Is it a bit of a paradox?

T levels decrease with age - some suggest these lower T levels are
contributory to aging.

However other studies on more primitive species suggest the most
significant life extension is accomplished when both CR is practiced
and sex organs removed.

Since there is so much out there online that is more of a
"advertisement" to sell exogenous testosterone, it is a bit hard to
tell for me whether keeping my T levels at medium normal levels (as
opposed to low normal) is a wise thing to do.

There seems to be a lot of negative aspects of "high" T levels...
Prostate cancer (and possibly others)... Baldness?

I guess I'm just looking for peoples thoughts on TRT. (Torsion
damaged one of my testes and hence I have a lot less T in my system
than I used to, and am concerned about long term affects of both low T
and TRT)

Dirk

Medium normal may not be medium normal for you. Further lab
derive their "normal range" from other patients tests they do;
therefore, I suspect the range itself may have a low bias.

There are alot of levers to pull in hopes of reducing one chances
of prostate cancer if you start early. Avoid fried foods, use a selenium
supplement, get ample amounts of gamma tocopherol, and get ample
amounts of vitamin D. I'd rather be bald and have strong bone
and greater strength and energy than my "andropausal"/ A.D.A.M.
age cohorts.

I'll suggest you start reading the alt.support.impotence usenet forum.
I'd be concerned. Most all middle aged and elderly males gradually
find themselves with the same problem. Most internalize it, not really
understanding what is hitting them, most GPs and even specialists
are clueless or even in denial. You will need to educate yourself.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:10:11 -0800, "William A. Noyes"
no.address@ctc.net> wrote:

Medium normal may not be medium normal for you. Further lab
derive their "normal range" from other patients tests they do;
therefore, I suspect the range itself may have a low bias.

William - thanks for your post.

My test results:

Testosterone 381 (Normal Range 241 - 827)
Free Test 14.4 (Normal Range 8.7 - 25.1)
PSA 0.93

Unfortunately I do not know the T units.


I am in my early 30's. The loss of T was noticeable in that facial
hair grows much slower and my voice is a little higher than it use to
be.


There are alot of levers to pull in hopes of reducing one chances
of prostate cancer if you start early. Avoid fried foods, use a selenium
supplement, get ample amounts of gamma tocopherol, and get ample
amounts of vitamin D. I'd rather be bald and have strong bone
and greater strength and energy than my "andropausal"/ A.D.A.M.
age cohorts.

True - I get ample Selenium, and gamma tocopherol, EPA/DHA, and
lycopene. Vitamin D I'm currently at 400 IU - plus whatever I get
from my diet. I did not realize it had Prostate implacations - I will
consider increasing it after doing a little more research.

I guess I'm really trying to weigh the good and bad of using exogenous
T to prevent bone loss and muscle loss. In that I really don't know
where I should be concerned. Today perhaps I'm fine - or maybe I'm
sub-optimal,

But I'm also not sure if adding exogenous T is a smart thing, because
it just seems that there are positive and negative effect of T. More
than just Prostate Cancer... There are other negatives about T, are
there not?

I'll suggest you start reading the alt.support.impotence usenet forum.
I'd be concerned. Most all middle aged and elderly males gradually
find themselves with the same problem. Most internalize it, not really
understanding what is hitting them, most GPs and even specialists
are clueless or even in denial. You will need to educate yourself.

I have read a little bit over there - I don't have ED yet, but I can
tell a bit of a difference - and I know in years to come it will
probably impact me more singificantly.

There are ways of treating that - either by addressing the symptoms,
or by exogenous T. But either way, I still am concerned about what is
optimal for life extension. By reading an article I saw on LEF's
website - it made you think that T was (almost) a cure-all for so many
aspects of male aging. I'm a bit hesitant to believe that - and I'm
really looking for fair and balanced information to help me determine
my corse of action.

My Urologist is open to sending me to a endocronologist - but the
average Dr isn't going to promote it. (Even though it impacts, bone
density, muscle retention, possibly insulin resistance - and a whole
host of other things?)

Thanks again for your post - I really do appreciate it.

Dirk

Is it a bit of a paradox?

T levels decrease with age - some suggest these lower T levels are
contributory to aging.

