate reductions of multiple negative dimensions of psychological stress"
You should be aware that the "CSM Mantra" (?) and "TM" meditation are very fringe forms. When most people say "start meditating" they're generally not referring to those. I personally consider TM to be neutral-to-harmful and I've never heard of this CSM Mantra until just now.
Mindfulness meditation, which is the only form tied to the 2,500 years of Buddhist meditation tradition, did ok.
Interesting is the graph of the results where you see the mindfulness meditation fared better than the "mantra" meditations pretty much across the board (even though most of it wasn't statistically significant.)
take a look at the book "4 Hour Body" by Tim Ferriss, there in the chapter Improving Sex, sub-chapter: "Sex Machine I: Adventures in Tripling Testosterone"
I think in there the author, Tim Ferriss aged 34(?), mentions how he went from 2xx to 6xx in a very short amount of time, mainly by changing his nutrition.
Or it could be a coincidence since the number of test subjects was 1.
I like how the examine.com article sums it up:
> Although 'natural' (non-supplemental) methods of increasing testosterone are pretty weak and unlikely to build muscle mass, they tend to be related to pro-sexual effects (particularly libido) and exerting dominance
I'm 28 now and I have hypogonadisn and have experience using T and other options like clomid. My total T was <120nd/dl. The lab range for this is usually 300-1000ng/dl. I was severely depressed. Moody and very angry. I experience "roid rage" in the opposite of what most people think. When my T is low I am a completely different, awful person. I literally thought I was going to kill myself.
I finally went to the doc. Got the blood work and was put ona low dosage of Testosterone. Enough to get me to the 500ng/dl range. My quality of life improved dramatically and I was the happy and productive person I used to be. I felt like I did in my early 20s instead of like I was approaching 50. Now I have to take clomiphene because the T kills my fertility. Clomid gets my hormones to the 500ng/dl range but I do not feel the same. My brain is "foggy". I'm not as sharp as I was. I'm up and down with my mood. On a higher dosage of clomid I even had experience where my brain just didn't make sane decisions. I rammed a car one time in traffic. I ran over my mailbox backing out of my garage, even though I did this thousands of times before.
Testosterone can be a miracle for some people. It saddens me that it get such a bad rep for being used/abused by athletes.
If anyone's ever watched the documentary "Bigger, Stronger, Faster*" they raise some interesting points questioning why steroids are demonized. Professional musicians take beta-blockers, athletes get laser eye surgery and take cortisone and opiate shots before/during competition, programmers take Adderall and Modafinil, male porn stars shot their penises full of drugs to stay erect for hours on end, etc. etc. Plenty of examples of professionals "cheating" without widespread media outcry and pearl-clutching about the sanctity of the profession.
Furthermore, taking steroids won't improve your muscle-memory, proprioception, agility, sports IQ, etc... In my opinion they should be allowed in sports in some limited cases, such as recovering from an injury, where it would be administered in a controlled environment by a licensed doctor to accelerate recovery. They're a very useful drug if used properly.
Unfortunately the problem is that they work too well. Every time they are legalized in a limited capacity they are abused in professional sports.
The effect is massively amplified if you give women drugs because they don't have testosterone levels like men do. Those records that were set in the 70's pre-testing will likely never be broken.
The issue is that if it is legal, there is a huge incentive to take it to an abusive point especially in a celebrity economy like what exists is professional sports.
In some sports, professional athletes are almost constantly injured. Off the top of my head I can give you MMA (UFC) and american football as examples but I'm sure there are many others.
Healthy sports end where competitive sport begins.[1]
Right now we have an arms race that barely keeps it at bay. It's not an ideal solution but I think its better than athletes fully abusing their bodies with massive amounts of drugs like they did back in the East German Olympic days.
For non-professional athletes, I agree with you. It should not be demonized to the extent it is.
The issue that athletes abuse the drugs seems like a problem the athletic association/league/body should prevent instead of classifying anabolic steroids as schedule III drug.
I do agree that it should be up to the professionals, but consider amateurs moving into professional sports.
If college football players can't take steroids, they will get __destroyed__ in the NFL. If college players can take steroids, then highschool players will stand no chance at moving up. Likewise, if you make it fine for high school players, middle school gets punished, etc.
I don't doubt that professionals could successfully regulate it and do it (mostly) responsibly. I have a severe lack of faith in desperate parents living vicariously through their kids in little league games.
I think you are being a bit generous in assuming that a steroid ban in professional sports means that they are not used. In practice, it means that they must use them clandestinely, but I wouldn't be surprised if a future analysis reveals most of our top athletes of today are using PEDs. Additionally, highschool athletes are generally untested, meaning that highschool is their one opportunity to get ahead by whatever means necessary before attempting to carry that advantage forward with more conservative approaches in college and professional sports.
