Testosterone will definitely help mentally if you are actually below range. If you are in the middle of range like the other guy then it will do nothing but replace natural testosterone with exogenous testosterone
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Androgel and my anxiety curse
- Thread starter Studmuffindrummer
- Start date
Any doctor prescribing testosterone to someone with total testosterone in the 500's should lose their medical license
Studmuffindrummer
New Member
For one, my second post wasn't bump, I should have edited my first post I suppose to appease the Masters of the forum. They were posted almost simultaneously. I bumped one time to check in a few weeks after my original post. Most people only skim web pages and do not read all that much. Perhaps skimming for what theyre searching for. I don't think it was out of line to check back in a few weeks later w the forum. I wasn't bumping to keep my thread at the top....so u got that wrong. And as you can see, there are responses....including yours. Which I actually appreciate everyone's input.
FNP_Doc
New Member
Based on what standardized protocol? You also never answered my question about "medical need" and total testosterone levels.
Not sure... Could you link it?
Yes it is..
Also, cmon man... that a professor didn't mention something related to some papers in school (even med school) if NOT an indicator of validity and you know it. Let's not resort to appeals to authority, especially ones that are that weak.
Yes, I did read! If your testosterone levels are within range then their is no medical need for Trt
FNP_Doc
New Member
This is the study by Aygodan et al.,
Increased frequency of anxiety, depression, quality of life and sexual life in young hypogonadotropic hypogonadal males and impacts of testosterone replacement therapy on these conditions
That is a large sample size...
As far as my papers, my point is to show testosterone replacement therapy improves QoL parameters, including those of anxiety and depression and there are very robust and quality RCT's that demonstrate this. If this were not the case, I would lack severely on my doctoral project. I'm not going to debate with you if you believe that testosterone doesn't help guys with anxiety and depression, I won't convince you otherwise, I just simply disagree with you and will continue to advocate for the hormone.
Last edited:
FNP_Doc
New Member
Define range please, are we going by reference range from labs? because that is a joke. Do you believe guys with 350 ng/dl have optimized Testosterone levels? There is technically no "medical" need for supplementing testosterone other than improving QoL parameters. You can live with 0 ng/dl of Testosterone. I have the CPG from the Endocrine Society for androgen deficiency and there is no official total testosterone number given for prescribing testosterone, its the practitioner's discretion along with accompanying symptoms. I wouldn't personally advocate prescribing with a total testosterone in the 500's, but if the patient had previous testosterone values that were lower, you have to take that into consideration.
Yes, reference range from lab. I said nothing about optimal levels. 350 tt is barely within range so obviously not. Being below range can put you at risk for many health problems
FNP_Doc
New Member
I am not saying prescribing testosterone in the 500 range is therapeutic entirely, the 400-500 range is kind of a "grey area" in TRT medicine, accompanying symptoms are just as important if not more than numbers. At that point, you have to educate the patient that he is in that range where lifestyle changes could further produce more Testosterone. With my case, the highest I could get it naturally was 515 after dramatic lifestyle changes. I tested about a month after that at 480, at that point, I opted for TRT. I have also tested in the 300's I was in my early 30's where testosterone begins to decrease at 1% per year past 30. The Endocrine Society's clinical practice guideline does not give a number for prescribing T, just suggesting "low" serum levels. Those "low" levels seem to be up to the discretion of the prescriber, and this is coming from the Endocrine Society.
Fre
Free testosterone is the number that really matters. Total testosterone is just a number. So basing anything off just that tt number is asinine
FNP_Doc
New Member
Well yeah, FT is important as well and usually isn't an issue unless there are problems with SHBG.
I do appreciate the study link... Kudos for that...
"Thirty-nine young male patients with CHH and 40 age-matched healthy males were enrolled in the present study."
Que? 79 people are a large sample? No, no it isn't.
And even in this very small study (show me some cohort metas if you want to talk about sufficient sample sizes) as it relates to the OP's topic "anxiety":
"improvement in the BAI (Beck Anxiety Inventory) score was not statistically significant (p=0.135)" Though I don't think it matters because of what I note below.
I did find this very encouraging though:
"Patients previously diagnosed with such conditions or those on any related medications were not enrolled in the present study"
Hallelujah! So many studies seems to find the presence of Xanax being randomly consumed like Pez throughout each group to be of no concern.
This was also not a blind study at all. The test subject knew they were being administered Test and the controls knew that they weren't.
Why is that important?
Because of these evaluation methods:
"SF-36 is a self-evaluation scale designed to assess the quality of life."
"BDI is a self-report scale with 21 items"
"BAI is a self-report scale with 21 items"
Studies that do this without being blind WASTE their fucking time with all the other control protocols because this simple fact of allowing your subjects to not only know they they are being treated, what they are treated with, and WHY you are treating them throws everything into the Land of Nod.
Making this a double-blind would have saved it (partially), but they didn't even single blind it.
Even in a double blind, having 3rd party evaluations etc would have been far more compelling than the fucking self reports.
Honestly, why go to all that effort an not blind the fucking thing?
Still... Thanks for the link @FNP_Doc
Good business...
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/endocrj/59/12/59_EJ12-0134/_pdf
"Thirty-nine young male patients with CHH and 40 age-matched healthy males were enrolled in the present study."
Que? 79 people are a large sample? No, no it isn't.
And even in this very small study (show me some cohort metas if you want to talk about sufficient sample sizes) as it relates to the OP's topic "anxiety":
"improvement in the BAI (Beck Anxiety Inventory) score was not statistically significant (p=0.135)" Though I don't think it matters because of what I note below.
I did find this very encouraging though:
"Patients previously diagnosed with such conditions or those on any related medications were not enrolled in the present study"
Hallelujah! So many studies seems to find the presence of Xanax being randomly consumed like Pez throughout each group to be of no concern.
This was also not a blind study at all. The test subject knew they were being administered Test and the controls knew that they weren't.
Why is that important?
Because of these evaluation methods:
"SF-36 is a self-evaluation scale designed to assess the quality of life."
"BDI is a self-report scale with 21 items"
"BAI is a self-report scale with 21 items"
Studies that do this without being blind WASTE their fucking time with all the other control protocols because this simple fact of allowing your subjects to not only know they they are being treated, what they are treated with, and WHY you are treating them throws everything into the Land of Nod.
Making this a double-blind would have saved it (partially), but they didn't even single blind it.
Even in a double blind, having 3rd party evaluations etc would have been far more compelling than the fucking self reports.
Honestly, why go to all that effort an not blind the fucking thing?
Still... Thanks for the link @FNP_Doc
Good business...
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/endocrj/59/12/59_EJ12-0134/_pdf
FNP_Doc
New Member
I thought this was a large Vietnamese study on hypogonadal men which had a sample size of over 4000. For the life of me, I can't find the study but will continue to search. I have used this Meta-analysis for papers with success, however. Large sample sizes and RCT's.
Full Text Electronic Journal List - UA Library
Testosterone replacement therapy improves health-related quality of life for patients with late-onset hypogonadism: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Author:
Nian, Y
Similar threads
