"Hey pal if you want Testosterone you are gonna have to pay for it."

What is your question? You have obviously seen a doc. What do they recommend?

---

Team Zoot
2019 Sponsors: Canyon Bikes, Garmin, Smith Optics, Gatorade, Zealios Skin Care & Sun Protection, Speedfill Products, Base Performance, Ottolock, Theragun, Boco Gear, ORR Carbon Wheel Systems, Giddy Up Multisport

Haven't talked to doc yet, blood work was sent email..curious what others have as baseline. I feel like I recover well, have decent sex drive, etc, but surprised the free T was low.

So what's the problem then? Forgot about the stupid number and just live your life.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

If you're looking for the permission of the forum to supplement and still compete in tris, you won't find it.

---

___________________________________
MS: Exercise Science
Your speed matters a lot, sometimes you need to be very fast, where sometimes you need to breakdown your speed.

LOL...not my intentions, curious what others have going on with regards to fitness, recovery,age,etc...first time I have tested it.

Taking T and competing, even if tests came back low, even if suggested by your doctor, it is still doping and can get you caught and banned from the sport. Other age groupers just like you have been caught and have been banned. Even asking this is a pretty big nono. Just so you know. :)

Hey guys, my yearly physical I decided to get my Testosterone levels checked for the first time. My total T was 504, my free T was 6.3

Guys, I get it...I am more concerned in health than racing times...I would be a fool to think I can PR this late in the game.

I am extremely skeptical about rank-and-file men having mildly "Low T" being a problem that needs addressed. I think that's a growth industry that intersects negatively with fair play in sporting activities. I'd love to stand back and say it doesn't concern me, but more and more people who line up on start lines without real awareness or thought are getting these messages from their doctors. And why would someone question their doctor? I mean, usually these are people considered to be after our best health interests. Long story short, it's more than a little disturbing that the message that old men need viagra and testosterone is becoming normed.

This isn't about PR-ing. This is about you shouldn't be competing in triathlons at all if you're doping. And unless you get a TUE for testosterone from WADA, you're doping. And we don't look the other way here. If you are trying to get a thumbs-up from us, then you are in the wrong place. Either stop doing tris and dope away, or get a TUE and you can compete in the clear. There are too many other people with lower T than you that don't dope in triathlons for you to excuse this away.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
Zen and the Art of Triathlon. Strava Workout Log
Interviews with Chris McCormack, Helle Frederikson, Angela Naeth, and many more.
http://www.zentriathlon.com

So, Cody Beals a canadian professional triathlete made a few posts regarding his low T saga. Hope it helps:

http://www.codybeals.com/...testosterone-part-i/

http://www.codybeals.com/...er-low-testosterone/

http://www.codybeals.com/...-testosterone-again/

So, has anyone else had their Testosterone tested and want to share the number? I think the OP was hoping for replies like "My T was in the same ball-park, you're good." or something like that.

Dude relax, I came on here to get advice on T levels and my health..I am 43 and at this point my health, sex life, feeling good 20 years from now and preventing disease is of greater concern than competing . I am looking for positive feedback, not some excuse to use testosterone. I get the hate about people using this and that, but that is not what I was looking for. Thanks for the negativity bro.

Thanks!

Here are my complete Q2 blood work lab results.

It also links to my Q1 so you can compare further, although I do some comparison in the post.

---

---

Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset

Yeah, whatever. I'm even older than you and at this point in my life I can tell when somebody is fishing for permission to get away with something. Enjoy the big serving of No you're getting from everybody here. Glad you got the message.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
Zen and the Art of Triathlon. Strava Workout Log
Interviews with Chris McCormack, Helle Frederikson, Angela Naeth, and many more.
http://www.zentriathlon.com

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

And the "fix" for this won't get any support on here anyways and for good reason.

So much truth here!

The problem is that as with much of big Pharma, there are heaps of money to be made. By normalizing the use of such things rather than just accepting that testosterone levels can change as we age, it's becoming normal to be on t or whatever else.. it also gives the cheaters a very easy out

You know me so well...triathlon is a hobby bro, you sound over-trained :)

Pretty much exactly what I was looking for, mainly good data for future use and what people are doing. Its def not gonna get any easier maintaining optimal health as we get older.

VERY common to see folks using it where I live, all while neglecting the fact it can compromise them later with a doc that will frivolously write scripts. Last resort for meds of any kind should be the last approach.

Not sure if you're talking to me, but I will address a couple things you have written.

First, this whole idea that you can't PR at 43? You've given up. You've quit. You're only 43 dude. 43, there are still guys finishing first overall at large races at 43. There are dudes winning 140.6s in their early forties. Do you recover slower at 43? Yes. But that's not an excuse. You can still PR. Don't take shortcuts and don't make excuses

I'm 43 too, and I'm faster in some ways then I was when I was in my twenties. Back then I recovered quicker and probably had more explosiveness, but now, after years of dragging my ass up mountains, dealing with General Life bullshit that requires an endurance beyond that possessed by your typical Young Buck, and just surviving, the mental game and just the general stubborn-as-fu#kishness level is there in a way that I never had in my twenties or early thirties.

Second, you listed your T level as a little low. You do know there's a range for such things?