I got measured for low T. My urologist refused to approve TRT because according to him, there is no real "correct level" of testosterone, and that measurement is highly variable depending on the time of day. He kept telling me testosterone is not an antidepressant. Found another urologist who disagreed and told me to go through dhtcream.com. Still depressed, but I am growing more facial hair.
T can be part of depression but not the entire issue. I also found out a had sleep apnea which impacted my ability to think, my depression level, energy levels, etc. Normally if I am on T shots I am completely fine. If not I am up and down emotionally. If a doc isn't doing what you want you fire them, like you did, and find another.
I went through a major testosterone-related health scare when I was 31 (4 years ago). I was in the midst of launching a startup. Stressed out, financially strained, hardly sleeping, hardly exercising, drinking too much. I thought I was eating right but turns out I wasn't. I began feeling like an empty shell of my former self. And yes, it totally affected my sex drive. Went to doc and had blood work done. My test levels were about 200, which would be acceptable had I been 70 years old. I was terrified.
After ruling things out, the doc prescribed me Androgel, a gel-based test delivery system. You rub it on your shoulders and it absorbs in. But you have to be careful to not let it get on other people. I had a baby girl on the way and sat there thinking that I never want to worry about touching my wife or daughter. Plus this wasn't a temporary treatment. You are a slave to it, and pay about $10/day for it. Oh, and it turns out people, especially younger men, have a higher chance of stroke on that stuff. That's no life, so I decided to try and cure it naturally.
And I did. My testosterone is normal now (forget the exact number). And I feel great. It was simple. First, I started strength training. Weights, especially compound moves like squats, will build test levels. And helps with sleep. Check out stronglifts.com if you want a good starting point.
Second I fixed my diet. Check out the book The Perfect Health Diet. I learned I was not eating enough good fat. I started using more olive oil, coconut, ghee (butter), and quality rumen meat. It made a huge difference.
Finally I cut out the stress. The startup ended up not succeeding but that had nothing to do with me deciding to ease up. I'm happy I did and learned a valuable lesson that health comes first.
So there's my story. If you are going to supplement, be prepared for a long bumpy ride. And remember you can boost it naturally.
Second this. I was prescribed androgel and used it briefly. Another doctor explained the various issues associated with it and and I got off of it immediately. Now I'm working out and eating healthy, and my levels are naturally ~2x higher than they were.
Studies have shown that creams are pretty terrible. Especially if you happen to have thyroid problems. They seem to work at first and then fade out for a lot of people. Shots just simply work and are cheaper.
I'm on TRT for life as a result of having testicular cancer twice.
There are pros and cons to the various types of testosterone you could take. I'm using Androgel.
From what I remember when researching my options in 2007 (things have possibly changed a lot since then):
Monthly shots -- the thing with shots is that your levels go up right after you get your shot and slowly taper off. It's possible that your moods are a little off at the beginning and then you mellow out again by the time you need your next shot. Your options are to have a doctor do it for you or self-administer. Having developed an aversion to needles after my first bout of cancer, I kinda ruled this out quickly, even though it probably is cheap and effective.
Pills - easy but apparently not very good for your liver long term
Gel/Cream -- you have to worry about keeping your hands clean and physical contact, but it maintains your levels consistently since you're putting it on daily. It's admittedly inconvenient but works for me.
I took weekly shots at 100mg. Cypionate is usually prescribed in the US. Enthate everywhere else. Monthly is way too long. Most doctors recommend every two weeks. However, there was a new report (http://rd.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-72185-4_11) that shows the half life (http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/articles/article-steroid-half-li...) of which they thought was closer to 12 days is actually something like 8. So at the end of the second week you're likely to start feel physical effects again (I know I do). Let me see if I can find it.
What about pellets/implants? Aren't they supposed to release more consistently over a longer period?
Please excuse my ignorance on this, I am in Canada, have been blessed with naturally high T levels, and have no experience with anti-aging clinics, but I'm fascinated by the subject.
Can you provide some references? I've been prescribed T and get it via a compounding pharmacy in liposome cream form, so now I'm curious if it's actually worth it.
>I was just at the gym watching the 30-year-olds at the pull-up bar building muscles in three weeks. And I’m at the pull up bar and nothing’s happening
While many of you are thinking that he's making excuses (he might be) or that the other guys worked long and hard to build muscle, I can relate: I've been lifting weights three times a week for the last four years. I still look average, and yes I'm eating and exercising properly.
