infoseeker
New Member
I'm sure some of you remember my husband (mrw2k)'s case. I don't read a lot here, but I read here and there and Megazoid's recent post prompted me to check in with some points to ponder. THe hub knows I type here about him and has posted and read some, but frankly, he just does not particularly enjoy reading about you guys and your dingdongs and thus hardly reads here. No offense, of course - it's just a guy thing, I guess. He's just busy doing other comptuer-nerd type things.
So he's on 10mg per day of Testim; (now, I'm not trying to point anyone out for predicting incorrectly, just checking in with progress) - pmgamer, you said you thought his T level would be in the 600s by now (I thought you'd be right!) after it was 450 or so three months ago, but it's in the low 400s, and his urologist said that's fine. No, he's not getting the full rundown of tests, that's not going to happen (not saying I don't agree with you guys, it's just the type of doctor we have right now and we're not going to order extra tests.) Who knows what his level was in the AM - he got by the lab when he could which was about 1PM. So I guess theoretically it could be in the 600s at other times of day.
Byetta (primarily) is bringing his blood sugar down to completely normal, and while he has not lost much in the way of actual pounds, he appears to have lost fat and possibly gained muscle due to the Byetta and possibly the Testim (didn't see this effect with just testosterone supplementation, or maybe it was just slow to set in.) It's pretty notable - he can now feel ribs; he just has a different shape now, with an inverted-triangle-shape torso from the back - you know, broad shoulders and muscled back with smaller waist - I guess he was always that way and always well-muscled but he just had a thicker fat covering. He's always been the kind of guy (and this is pure genetics) who could pick up a little free weight and pop out even more muscles right away - and this was even when his T was 200, so go figure.
HIs TSH was elevated (about 4 or 5, nothing outrageous like 10 or something) and we're hoping that'll fall into line as his blood sugar stays in line and his body fat decreases. He's now on a campaign to lose some more weight before his 46th birthday in one month. Shooting for under 200 lbs. He hardly looks like a "fat guy" anymore. If he sucks in the gut he does not even look fat. (He basically has a football-player physique - you know, or like a big, mean bouncer. Not mean, though! Although he can look it when he tries.) People are starting to say "why?" when he says he's trying to lose weight.
His main concern now is the Peyronie's which *appeared* to begin about 2 months after some very sudden onset ED appeared. I put that in asterisks because I have no idea how this affliction starts, and it seems that even urologists do not know. Does anyone know if the inflammation / injury / pre-scar tissue that characterizes Peyronie's appears because of ED and injuries associated with that, or if ED results from Peyronie's? Like I said, frustrating, but I don't think the doctor knows. (any doctors, please chime in with your opinion.) He's on colchicine, purpose of which is to prevent tissue from calcifying (which would then not be reversible) and the doctor seems pleased that it was caught before that point and may even be regressing (that's the goal of treatment.) By the way, I nagged him to ask the doctor at last visit - why would ED appear so suddenly, as in: not there at all one day and a big problem within a span of days or weeks, and a persistent problem? The dr. said that's unfortunately how it often happens. This is weird to me... you'd think a problem stemming from a chronic process would have a gradual onset, but whatever.
Megazoid mentioned not being able to afford viagra-type drugs for every um... instance. True - the stuff is expensive. I read with interest pmgamer's advice to someone else to use cialis and use it every 72 hours and within 4 months improvement would be seen. Well, the hub was first given Cialis and he felt that the results were not very good and certainly didn't last 72 hours, maybe just 6 or so (rapid dropoff in concentration after that was enough to affect him negatively). The doctor clued him in that viagra is really much better for his situation and he did feel that it worked great, and he takes it whether he intends to really "use it" or not, because supposedly it's good for the areas's circulation and all, but cialis would make sense, in my mind, because it lasts longer (whether or not giving the exact desired effect.)
But what would you guys think if someone said they got better erections WITHOUT any of those drugs? This is partly what has made me (at times) wonder if (at least part of) his problem is emotionally-based, because he's saying now that when he's taken NO med, his erections are better. While taking the med (I think viagra's the only one he's taken in a while) erections are usable but abnormal (and possibly this has to do with the Peyronie's), as in: almost painful, and more "inflated" in one spot than others - just not normal.
I wonder if his observation that erections are better and more "normal" without meds has to do with his T level being in the 400s or so now. (and I wonder if that observation is a good sign, too - any insight?? I'm not a guy but logic would tell me that just because some people need or benefit from meds that facilitate erection does not mean that they would benefit everyone who might not need them.) 400s doesn't sound high, but it's better than the pre-treatment 200. By the way, no overt signs of any estrogen problems. All due respect but I'm not convinced that every man has high E just because he's using some Testim. As far as I understand the symptoms of high E, I don't think he has any of them.