Did you ever get a tested when you were younger? You might be the same, higher, or lower than you were at a yoi ger age. People are different. If you're that concerned about your health, stay away from supplementing it. Down the line it can hurt you.

That and the whole you'd be cheating thing.

Imagine all of those poor poor people who lived before Testosterone testing. I'll bet they lived miserable lives not being able to compare their T-levels to other peoples' T-Levels.

What kind of "thoughts" did you really expect to recieve when posting this on this forum?

I'm 43 as well and this spring I had a possible similar doctors visit/annual physical. At some point the Doc asked how things were holding up in the sexual activity part of my life, in which I answer "Well, but it's not what it used to be." He relates that to age and possibly the amount of work and training. He asked if I would like him to test my T level, in which I said it wouldn't matter because even though I'm a mop age grouper, I can't take T and compete.

Here is where this story gets a little funny. The nurse comes in while he steps out and we start talking about her buying a new bike. We end up talking about tri bikes and as the Doc walks back in she hands him my phone and shows him a photo of my tri bike with a Dash saddle. The nurse walks out and my Doctor says, "If you sit on that for 5 hours, I think I've found the reason for the slow down, south of your belt line."

Generally docs are not recommending testing for low T or treating for it. Patients are reading stuff on the internet and they come asking to be tested or treated. There probably isn't much money for big pharma in testosterone as it is a generic drug.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

For an actual response, rather than condemnation of your question:

If you don't have any signs of low testosterone, you're good. If you have legitimate hypogonadism, your numbers would be much lower, and you would feel pretty shit... In particular, you would have no sex drive. Like, literally, none.

If you reach that point, with both the clinical signs and laboratory values, treatment is probably justified from a wellness stand point.

There's little evidence that Testosterone has these compromising effects that you are alluding to. But it is a fact that very low testosterone does have direct, and serious, side effects in males (depression, increased risk of stroke, heart attack and heart disease). Not saying he should supplement. Just trying to set some facts straight.

Also, the idea seems prelavant here that he should just accept what it is cause it's always been that way in older males. I would submit nothing could be farther from the truth. A recent study has found that sperm levels have dropped in half in western men between 1973 and 2011. Now this most likely has nothing to do with testosterone. But it's a pretty big red flag that stuff in our environment is seriously affecting us. My personal theory, with some limited research backing, is that falling testosterone is an issue that is just becoming more prevalent in our society. More research will probably reveal decades of falling levels.

This conversation is completely separate from anything to do with competing. It's against the rules to take T and race. That's an entirely different issue.

T levels drop as you get older and that's normal. Heavy endurance training also drops T levels. Based on your numbers it looked worlds higher then mine when I was having major issues. Unless you start noticing big issues don't worry about it. Unless you want to be like those banner ads on some websites that shows a freaking jacked guy with an old mans head on the body.

Why not look on PubMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...tosterone+men+review) and read about this stuff. This will provide you with scientific reviews of the benefits and dangers of testosterone levels/supplementation (as there are two sides to this, just as everything else in life). This puts aside ANY issues that people may have with doping (which taking Testosterone would be doing), and focuses on the health issues that you seem to be asking. The most valuable thing that you can do is educate yourself with opinions of experts in the field, and NOT rely on some opinions/anecdote from people who really do not know and/or understand what they are talking about (even though they think they do). This should be standard practice for anyone that is concerned about their own health...Ideally (for a patient), going to a medical doctor should be a collaboration; as you should be the expert on you.

Stephen J

---

I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)^2

Free testosterone!? Where do I get mine?

good lord, virtually this entire thread has been a bunch of virtue signalling and catty snark in response to a pretty mundane question. I don't know how some of you are able to type from way up there in on your high horses.

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

wireless smart phones

My doc a few years ago, on his decision, ordered my T level to be checked with blood work. When I went back, he said my T level was low and did I want meds.
I said no way since first, I could no longer race legally, and second, the long term health risks are way worse than whatever low T is supposed to do.

So, it does happen, and my doc is a great guy.

I will be having another annual in 2 months. Will see when I get the blood work if he ordered T testing. If so, will post my results, and see if I can get the past stuff.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Does your doctor look like this:





Or this:

Did you see my reply to you in this thread?

---

---

Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset

I would have asked him why he ordered that test amongst others. I had full blood work-up last year after asking my doc to check for low iron, but I wasn't tested for that. I'll have the blood work again in November so I'll be on the lookout to see what tests he asks for this year.

Here is a graph that shows testosterone levels by age, split by date.

Hard to tell without more of a legend for the graph. Does that show T levels falling for similarly aged men from 1987 to 2004?

 "second, the long term health risks are way worse than whatever low T is supposed to do"

I gotta disagree on this one as there is little evidence to support this claim and it goes against common sense. If my T is 700 normally and then falls to 150 (for whatever reason). Are you saying there will be negative health repercussions if I supplement back up to 500?
What a lot of people fail to see is that the vast majority of T research showing negative effects was done on people who supplement from 500 to way over therapeutic levels (think 1,200 or higher for bodybuilders). Yes, that carries negative effects. But little has been documented for supplementing back to age appropriate levels.

This video is a decent spring board for learning more about testosterone, its relation muscle growth, training and how lifestyle can affect it. The bit about overtraining is probably applicable to a fair number of people reading this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoP6NCGb3oM

So, you recover fast, your sex drive is fine, and you're feeling fine. So you're good to go. Your levels are slightly lower than the norm, but well within a standard deviation.
For the record, I had my testosterone tested only once about 3 years ago because I was extremely tired, and didn't recover well, and it was...950ng/dL (free was high too and no, I didn't have testicular cancer). Everything else was normal. I'd prefer slightly lower T, not being tired, and good recovery.
It's notoriously difficult to predict anything with a single data point, for a variety of reasons, in particular, the impact of cortisol, but also standardizing the tests, when the tests are done during the day etc.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/...Difficulties/a/47290

If you want to understand a bit why.

Maybe little evidence, but not no evidence. This trial was halted in 2010 because of too many Really Bad Events vs. placebo.

Kinda hard to do the research to figure out if it's safe when you can't get the study approved.

Taking drugs for something that is not a real issue for 99.9% of folks with "low T", is well, ....

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

It's a weird graph, but yes. The deltas between the different colored lines are what it's trying to show. For men age 60, the average Total T dropped from around 500 in 1987-1989 to around 450 in 2002-2004.

Facts please. Where is you data that low T is not an issue for 99.9%

That particular study you noted says this-

"the trial’s eligibility criteria excluded men with severely low testosterone levels, limiting the ability to make inferences about safety in this population. The authors also note that the testosterone doses and serum levels in this trial may be higher than those usually used in clinical practice and in some previous clinical trials"


So they didn't do the study on people with truly low T levels. And they supplemented back up to a level higher than what is clinically recommended. This goes to my point that almost all the research out there showing negative side effects of T supplementation is based on going to levels that bodybuilders would strive for. This has little bearing on what average people are using T for when they supplement to get back to age appropriate levels.

Moreover, they stated this-

"The authors caution that the ability to draw broader conclusions about the safety of testosterone therapy based on these findings is constrained by several factors, including this study’s small size and the fact that the study’s population was older and had higher rates of chronic diseases and mobility limitation than individuals in most other studies"

You wanted evidence, I gave you evidence.

Also your "common sense" theory is a little shaky too. Take a look at the recent event in women's HRT. Different hormones, of course, but turns out the older women supplementing to younger women's hormone levels has all kinds of risks. Sometimes reality doesn't care about "common sense."

Edit: That said this more recent study is cautiously positive, though holding out for more data on stroke, heart attack, etc.

Evidence assumes is has some pertinence to what we are talking about. The study you initially cited clearly had too small a sample size to be relatable and specifically said it was supplementing to T levels ABOVE what is usually called for. The entire rationale behind my post was that these kinds of studies can't be used to determine effect of T on people who are supplementing to to an age appropriate level.

Your overall T level is fine, and you sound fine accordingly. Levels range from 270-1070. Free T can easily be elevated through herbal supplements, not banned substances, and normal is above 50 or so. I had my levels checked because my mood was always off, I was constantly exhausted, and no matter how much/little sleep or training I did, nothing effected my energy levels. My overall T was 111, and free T was around 15. I was very low, outside of norm. So yes, I supplemented testosterone to get my levels back to normal. I felt a lot better. There is absolutely no "doping" benefit until you peak out way higher than normal range levels. In fact, this whole doping reference is ridiculous. There are legitimate heath risks for men associated with low testosterone, and getting levels back within normal range is healthy and should be done, if you truly were low. Your levels are good, you can change some diet or supplement with accepted herbs to bump your free T, but that's really not necessary since your overall level is fine and you also feel fine.

And maybe to give a little background, I am 41 yrs old, 5'11", was 198 pounds, way overweight (contributing to the low T for sure). Sex drive was totally normal, so when my doctor friend suggested I get it tested due to my other complaints, I laughed it off. But getting the results and then seeing the improvements, I've recommended many of my friends get tested as well.

So yes, I supplemented testosterone to get my levels back to normal. I felt a lot better. There is absolutely no "doping" benefit until you peak out way higher than normal range levels. //

I'm glad you are feeling better, I would do the same in your shoes. But "YOU" are absolutely doping in every sense and legality of the word. You see competitive sport is not meant to have a level playing field, it is to sort out those with superior attributes in many different categories. Having a high natural level of T is just one of 100's of those categories. And we as a culture/nation/sport have decided that there are very few things one gets to do to prop up any one or many of those categories, T not being one of them(unless it is so low you can pass the TUE gauntlet).


You did the right thing for you, but it is not legal/ moral by any stretch of the imagination for you to compete in competitive sports that regulate this sort of thing. You along with many others are under the misguided assumption that if you"only" supplement back to normal(whatever that means)levels, you are good to go. You are not good to go, you should know this fact before throwing out things that are absolutely false out there for others to read and perhaps believe..

Therapeutic Use Exemptions exist for a reason, as you mentioned. And I think I painted a picture of a perfect scenario of where a medically appropriate need exists. I do not believe in bumping T levels that are already in the normal range, or are slightly low. But if you fall way outside of normal, and are symptomatic as I was, then there are very real health risks for men, and medically appropriate increases are warranted. So what I said isn't false, but I can appreciate your clarification.

In the same breath, we have people on here who think they are doctors, and are not, and they are giving medical advice. This isn't a black/white answer, and has to be individual based. Although for the OP, his levels are normal and he is asymptomatic, so nothing is needed nor warranted.