I believe it might be something to do with testosterone. I was always skinny, high body fat and frail. I worked super hard to even start exercising, eventually I was able to get into routine but still now I feel like I should look much better after all this time.
What's the deal with testosterone in UK? I'm 27, is it likely that I can get it? Are there home test kits I can get (reliable ones)? Do testosterone boosters actually work (I can't verify without testing)?
Are you sure you're eating enough? Have your lifts been going up?
Before searching out testosterone I would try a beginners lifting program (meaning linear programming, where your lifts go up every workout) and eating a lot (3000-4000kCal a day). Starting Strength (my recommendation), Stronglifts and Ice Cream Fitness (ICF) are 3 popular ones.
I did Starting Strength with a gallon of milk a day (6000 Calories). I was able to improve my lifts (slowly) but I looked horrible (so much fat around abdomen I looked pregnant). Switched to hypertrophy with 2000-3000 Calories whilst cutting/maintaining. I researched this well and tried really hard so I'm not jumping to conclusions here.
> I've been lifting weights three times a week for the last four years
Beware of doing strength-training of the same muscle group more than once a week (except for legs, up to a limit).
Also, sorry, but "Gallon of milk a day" is broscience.
Go to a non-fad sports doctor to get a good diet matching your training plan and goals (both micro and macrocycles). Lots of greens and healthy protein (i.e. not cow's except for whey protein powder). No sugars (including lactose), like ever. No refined food (unless you are into ultramarathon or similar). Time your foods.
A very common mistake is getting confused of what you should do while training and while competing. Yes, competing it makes sense to get as much carbs as possible to improve performance. But when training it's better to be starving and forcing your body to burn fat. Guys at the gym drinking Gatorade = losers. High glucose blocks growth hormone secretion!
This guy advised some winning olympic british teams of 2012.
Also, we have a different genetic composition. Compare your gains to yourself. Else it's like getting depressed because you can't ball like the 7ft guys at the NBA.
>Beware of doing strength-training of the same muscle group more than once a week
This is completely false, if you're a beginner you can absolutely work the same muscle group within the same week and still get results. As you become a more advanced lifter, of course, this becomes less true.
>"Gallon of milk a day" is broscience
What do you mean? Are you saying that milk isn't a good choice if your goal is to get a high number of calories with a large proportion of them coming from protein? Calling this broscience just doesn't make sense.
Looking at your logs, what do the big exercise #s look like from day 1 to now? Row, DL, Squat, Bench, OH Press
You certainly may have some medical condition, but every person who has come to me with a similar story has not realized they are simply missing something. I was even you at one point until I finally figured out how to lift and how to eat.
When was the last time you changed your workout routine? If you do the same thing for a long time it's easy to get stuck in a rut with minimal / no gains. Switch up the exercises, volume, and intensity if you haven't already.
I bulked and cut as many recommend. During the bulk phase I put on about 10kg, after which I lowered my calorie intake to try to reduce my body fat and look better (I was skinny-fat). I worked out with some friends, similar age, and they were able to build muscle and increase their lifts at a much higher rate than I could.
The number one thing you need to do is logging. Without measurements it very hard to know what's going on. You might very well go to the doctor and check blood levels, intolerance and the like. But that is mostly a one time thing. You need to be constantly logging all your workouts and diet and then test yourself every 1-6 months (different for different tests). You'll at least want body measurements, bmi (be accurate, but not to often), aerobic performance, strength performance.
Get some screening, then go to someone who knows their thing, get homework, do homework for a couple of months, come back and you'll be in a very good position for improvement or at least arguing your case.
>I've been lifting weights three times a week for the last four years. I still look average, and yes I'm eating and exercising properly.
People always says this. They always eat well and recover properly, but they just can't make any gains. Everyone else can, but they can't and instead of looking at the simplest explanation, they do hurdles to convince themselves they have low test and that's why they're not perfect. Have you been going to a trainer? A nutritionist? Might want to check out other alternatives before taking synthetic hormones. And get off /fit/. This seems like the kind of genius idea that someone on /fit/ came up with.
I just made a post saying I didn't jump to conclusions, it was only after years of training that I even considered the possibility that something was wrong with me. Never browsed /fit/ not sure what you're trying to say... I won't try to convince you -- I'm sure there are many that like to make excuses so you think I fall under that category too.
Transwoman here, and I have some personal experience in this regard. I've been on T blockers for about 2 years, and I have seen significant mood, hair, and skin improvements, not to mention a lower resting heart rate. My chances of getting prostate cancer have been reduced to basically nil, which is pretty great. A significant portion of the benefits are from the estrogen, but just reducing bioavailable T does make a big difference in skin, mood, and hair.
On the flipside, a close friend who is a transman (meaning he is on T), and when he went on it, he became very aggressive and prone to angry outburts, developed significant acne, and a very significant increase in body hair.
So... ya know, just be careful so you don't end up having crazy moodswings and back-ne
I'm sure whoever is prescribing you estrogen has told you that synthetic estrogen is incredibly hard on the liver. The reduced risk of you getting prostate cancer is as far as I understand it FAR outweighed by the likelihood that at some point you will have liver issues to deal with. Also, I am on TRT and this is somewhat anecdotal (although many 'bodybuilder' types that use testosterone support this) I have noticed the effects on skin mood and hair are stongly related to estrogen, prolactin, and progesterone levels (meaning they should be in the normal range for male or female depending on what your goal is wrt testosterone). I also agree with the commenter somewhere on here that mentioned he feels the 'roid-rage' when he is low. Also anecdotal but generally agreed upon by the community is that the mood swings come from actual 'swings' of testosterone (and bad moods are when you are low, they should call it roid-affection instead). FDA approved esthers in the US (for injection) do not allow precise daily control to mimic the natural cycle, so there can be some very minor mood changes throughout the week (my dr is open minded and lets me pin the cypionate twice weekly) but I would honestly suggest that your friend had some placebo effect goin on there. As for his 'back-ne', I would check my prolactin levels if I had bad acne on my back (sometimes I do get it, and the levels are always slightly elevated... what to do about it is another story).
Anyway, all due respect of course and I have much admiration of anyone who goes through such great lengths to 'be themselves' but please do make sure you are educated on the risks and minimizing them (I remember hearing it mentioned that the patches of estrogen are much easier on the liver than injections but that was from a tv show I think so take it with a grain of salt) I do believe that you are correct in saying >A significant portion of the benefits are from the estrogen, I just don't think you realize how much. As someone who lost a fair portion of my natural production almost instantly I can say with confidence that even if one were considering to transition to the fairer sex, losing your test without boosting the estrogen has pretty much NO positives except perhaps the reduced prostate cancer risk.
Read about it 15 years ago in a Belgian magazine. A Belgian doctor was claiming the same.
To be quite honest I use it already for 15 years and indeed it changes you. It helps me to be in "sana in corpore sano". Let's hope the negative health impacts on long term are not to bet so my body stays sano :)
Isn't that rather a psychological issue? After all, aging is still quite unavoidable. Would postponing the unavoidable end really make you less mortified?
feels guilty
Sort of the same remark as above. Moreover, it is (afaik) not proven taking any kind of drug will counter or reverse the damage done by sitting all day - so taking drugs anyway would just act as a placebo: it doesn't really help with the actual problem, but you wouldn't feel guilty because you would think it does help. Which is maybe worse than your current situation as you would be less tempted to find a more suitable solution. Which is hard to figure out without knowing your particular situation, but would typically include things such as less continuous sitting, more breaks, more moving around.
> Isn't that rather a psychological issue? After all, aging is still quite unavoidable. Would postponing the unavoidable end really make you less mortified?
Well, it was merely a way of saying that I worry about aging. No one is questioning the "unavoidable end", really - I am just interested in the idea of aging without losing too much life "quality".
> Sort of the same remark as above. Moreover, it is (afaik) not proven taking any kind of drug will counter or reverse the damage done by sitting all day - so taking drugs anyway would just act as a placebo: it doesn't really help with the actual problem, but you wouldn't feel guilty because you would think it does help. Which is maybe worse than your current situation as you would be less tempted to find a more suitable solution. Which is hard to figure out without knowing your particular situation, but would typically include things such as less continuous sitting, more breaks, more moving around.
As above, please, don't take this as a "personal drama". I'm not really looking for any miracle drug. I get up hourly to stretch and drink water. I workout 4 times a week and do my best to keep nutrition in order. As I said above, I'm just curious; the user "toadi" has an experience which seems interesting, which is (only) what I asked for.
Just a quick remark, this is not strictly true: "would just act as a placebo: it doesn't really help with the actual problem". A placebo can really help with "actual" problems.
> aging is still quite unavoidable. Would postponing
> the unavoidable end really make you less mortified?
Yes, I want to postpone the unavoidable. Death is unavoidable, I'm trying to postpone it. I will probably be in a wheel chair like my father eventually, yes I want to postpone that as long as possible so I can walk around in nature and enjoy it. If my hearing starts to fail, I will get hearing aids to try to postpone deafness as long as possible. (My elderly mother wears hearing aids.) I don't care if deafness is inevitable, I will fight for every extra day of hearing birds chirping and the hearing the ocean waves.
