Got Testosterone?

[WillBrink]

This is an interesting and useful study I thought regarding long term metabolic effects of TRT in men diagnosed low T:

Long-term testosterone therapy in hypogonadal men ameliorates elements of the metabolic syndrome: an observational, long-term registry study

Summary

Aim

The goal of this study was to determine if long-term testosterone (T) therapy in men with hypogonadism, henceforth referred to as testosterone deficiency (TD), ameliorates or improves metabolic syndrome (MetS) components.

Methods

We performed a cumulative registry study of 255 men, aged between 33 and 69 years (mean 58.02 ± 6.30) with subnormal plasma total T levels (mean: 9.93 ± 1.38; range: 5.89–12.13 nmol/l) as well as at least mild symptoms of TD assessed by the Aging Males' symptoms scale. All men received treatment with parenteral T undecanoate 1000 mg (Nebido®, Bayer Pharma, Berlin, Germany), administered at baseline and 6 weeks and thereafter every 12 weeks for up to 60 months. Lipids, glucose, liver enzymes and haemoglobin A1c analyses were carried out in a commercial laboratory. Anthropometric measurements were also made throughout the study period.

Results

Testosterone therapy restored physiological T levels and resulted in reductions in total cholesterol (TC) [7.29 ± 1.03 to 4.87 ± 0.29 mmol/l (281.58 ± 39.8 to 188.12 ± 11.31 mg/dl)], low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [4.24 ± 1.07 to 2.84 ± 0.92 mmol/l (163.79 ± 41.44 to 109.84 ± 35.41 mg/dl)], triglycerides [3.14 ± 0.58 to 2.16 ± 0.13 mmol/l (276.16 ± 51.32 to 189.78 ± 11.33 mg/dl)] and increased high-density lipoprotein levels [1.45 ± 0.46 to 1.52 ± 0.45 mmol/l (56.17 ± 17.79 to 58.85 ± 17.51 mg/dl)] (p < 0.0001 for all). There were marked reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, blood glucose, haemoglobin A1c, C-reactive protein (6.29 ± 7.96 to 1.03 ± 1.87 U/l), alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase (p < 0.0001 for all).

Conclusions

Long-term T therapy, at physiological levels, ameliorates MetS components. These findings strongly suggest that T therapy in hypogonadal men may prove useful in reducing the risk of cardiometabolic diseases.

[FloridaWoodsman]

This thread has been an interesting read. I suspect my doctor has been overly conservative, and just hitting the minimum levels may not be enough.

[warpigM-4]

I am 44 and just started taking a shot from my DR once a month . the andjogel is super expensive so I have to go to the Dr to get shots , I have just had my first and getting ready for my second .
I have noticed a little more energy and my mood has been getting better .
I did ask my DR about all the ads about the pills you see sold at GNC and in men's mags .
He Said "that they are hype ,stay away from them .Once the pill hits your stomach acids that is pretty much it for the T. the body needs to take it in in either a gel or shot through the muscle to be effected ".

[WillBrink]

I am 44 and just started taking a shot from my DR once a month . the andjogel is super expensive so I have to go to the Dr to get shots , I have just had my first and getting ready for my second .
I have noticed a little more energy and my mood has been getting better .
I did ask my DR about all the ads about the pills you see sold at GNC and in men's mags .
He Said "that they are hype ,stay away from them .Once the pill hits your stomach acids that is pretty much it for the T. the body needs to take it in in either a gel or shot through the muscle to be effected ".

If you are in the US, unless they are offering something new I am not aware of different from the two common ester of T (Cyp or Enanth), that will be a very sub optimal schedule. I recommend reading this thread and the "low T at 26" thread for more details on that, which you may want to discuss with your doc once you have that intel.

Good luck.

[warpigM-4]

thank Will I should ask a few more questions about what i am getting .
they told me My T was on the low normal side ?? which would be the best for my case ??
this is what i received it the mail on my Lab work

Comprehensive metabolic Panel
Testosterone 205 normal range :175-781 ng/dL

Plus a full list of other things checked
I am in The US in Alabama been seeing the same DR for about 5 years now

[WillBrink]

thank Will I should ask a few more questions about what i am getting .
they told me My T was on the low normal side ?? which would be the best for my case ??
this is what i received it the mail on my Lab work

Comprehensive metabolic Panel
Testosterone 205 normal range :175-781 ng/dL

Plus a full list of other things checked
I am in The US in Alabama been seeing the same DR for about 5 years now

Give the threads mentioned a full read. They are loaded with info that will help you optimize dose, levels, etc. Feel free to ask additional Qs after that as needed. It will be a big intel dump for you, but worth it I assure you.

[FloridaWoodsman]

This news today seems to raise some questions:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2...s-early-death/

[WillBrink]

This news today seems to raise some questions:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2...s-early-death/

Questions are good, and data coming in is important. However, the vast majority of recent data associates low T with increased risks of CVD and other diseases, and or, finds no effects. Also, see:

Flawed Testosterone Analysis Spurs Misleading Media Headlines

[FloridaWoodsman]

Questions are good, and data coming in is important. However, the vast majority of recent data associates low T with increased risks of CVD and other diseases, and or, finds no effects. Also, see:

Flawed Testosterone Analysis Spurs Misleading Media Headlines

It kind of reminds me of the many tests on coffee through the years - it's good - it's bad - it's good - it's bad...

Anyway, my doc has been keeping me at a minimal level and I may need to talk to him about that.

[WillBrink]

It kind of reminds me of the many tests on coffee through the years - it's good - it's bad - it's good - it's bad...

Anyway, my doc has been keeping me at a minimal level and I may need to talk to him about that.

Not exactly. Remember, what you were reading is the media's take on that, which is always designed to sound black/white. It's true that some things we eat considered "bad" * have indeed been found to have potential health benefits, such as coffee, chocolate, etc, but one sees trends in science that will show how findings are changing. That's the strength of science, it's always evolving. For say non science types, that can get frustrating no doubt.

* = The very term is of no real value and just adds confusion for people.