And to clarify once more, you assume supplementing to increase T levels can only be done with actual Testosterone. This is false, and I personally do not believe in doing that even when medically necessary. I believe supplementing the body and doing things naturally to help boost this levels are better in the long run, all of which is also not considered doping.

Therapeutic Use Exemptions exist for a reason, as you mentioned. And I think I painted a picture of a perfect scenario of where a medically appropriate need exists. //

You painted a picture but medically needed and TUE are not one in the same. The bar is very high with a TUE, I assume you do not have one? I have friends who put in, and you basically have to be on deaths door to get it. Being just low is not the bar, in fact probably 90+% of those with low T probably get denied a TUE.


I understand your need to justify your actions and feel you in are in the right, and someday you may well be if rules for AG athletes change. But not today. Ive wrestled with this exact scenario as a thought exercise for many, many years, and like you I would take the drugs if it were absolutely about my health. But I also came to the conclusion that my racing days would be over too. It would be fun runs, workouts, and just good surf sessions for the rest of my life after that. At least until and if there were a change in attitude to geezers allowed to dope for sport. Right now there are a lot of guys like you out there competing and kicking ass with their new physiologies. It is the single biggest reason I have taken a sabbatical from most competitive sport, tired and frustrated of getting beat by guys that I never heard of. Not so big a difference at your age, but over 60 the difference of doping is major. You can take a 100th place finisher and make him a national champion in some instances. And there are so many now going to your clinics that the podiums just don't resemble any reality that I can recall anymore...

And strange you say now you did not take T, here was your statement;

So yes, I supplemented testosterone to get my levels back to normal.

Yes, I should have clarified that supplemental statement. That was my fault, and I can see where that may have got you fired up. So no, I didn't have a TUE, as I wasn't using actual testosterone. Read the Cody Beals articles that were posted previously, and as that gave a good picture of some of what can be done. Supplementing with artificial T can cause the body to become reliant upon the exogenous T, and slow down even more the natural production. I don't want to be reliant upon exogenous substances hence my desire for a natural approach. Again, sorry for that confusing statement. And I'm by no means "kicking ass" with my new physiology. I'm not even a middle of the pack guy. I'm the one that loves doing the races, and just tries not to get last. It's just now, I sleep better at night and my mood has stabilized, and I've lost some weight (although, this is due to some dietary changes and not solely due to T levels, although it helps). If you feel that all these new podium guys and people beating you that you've never heard of is related to doping, then I can see why you are passionate about this. I personally don't care. Personally, I compete against myself in this sport, as I don't ever plan on setting foot on any level of podium, overall or AG. But I do want to improve and be healthy

If it's in the best interests of men to have such physician input become normative, then why would you complain?

Yes, as it stands right now taking T is not legal for racing. But let's take a step back and look at how ridiculous that is. First, there is no proven benefit to supplementing with T back to normal levels. The benefits from doping are due to exceeding what is the medical recommendation. Next, it's presently legal to mess with other hormones in your body (like thyroid). Add to that some of the other treatments and surgeries that technology has made available that we are perfectly accepting of. Take, for instance, stem cell treatments. Please justify how cells are taken form your body, alter them, then put back and we are totally fine with that. Lastly, no one on here has gotten there panties in a bunch of over genetic engineering. How is that even possible? Given the advances in using CRISPR it's a pretty safe bet that places like China and Russia are already using this on humans. But not one talks about that. All we do is rant over T.

True. I would argue not to use exogenous testosterone from a physiologic standpoint, yes, but not from a performance standpoint. The sweet T range of 400-600 doesn't "enhance" performance and turn you into a race winner. Agree completely

First, there is no proven benefit to supplementing with T back to normal levels. The benefits from doping are due to exceeding what is the medical recommendation.
True. I would argue not to use exogenous testosterone from a physiologic standpoint, yes, but not from a performance standpoint. The sweet T range of 400-600 doesn't "enhance" performance and turn you into a race winner. Agree completely

SO as you can see you were not alone in your thinking, and Ralph has joined you in your fantasy that all is right with T supplements, as long as you go to normal(whatever that means again, do you know?) If it did not improve your performance or Ralphs, or the tens of thousands taking it, then why the hell is everyone taking it? It absolutely works, you guys are silly to think otherwise. If you go from 100 to 400 you are telling me you will be no different? I did not say you would be a podium winner, but you would be a faster and stronger version of yourself, that is why people take it. It doesn't matter one bit that you are not podium material, or even if you are last, you got a benefit form it and that is what matters. It has nothing at all to do with how you did overall or against your peers.


I will try one more time to spell it out to everyone here who holds to your idea that as long as everything is just brought to normal it is ok. Here is the bad news, some people are just going to lose in sport and go slow. There is no right for anyone like that to be able to jack themselves up to go one second faster outside what is already allowed. Not one second, not one extra 1/10 of a mph on the bike, or 5 seconds a mile faster running, even if you currently run 14 minute miles, doesn't matter.


And lastly I had a chuckle when the 400-600 number popped up as nothing to see here. I can tell you emphatically that if you give some 65 or 70+ year old guy a T of 600, he will go from last to hero in a matter of months. This is what I deal with in my AG at each and every race. Dude that holds the Kona record in the 60+ AG is a busted/known doper, and guess what he took all those years, T!!! I guess it does work after all... (-;

Pure nonsense.

