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