What am I missing? Isn't everybody just like me? SOME parts of aging are Ok, but most of them are super bad - when your bones get thin due to Osteoporosis if you fall you might break a bone, which in turn might end your life. Nobody wants to get Osteoporosis sooner, we are all trying to postpone it as long as possible, right?
I don't think more testosterone will help if you are sitting all day. You'd have to make up for all that sitting time with gym time otherwise even low dose testosterone will do nothing but help you gain hair and fat (well and some muscle even if you are sitting but it will probably be negligible). When I first got on testosterone I realized why most males always envied my ability to eat whatever I want without putting on body fat. That changed immediately, within a week I had to watch what I ate bc I noticed some fat building on my lower abdomen.
Same age... this thread is really making me feel old. Generally I still feel like I'm just getting out here and just getting started still in terms of career, life, etc. I really hope it's not all downhill from 30!
Related to the main subject, I don't think my levels have ever been low, but I've always been surprised at how quickly I lose muscle mass when I'm not working out. That might be more related to protein intake and other genetic factors though, since I've always been pretty lean.
Nah, you can start gym/intense excercise anytime, I started about... 31? Major imporovement in about everything, including sex (you don't get tired so easily for example). There is no "too late" age.
As for losing muscles - our bodies run in "least necessary amount needed" mode, since muscles are nutritient-hungry to sustain if not needed. You need to constantly push them to even sustain your level of strength/endurance. If I stop all my activities for 2 weeks, you feel horribly weak when coming back. Marathon runner could write books about it :)
This article seems pretty imbalanced. Modifying your natural endocrine levels (and the decline of testosterone with age in men is natural) can have significant unanticipated long-term effects (witness the problem with estrogen replacement therapy in women).
A quick Google Scholar search pops up paper with titles like "Serum testosterone is associated with aggressive prostate cancer in older men", "Increased heart attacks in men using testosterone: the UK importantly lags far behind the US in prescribing testosterone", "High Estrogen in Men After Injectable Testosterone Therapy" and "A review on the relationship between testosterone and life-course persistent antisocial behavior". There is clearly medical literature that contradicts the rosy view indicated by the article's sources.
I would have liked to see the article discuss those issues and the associated studies.
I wonder if it is possible to compare today's T levels with men of 100 years ago or even more. It could be that the industrialization and urbanization has caused a massive change in T levels because of natural reasons (less sun, less exercise, less anxiety, processed foods, tight clothing, what have you)
Alcohol, plastics (which leech from containers into the liquid they contain), pesticides (on fruits, vegetables)—there are a host of environmental factors that reduce our testosterone levels.
And as for anxiety, I think our modern urban lifestyle far increases our anxiety levels compared to our ancestors.
The human body was not meant for the world we live in!
I've wondered about the effect that environmental factors might have on Japan's current predicament- something in the water? did processing of soy products change at some point such that levels of the estrogen analogs ended up being higher? I guess I haven't been quite curious enough to see if there have been any rigorous studies that have compared T levels there over the last few decades.
I suspect women never really talked about menopause until recent decades, yet they have been experiencing it throughout the existence of our species. (Although there is that traditional "Maiden, Mother, Crone" thing. Hmm.)
Anyway, only recently have men started talking about andropause. The main reason it is still a controversial subject is because men's reproduction systems don't completely shut down, and because the process can sometimes be much slower. However we still go through many of the same hormonal changes and it is rather unnerving.
I think we have only the barest minimum of understanding of the chemical processes that control and regulate our bodies. Jumping on the production a single chemical as the root of all issues is a little ridiculous sounding to me. Especially in light of all of the recent discoveries about our microbiome. (gut bacteria)
It is an insanely complex interplay. Over the next few decades I'm sure our understanding will increase exponentially.
It would indeed be very interesting to compare the spectrum and balance of hormones and microbiome structures from 100 years ago to those typical in the contemporary human. It could be different because of lifestyle and environment, or it could be self regulating, and nearly the same (the perceived differences being cultural).
There are a few blood archives going back multiple decades which might allow this. For example, I read a while ago one study which used a US military blood archive with samples from the 1950s to check that some blood biomarker had genuinely increased since then.
Many males as they get older become more lovable and more pleasent to be around because of natural hormone declines.
There are a ton of health issues such as balding, coronary artery disease, prostate cancer, obstructive sleep apnea that are related to testosterone. Whether these clinics can find the correct cocktail to find a healthy balance isn't clear.
I'm neither pro nor con. I've seen people who have been positively and negatively impacted by steroid supplementation.