T is a powerful performance enhancer, full stop. A little helps a little. A lot helps a lot. There is plenty of evidence. The idea that "nothing happens" at "normal" levels then suddenly you get performance benefit at some magic threshold is BS.

You could actually make an argument that for older athletes, the benefits of supplementation to life quality might justify some allowances by governing bodies. But I've yet to see a method of implementation of that really like. Normalizing T levels across athletes is a giant, expensive can of worms, as far as I'm concerned. That's why I like the idea of zero T for racers. And if you prefer that quality of live, go ahead and "race" unsanctioned competitive events.

As a 43 y.o athlete, I'm proud that I'm on zero prescription drugs. I don't want to start getting on the American Pharma Train just to be able to compete with a bunch of guys with "normalized" T levels.

Wow, there is a lot of emotion in your post. I'll respect your passion for this topic but try to mention a couple of things on the science side.

If you go from 100 to 400 you are telling me you will be no different? I did not say you would be a podium winner, but you would be a faster and stronger version of yourself, that is why people take it.

Yes there will be a marginal improvement. But it's apparently so marginal that no one has ever offered to study the benefit of supplementing from 100 to 500. I've looked and can't find any studies on it. Either it's a non-topic (unlikely) or the change in your body is miniscule.

I had a chuckle when the 400-600 number popped up as nothing to see here. I can tell you emphatically that if you give some 65 or 70+ year old guy a T of 600, he will go from last to hero in a matter of months.

With all due respect, it has been mentioned several times that people should be dosing to a normal age level. So no one has promoted the idea of a 70 year old supplementing up to 600.


There is no right for anyone like that to be able to jack themselves up to go one second faster outside what is already allowed. Not one second, not one extra 1/10 of a mph on the bike, or 5 seconds a mile faster running, even if you currently run 14 minute miles, doesn't matter.

On this one you are wrong. Not because I think you are wrong. But because the trend in doping regulations says you are wrong. We allow all kinds of medications for someone to correct a diagnosed medical issue. Anyone taking these meds is technically a faster version of themselves than without it. Lets look at a couple of examples. A diabetic taking insulin is faster with the medication than without. A person with low thyroid is faster with thyroid med than without. A person with depression is faster with an anti anxiety med than without. The difference is that the "establishment" recognizes these conditions and pardons their drug use. So far the the people have decided that low T, although proven to be a widespread and possibly severe condition, isn't legitimate. That's the only difference. And it's a pretty arbitrary difference.

There is zero proof that a "little helps a little". There are just are no studies on it. I encourage you to try and find one. Because I have looked and haven't seen it yet.

Normalizing T levels across athletes is a giant, expensive can of worms, as far as I'm concerned. That's why I like the idea of zero T for racers. And if you prefer that quality of live, go ahead and "race" unsanctioned competitive events.


Thanks for identifying the issue so well. Its not that we think supplementing T back up to "normal" levels is an issue. It's just that it's too complicated for us to try and do it. Look, I don't have a horse in this race. I am merely amused by the people who stand on a podium and yell about doping but refuse to look at the bigger picture. It's hilarious.

ps- being on zero prescription drugs is not a bragging point. Eventually you will be on one. Being on a drug isn't a bad thing. Its medical technology. You want to stick your head in the sand and ignore medical advances cause you think you are more pure by not taking a medication...have fun with that

On this one you are wrong. Not because I think you are wrong. But because the trend in doping regulations says you are wrong. We allow all kinds of medications for someone to correct a diagnosed medical issue. //

And thus my comment of what is already allowed. I don't blame you for your ill conceived notion about drugs, a lot of people get caught on the slippery slope of if this guy gets an inhaler or this girl gets thyroid meds, then we should all be allowed T, or EPO, or whatever els the longevity docs are shilling out there.


Unless you know of some new rules that have been enacted, then I'm absolutely right in my assumptions and you are wrong. And yes I'm passionate about this stuff as it has affected how I view competition. Perhaps you view will triumph one day and the 80+ year olds doing sub 3 hour marathons will be held out as heroes. But that day is not today, so I will marvel in the natural class of athletes that show true human potential within a framework of minor boundaries and rules..

A trend does not = new rules

there are established laboratory values for various ages that are normal. We don't have to guess what's normal, the definition is already there. And having lab value within any of these normal defined ranges is just that, normal, not enhanced.

And to Ralphs point, I increased my testosterone back to normal levels. I did it naturally. So if there's this magical performance edge now, why is that not illegal as well? I increased my T right? Thing is, to my knowledge, I'm not sure you could naturally boost your T above normal levels, but you can do this synthetically. Hence the ban on synthetics, as the above normal range is where you get the true performance enhancement.


Arguing that going from sluggish and low energy due to low T, then having energy and sleeping well due to normal T, as this performance enhancement is silly. Yes, we improved our overall health, so that was "enhanced" but to imply anything else lacks any scientific data to back it.

And arguing if there was no benefit, why do it? There are tons of benefits, like decreased risk of hypertension, stroke, heart attack, etc. You assumedly equate increased T with increased performance, and that is not the case when physiologic norms are established.