Any comments or thoughts? Thanks in advance.
*edited to correct typos - spelled colchicine wrong first time
So he's on 10mg per day of Testim; (now, I'm not trying to point anyone out for predicting incorrectly, just checking in with progress) - pmgamer, you said you thought his T level would be in the 600s by now (I thought you'd be right!) after it was 450 or so three months ago, but it's in the low 400s, and his urologist said that's fine. No, he's not getting the full rundown of tests, that's not going to happen (not saying I don't agree with you guys, it's just the type of doctor we have right now and we're not going to order extra tests.) Who knows what his level was in the AM - he got by the lab when he could which was about 1PM. So I guess theoretically it could be in the 600s at other times of day.
Byetta (primarily) is bringing his blood sugar down to completely normal, and while he has not lost much in the way of actual pounds, he appears to have lost fat and possibly gained muscle due to the Byetta and possibly the Testim (didn't see this effect with just testosterone supplementation, or maybe it was just slow to set in.) It's pretty notable - he can now feel ribs; he just has a different shape now, with an inverted-triangle-shape torso from the back - you know, broad shoulders and muscled back with smaller waist - I guess he was always that way and always well-muscled but he just had a thicker fat covering. He's always been the kind of guy (and this is pure genetics) who could pick up a little free weight and pop out even more muscles right away - and this was even when his T was 200, so go figure.
HIs TSH was elevated (about 4 or 5, nothing outrageous like 10 or something) and we're hoping that'll fall into line as his blood sugar stays in line and his body fat decreases. He's now on a campaign to lose some more weight before his 46th birthday in one month. Shooting for under 200 lbs. He hardly looks like a "fat guy" anymore. If he sucks in the gut he does not even look fat. (He basically has a football-player physique - you know, or like a big, mean bouncer. Not mean, though! Although he can look it when he tries.) People are starting to say "why?" when he says he's trying to lose weight.
His main concern now is the Peyronie's which *appeared* to begin about 2 months after some very sudden onset ED appeared. I put that in asterisks because I have no idea how this affliction starts, and it seems that even urologists do not know. Does anyone know if the inflammation / injury / pre-scar tissue that characterizes Peyronie's appears because of ED and injuries associated with that, or if ED results from Peyronie's? Like I said, frustrating, but I don't think the doctor knows. (any doctors, please chime in with your opinion.) He's on colchicine, purpose of which is to prevent tissue from calcifying (which would then not be reversible) and the doctor seems pleased that it was caught before that point and may even be regressing (that's the goal of treatment.) By the way, I nagged him to ask the doctor at last visit - why would ED appear so suddenly, as in: not there at all one day and a big problem within a span of days or weeks, and a persistent problem? The dr. said that's unfortunately how it often happens. This is weird to me... you'd think a problem stemming from a chronic process would have a gradual onset, but whatever.
Megazoid mentioned not being able to afford viagra-type drugs for every um... instance. True - the stuff is expensive. I read with interest pmgamer's advice to someone else to use cialis and use it every 72 hours and within 4 months improvement would be seen. Well, the hub was first given Cialis and he felt that the results were not very good and certainly didn't last 72 hours, maybe just 6 or so (rapid dropoff in concentration after that was enough to affect him negatively). The doctor clued him in that viagra is really much better for his situation and he did feel that it worked great, and he takes it whether he intends to really "use it" or not, because supposedly it's good for the areas's circulation and all, but cialis would make sense, in my mind, because it lasts longer (whether or not giving the exact desired effect.)
But what would you guys think if someone said they got better erections WITHOUT any of those drugs? This is partly what has made me (at times) wonder if (at least part of) his problem is emotionally-based, because he's saying now that when he's taken NO med, his erections are better. While taking the med (I think viagra's the only one he's taken in a while) erections are usable but abnormal (and possibly this has to do with the Peyronie's), as in: almost painful, and more "inflated" in one spot than others - just not normal.
I wonder if his observation that erections are better and more "normal" without meds has to do with his T level being in the 400s or so now. (and I wonder if that observation is a good sign, too - any insight?? I'm not a guy but logic would tell me that just because some people need or benefit from meds that facilitate erection does not mean that they would benefit everyone who might not need them.) 400s doesn't sound high, but it's better than the pre-treatment 200. By the way, no overt signs of any estrogen problems. All due respect but I'm not convinced that every man has high E just because he's using some Testim. As far as I understand the symptoms of high E, I don't think he has any of them.
Any comments or thoughts? Thanks in advance.
*edited to correct typos - spelled colchicine wrong first time
Last edited:
