graniteman
MuscleHead
- Dec 31, 2011
- 6,133
- 1,556
dr jim
MuscleHead
- Apr 7, 2014
- 785
- 168
==============================================
Coming off TRT? Hmm well for some that's really not an option. Why, because the benefits of TRT clearly outweigh the risks.
What generally determines if an individual "needs" TRT?
First and foremost, their signs and symptoms which are highly idiosyncratic until ....
Second, the absolute TT level since almost all males will develop signs and symptoms with a TT below 150-200 ng/dl
Third, the causation as in a Primary (testicular) vs Secondary (HTPA)
So the first question one must ask is WHY were they placed on TRT and what were their labs at that juncture.
regs
jim
graniteman
MuscleHead
- Dec 31, 2011
- 6,133
- 1,556
To be total honest Doc, I sought it out, just wanted a prescription, above the board legal. My baselines , I believe were in the 400's or 600's, have to dig up the BW. The hrt clinics were pretty lenient getting you on then, cant speak for now. My main question concern is are their links, studies to longevity, does synthetic test lower ones life expectancy by itself barring family genetics? I'm not running scared just weighing options , thinking out loud.
One other thing, what would be a preferred method\pct for coming off and getting my natty system back up and running the best\fastest?
dr jim
MuscleHead
- Apr 7, 2014
- 785
- 168
======================================================================
Hmm, doesn't sound like you "needed' TRT for physiologic reasons because even though a TT level of > 350 yet less than 500ng/dl may place an individual in the lower 25th percentile for age, what matters in those situations is weather a patient is symptomatic.
Fact is this is the case with almost all hormone levels, they must be correlated clinically and are only rarely diagnostic in and of themselves.
With regard to your longevity query? Well if one considers how long "low T" has been considered a "medical diagnosis" worthy of investigation the answer to that question is largely UNKNOWN but, in general the benefits exceed the risks unless the TT levels become excessive. Such as a 50 year old wanting a TT of > 1000ng/dl.
So understand that's a level which is GTG for teens whose metabolic rate and anabolic demands far exceed that of a chair spinning business exec!
So IMO if you want a level > 1k you better exercise considerably more than most 50 year olds AND that's exactly what some of the well controlled preliminary longitudinal studies are revealing.
Finally look at all the complications folks with an admitted history of AAS use have sustained. You know the same folk who frequent TID AAS forums they are dropping like flies in their older years...........NOT EVEN!
Why is that the case? Because these guys exercise and do it on a regular basis, IMO that makes all the difference in the world.
Finally AAS are NOT the demons most in the media claim they are. That's absolute crap and ........ sorry I've completed my rant and hope I answered your questions GM
respects
JIM
tommyguns2
Senior Moderators
Staff Member
- Dec 25, 2010
- 6,337
- 5,059
gman, you and I are similar in age, and I've been on constant for the last 8 years. For most of that time I've run HRT levels of between 150-200mg/wk. During that time I've occasionally blasted with most compounds we both know. Even then I kept the doses reasonable.
Nevertheless, I think long term what is going to affect my health more than the HRT is my total weight, cardiac health, and blood pressure. I'm typically around 230, and while I'm relatively lean (maybe 12% or so), I think that I'm too heavy for my frame, and long term need to bring my weight down to the 210 range, even if that means losing muscle mass. My heart is likely working too hard at 230.
On top of that I need to take OTC stuff for by BP, or if that doesn't work, simply get on prescrip meds for BP. It's not ridiculously high, but I've always been on the high side of normal. (and I've got a lot of stress).
Lastly, I need to make cardio a more regular part of my lifestyle. Whether that's running, biking, walking etc., I need to make sure I'm staying in cardiac shape.
None of those things are magic, but together I think these factors overwhelm whether I'm on test at 150-200 mg/wk for my long term health.
Nevertheless, I think long term what is going to affect my health more than the HRT is my total weight, cardiac health, and blood pressure. I'm typically around 230, and while I'm relatively lean (maybe 12% or so), I think that I'm too heavy for my frame, and long term need to bring my weight down to the 210 range, even if that means losing muscle mass. My heart is likely working too hard at 230.
On top of that I need to take OTC stuff for by BP, or if that doesn't work, simply get on prescrip meds for BP. It's not ridiculously high, but I've always been on the high side of normal. (and I've got a lot of stress).
Lastly, I need to make cardio a more regular part of my lifestyle. Whether that's running, biking, walking etc., I need to make sure I'm staying in cardiac shape.
None of those things are magic, but together I think these factors overwhelm whether I'm on test at 150-200 mg/wk for my long term health.
graniteman
MuscleHead
- Dec 31, 2011
- 6,133
- 1,556
======================================================================
Hmm, doesn't sound like you "needed' TRT for physiologic reasons because even though a TT level of > 350 yet less than 500ng/dl may place an individual in the lower 25th percentile for age, what matters in those situations is weather a patient is symptomatic.
Fact is this is the case with almost all hormone levels, they must be correlated clinically and are only rarely diagnostic in and of themselves.
With regard to your longevity query? Well if one considers how long "low T" has been considered a "medical diagnosis" worthy of investigation the answer to that question is largely UNKNOWN but, in general the benefits exceed the risks unless the TT levels become excessive. Such as a 50 year old wanting a TT of > 1000ng/dl.
So understand that's a level which is GTG for teens whose metabolic rate and anabolic demands far exceed that of a chair spinning business exec!
So IMO if you want a level > 1k you better exercise considerably more than most 50 year olds AND that's exactly what some of the well controlled preliminary longitudinal studies are revealing.
Finally look at all the complications folks with an admitted history of AAS use have sustained. You know the same folk who frequent TID AAS forums they are dropping like flies in their older years...........NOT EVEN!
Why is that the case? Because these guys exercise and do it on a regular basis, IMO that makes all the difference in the world.
Finally AAS are NOT the demons most in the media claim they are. That's absolute crap and ........ sorry I've completed my rant and hope I answered your questions GM
respects
JIM
Informative Jim, that def helps andswer some questions. The part tying high levels and matching exercise makes sense along with the prescribing test for low t being pretty new , I guess we're the case studies!
Thanks Jim
Tommy, we're damn near on the same level in this. I've been doing the same cruise n blast lifestyle and always keep it in mild ranges and my cardio is def lagging way behind. I'm in the same boat and probably carrying 15-20 lbs too much but I've always hated cardio and lately the diet is non-existent . We're just now starting to add cardio 3x's a week and I def can feel the difference.
Lol, I was pinning the quad the other day and thought to myself ''Am I going to be 70-80 years old jabbing in my old crusty leg??''
Good info TG, it's good for us 'mature' gents to share thoughts, now I gotta deal with this kid RAIDEN and his pal HP
Who is viewing this thread?
There are currently 0 members watching this topic