I agree, synthetic T is banned, and don't use it if you're competing. Just increase it naturally so you get the health benefits you need, just like Cody Beals did.

And again, you can absolutely get a TUE for this if you decide to go synthetic. You say many of your friends haven't been able to. Are they in the 60+ year range as well? Because if so, medically that makes sense.

Monty, the crazy thing is that all these docs have normalized the usage of T just like docs normalized the use of statins. As the drug companies look to expand their markets they keep funding shoddy research (follow the money on who is funding those papers) to "prove" that lower and lower thresholds trigger the need to put more and more people on these drugs. Unfortunately this is substantially messing around with age group sport, specifically masters age group sport where we are supposed to competing on an unlevel playing field where those who are genetically blessed the most and can keep their youthfulness without pharma enhancement (or those who have managed to take care of themselves the best through the years) are rewarded. Then you have jokers like some of the posters on this thread doping (from a sport angle) to get back to "normal levels" prescribed by docs for better quality of life. I am not going to debate that they are getting better quality of life. They are. But that disqualifies them from racing any sanctioned sport even, as you say if they get 1/10th of a second of savings.

This entire idea of "I am not getting on the podium so it doesn't matter" is ridiculous. Well, if you are not getting on the podium, then draft, course cut, take the subway, wear fins, wear a 10mm wetsuit...whatever floats your boat, but we don't allow all those shortcuts either in sport either.

I think it really is time for a "no timing, no placements, dope all you want division" in events. Let these guys enter the events and leave in a mass group at the end and just cover the distance however they want. But they just get a different "completer" medal, no time, no placements. How many people do you think sign up for that? No, they will dope and be on T and go in the "competitor division" and try to get the "real finisher medal" so they can brag about it, all the while doping to the finish line.

I don't believe Monty is arguing against improving your T through diet, not overtraining and sleep and other natural means (are there any other really ???), he (along with many of us) are against pharma supplementation to jack up your T to ANY level (I don't really care if it is to bring you up 1/10000th of a percent over what you are at, and I am certain that WADA views it the same way unless you are at level where they will grant you a TUE....good luck getting yours). So I think I missed how you naturally jacked up your T. If you care to explain how, that would be helpful. If big pharma fits into your story, then its going to be illegal in terms of doing any event that is sanctioned by any Olympic or WADA signatory sporting event.

Do you have evidence of athletes getting a TUE for synthetic testosterone, and what conditions led to that TUE?

Yep, that Dude is in my AG also and it makes me sick to see his name above mine in the rankings.

I was talking to an older Kona athlete who knows all about this dude. He even thought it got a Tue for T. He says at the races the dude does, he will not stay for awards because he gets booed. And to say his years and years on the illegal stuff did not make he faster. Just look at his bike times over a 20 year stretch.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Nope, just putting my faith in doctors that know more about this than forum guys. If there is a medical need to replace testosterone to normal levels due to symptomatic issues, I see no reason why you wouldn't get one, as the risks out low T far outweigh the benefits. I'm sure you will disagree, so we can agree to disagree.

I did very similar things to what was discussed in Cody Beals' blog. Vitamins, diet, weight loss, healthy fat intake, I also use supplement companies that have formulas for helping with this, all of which the ingredients are natural herbs and no banned substances. A little google search will give you all you need to know on how to increase levels naturally. Big pharma isn't required or necessary. And my T isn't "jacked", it's back to a normal range for my age. Synthetics, banned, because those can jack you way above normal levels and give you the real performance enhancement you guys are taking about. Age appropriate levels, as defined by laboratory values, adds no appreciable performance enhancement.

The doc my prescribe you synthetic T to get to "normal" (whatever that means), but to the part in bold, I don't believe WADA will agree with your doctor and grant you a TUE just because your doc is trying to get you back to whatever your doc deems as "normal".

And what's your equational background to make this any of this statement? I am board certified in anesthesia and family practice, and I don't like big pharma in general, but that doesn't make all drugs bad or all research "shoddy". Your bias against medicine is showing. As more research comes out showing the risks associated for men with low T, then yes, the medical field makes changes. Wow, that's a novel concept.


But we can "dope" naturally and get back to normal levels, and now you don't have an issue? Or do you? Clarify your position please. Again, really no studies out there showing performance enhancement at normal levels, because it's negligible to none. Performance enhancement that comes outside of the upper limits of normal, this is well known and documented.

I also put my trust in the doctors and medical researchers at WADA and other associated labs. They aren't in the business of prescribing T to older men, they are trying to secure fair sporting events for participants. From those of us directly involved in this for a number of years, our understanding is that TUE's are extremely difficult to obtain for T usage and would involve some very significant contributing factors (ie other illness/disease). They aren't likely to allow a TUE because you have low T (which is relatively easy to manipulate for a test, so would need a series of controlled tests to even get a real view of your T level) when your complaints include low energy, low sex drive, etc.

No need to agree to disagree when we discuss facts instead of 'faith'.

Read more of the thread above. I've already clarified this. Synthetic replacements, T and others, decreases the bodies natural ability to make its own. I don't do synthetic T for this reason alone, not because I think I would have some huge performance enhancement. So I never had to go get a TUE. Still don't think it would have been a problem though. But again, agree to disagree here.

And, you guys keep say "normal, whatever that means". you guys do realize, there are established lab values, normal ranges, for every age group, male and female. It's science, not some arbitrary number.

So you're a medical doctor with direct experience with this scenario so you can speak to fact?

And, you guys keep say "normal, whatever that means". you guys do realize, there are established lab values, normal ranges, for every age group, male and female. It's science, not some arbitrary number. //

Ok doc, so lets say the range is 250 to 950, what unarbitrary number is the normal amount to dope up to? 950 ok with you, realizing that when they say normal range there is the one outlier that has a crazy high natural number like 950 for that upper number. DO I get to be on a level playing field with him, or is it someone else? While the other 99.9% fall into some middle area like 400+ or so. So since science has settled this, give me the number I get to dope to since it is so cut and dry.

Just to be clear, I don't have a bias against medicine, I have a bias against big pharma. Doctors are not trained in understanding these chemicals and big pharma's incentive is not improving our health, it is to maximize revenue by expansive adoption of the drugs they produce. It's just the way business works. No harm no foul. Its just a matter of following the money (I am in the other long time to money, highly capital and research intensive, super up front cost and low variable cost high volume business so I get how this operates).

To the part in bold. What exactly do you mean by dope naturally? Please spell it out. If you just take "bread and water", sleep properly, moderate training and manage stress in your life, then sure, that's fine, but that is not doping. Doping would involve taking banned substances to jack up your T levels. If you did not take anything banned by WADA it's not doping from a sporting angle.

Do you work for WADA or USADA?

I work in sport, and as you may notice, that is what we are talking about here. You can take any natural or synthetic supplement/treatment for any ailment, but the WADA code will determine if you are eligible to compete in sanctioned events. Doesn't matter if you are a doctor and think it makes sense, or if your doctor prescribes it because they think it makes sense and is medically necessary. We can all have opinions on whether certain parts of the WADA rules make sense, but that doesn't change what is written in the current version. As of today, you can't take T without a TUE, and a TUE is extremely hard to receive.

You answered it already, you can be in that range. Again, no studies showing performance enhancements of any significance when T is in normal ranges. You're clearly not listening. Performance enhancements have been scientifically proven well outside the normal range, 1500, 2000+ levels. And again, I don't think its possible to get even close to 950 naturally, so that's why naturally increasing T is acceptable and not banned, as it can't be used to get outside the upper ranges. But you guys are stuck on T like it's some magical thing. Only when its used inappropriately does it become magical, at great risk.

Fact - normal levels of T decrease significant health risks for men
Fact - normal levels of T provide no appreciable performance benefits
Fact - Higher than normal levels of T enhance performance capabilities

Possible Fact - Natural T increases do not lead to abnormally high T levels that result in performance enhancement.

Fact - Synthetic T is banned
Fact - Natural T enhancement is allowed.

Am I missing anything? Enhance your T to within normal range, which as you stated, is a broad range, but still considered normal. This range doesn't offer appreciable enhancements, so no, the guy with 750 isn't going to smoke you when you have 450, all things being equal.

From a sporting angle, non of what you are allowed to take while doing sport requires one to be a medical doc or even approved by your medical doc. It just needs WADA (or subsidiary) approval. You appear to be confusing all of what docs suggest/prescribe with what WADA allows. Those are 2 different worlds.

I agree with your big pharma comments. I agree with that. I disagree with the comment about doctors training. We are absolutely trained to understand drugs and chemicals.


I used that term to imply increasing T levels by any means, as that seems to imply "doping" on this thread. I think this discussion has evolved and twisted some.

Using synthetic T is banned, and is considered doping - Agree

Increasing your T levels by dieting, vitamin, mineral, and herbal supplementation doping - No, not if the substances aren't banned.

This new T level is performance enhancing. - Disagree if the T falls within established normal ranges, regardless of how it got there (but again, synthetic banned, natural okay)

so that's why I asked, if you were okay with someone increasing their T naturally, because according to many on this thread, that would result in these awesome performance gains. Increased T = Increased Performance. But that's simply not true

Agree, but that's for the patients doctor and WADA to work on together, not for us to speculate on and use previous examples of what we think has or hasn't been approved. These are case by case situations with experts on both sides, not on us forum guys speculating, which I have also done

I don't think you understand this in sport context. WADA has very few things that are banned when done through natural methods. You can train at altitude to improve blood markers, but you can't infuse blood or take EPO. Same with T, you can live a healthy lifestyle that will improve your T levels, but you can take synthetic T. The system doesn't work based on allowing people to boost up to 'natural' levels. All of this might change in the coming years after more research and discussion at WADA, but that doesn't change the current situation.

Your sentence in bold, remove the unbolded word "doping" at the end. Dieting, vitamins, minerals, herbal supplementation, any of that which is not banned by WADA is not doping. You seem to be the one confusing the issue. Bringing your T levels up by not using banned substances is not doping. Bringing them up using banned substances is. If you can magically send your T levels through the roof with items not banned, more power to you. Then you hit the jackpot physiology and will be rewarded by being fast on race day (as it should be).

On the part about doctors being trained to understand drugs and chemicals it is impossible for any doc to "out understand" the guy at the pharma company because they are the specialists in that drug, the medical guy cannot be. It's just not possible to stay on top of every drug, its up and downsides and the near, mid, and long term impacts....so most docs will just parrot out whatever the drug company fed them, mainly due to lack of time, not because they are not smart enough. It's just how things work. You can't possibly outsmart someone about their own product when they created it and tested it to death and know all the gory details.

What are those supplements and are they certified to not contain any banned substances? I'm sure you are aware that the vast majority of studies have shown that supplements contain ingredients not listed in quite a high percentage of products.

Here is a link http://www.nsf.org/.../certified-for-sport

I do, this was part of the discussion. We agree that synthetic use is banned, but natural increasing isn't, you gave a great example of that. But lots of people are getting bent out of shape about the performance enhancements of increasing T levels. Naturally increased T levels will get you within normal ranges, legally, and will not give you these great enhancements that come through synthetic T use that drives levels way outside of normal ranges. We begun arguing different points now. As you stated at the end, perhaps someday use of synthetic T for normal range levels will be allowed. But because of it's ability to increase outside the normal, and therefore enhance performance, it's not allowed. Agree

I've chimed in on past similar topics and put my thoughts forward based on an extensive background on this topic. This time I just want to put forth a reminder of a few observations in my small circle. By the way I too have been diagnosed with low T and was prescribed Androgel and Testosterone Cypionate. I do not compete and gave myself a lifetime ban years ago after a 10+ years competing in an all out drug sport. I have a lot of experience and much of it on the psychological side of using and users.

Because of my past winning and reputation I have been approached many times and now days I get an opportunity to throw in a few things to consider to these 40+ year old fathers that are on prescription level use. Now I am not a doctor and I am not going to remark for those who feel they need medication. I say feel they need it because I have low T (potentially because I damaged my own system enough back in the day from heavy use) and have been training both strength and endurance drug free with enthusiasm.

Observations
1. 100% of the guys that have approached me (non-competitors) at the gym have asked me how to get more. They either ask me if I am a source, if I have a source or how to convince their doctor to increase the prescribed amount. That increased self-esteem is a very strong addiction at first but it is hard to sustain without feeding it more.

2. Even though the prescribed doses are a very minimal I have seen each of these guys (100%) increase strength at a pace that well exceeds that of most guys at that age and even most drug free young guys that have a naturally higher level.

3. 100% of these guys that have approached me have disappeared from the gym. Did they go to another gym or did they quit because they could not sustain the use perhaps from the diligence it takes or the financial burden of paying out of pocket? I do know of two guys that did approach me that were becoming discouraged and depressed while on the prescribed dose that stated they were losing motivation to train. When one comes off that high or cannot sustain it they generally plummet extremely hard to depression levels far worse than levels before use. Doctors that prescribe typically give no counseling as to these things. Mine didn't but I already had heavy prior experience including a period of being suicidal when I was in my 20's. At the time I did not understand these things and did not understand how to cope with coming off a cycle. Many people do not understand this facet and doctors that prescribe leave this out of the conversation or they have no personal experience or knowledge about using.

So my chief question to myself and the one that I ask them is, "Where does it end?" Because each guy must face that question and think about it carefully hopefully before they start using. Let's say a guy starts at 50 does he continue using until the grave? Is he willing to give himself and injection for the sake of vanity and self-esteem (in most cases it is for vanity regardless of what they claim). Because at the time they come off I can almost promise the condition at that point is going to be worse than it was before they started using.

Now on testing in sports it is insane to think that it can be controlled. The unsavory trait of humans is that some are cheaters and that will not stop if you open the door for all to use. By allowing guys in whatever age group to use for "medical reasons" (boy does that get fuzzy) the ones that justify use will find a way to use more in order to gain the edge. Next thing you know they are all paranoid of what one another is using and they all begin to increase the dosage a little more and a little more. Believe me this goes on more than most know. This makes it impossible for the sporting federation to make it a level playing field compared to just banning it all outright.

I've been down this road for many years and I do not claim to be the smartest guy on this topic, but I've seen enough through the years that the best path for, as Dave said 99.9%, of those could probably deal with low T or the traits of low T without medical aide. I have low T and don't even bother with attempting to supplement for it naturally other than eating well and continued training. That's just the path that I chose and I feel like my training in strength and endurance is going pretty good. I feel confident that most aging guys can do the same with some effort and planning.

All my post is just personal opinion based on a lot of observation through the years.

Figured that I would throw something in here that no one is addressing. The testing itself can be a bit misleading depending on where the test is done, what methodology they use, and of course how the MD interprets this (i.e. if the MD actually understands what the testing is telling...which in my experience is rarely the case...they just have too much other stuff to remember to know the details, even though it may be important for a proper diagnosis...but I digress). I can say that I know a bit about this stuff as develop technology for use in next gen diagnostics; and I am intimately familiar with the difficulties/shortcomings of quantitative diagnostics (the technology, practitioners, and interpretation). I have included below a diagram from the first article that popped up (and there are many others) which shows the precision of the tests from several labs.

So what is the take-away?

If you feel good, think good an hard about changing anything because a lab test came back saying that something was 'a little low'. You may not have all the information that you need for making a good decision. Also remember that a second opinion is a good thing, and if a MD gets offended by you going for a second opinion (which I have seen on multiple occasions), then you may also consider that your MD may not be the best choice.

Stephen J

---

I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)^2