However other studies on more primitive species suggest the most
significant life extension is accomplished when both CR is practiced
and sex organs removed.

Since there is so much out there online that is more of a
"advertisement" to sell exogenous testosterone, it is a bit hard to
tell for me whether keeping my T levels at medium normal levels (as
opposed to low normal) is a wise thing to do.

There seems to be a lot of negative aspects of "high" T levels...
Prostate cancer (and possibly others)... Baldness?

I guess I'm just looking for peoples thoughts on TRT. (Torsion
damaged one of my testes and hence I have a lot less T in my system
than I used to, and am concerned about long term affects of both low T
and TRT)

Dirk

Dirk at dirknews@nycap.rr_REMOVE_ME.com wrote:


Is it a bit of a paradox?

T levels decrease with age - some suggest these lower T levels are
contributory to aging.

However other studies on more primitive species suggest the most
significant life extension is accomplished when both CR is practiced
and sex organs removed.

Since there is so much out there online that is more of a
"advertisement" to sell exogenous testosterone, it is a bit hard to
tell for me whether keeping my T levels at medium normal levels (as
opposed to low normal) is a wise thing to do.

There seems to be a lot of negative aspects of "high" T levels...
Prostate cancer (and possibly others)... Baldness?

I guess I'm just looking for peoples thoughts on TRT. (Torsion
damaged one of my testes and hence I have a lot less T in my system
than I used to, and am concerned about long term affects of both low T
and TRT)

Dirk

T causes all sorts of problems as you mentioned, including increased
oxidative stress. Everything you said is true. The reasons to raise T are
quality of life issues, not life extension. It will likely have a negative
impact on life extension. For some reason lots of people want to believe T
is something wonderful. It does some cool things, but for aging and age
related disorders, its not good. Just because something declines with age,
doesn't mean boosting it will counter aging in general. Like injecting GH,
it's asking your body to do work, to work harder, expend more energy, to
build muscle, increase aggression, etc. People will argue that it only
makes
sense to get your levels back up to where they were in your youth. That
might sound nice, but it still doesn't mean T was ever good for you in
terms
of longevity. I would not be concerned about the "long term effects of low

T" as long as you do not view it as negatively affecting your quality of
life. Long term, you might have less muscle mass, more hair, less facial
and
body hair, less aggressive, possibly more depression, less energy, less
acne, increased risk of prostate cancer, reduced libido, impotence,
decreased bone mass, and maybe others...

Some people seem to think there is something different about men that we
need T, where women do not. In terms of sexual functions, yes, T is
critical. But, our hearts and arteries don't need T anymore than women do,
nor do any other internal organs.

"Outsourced" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BC06CC33.9F23%spam@hotmail.com...
Dirk at dirknews@nycap.rr_REMOVE_ME.com wrote:


Is it a bit of a paradox?

T levels decrease with age - some suggest these lower T levels are
contributory to aging.

However other studies on more primitive species suggest the most
significant life extension is accomplished when both CR is practiced
and sex organs removed.

Since there is so much out there online that is more of a
"advertisement" to sell exogenous testosterone, it is a bit hard to
tell for me whether keeping my T levels at medium normal levels (as
opposed to low normal) is a wise thing to do.

There seems to be a lot of negative aspects of "high" T levels...
Prostate cancer (and possibly others)... Baldness?

I guess I'm just looking for peoples thoughts on TRT. (Torsion
damaged one of my testes and hence I have a lot less T in my system
than I used to, and am concerned about long term affects of both low T
and TRT)

Dirk

T causes all sorts of problems as you mentioned, including increased
oxidative stress. Everything you said is true. The reasons to raise T are
quality of life issues, not life extension. It will likely have a negative
impact on life extension. For some reason lots of people want to believe T
is something wonderful. It does some cool things, but for aging and age
related disorders, its not good. Just because something declines with age,
doesn't mean boosting it will counter aging in general. Like injecting GH,
it's asking your body to do work, to work harder, expend more energy, to
build muscle, increase aggression, etc. People will argue that it only
makes
sense to get your levels back up to where they were in your youth. That
might sound nice, but it still doesn't mean T was ever good for you in
terms
of longevity. I would not be concerned about the "long term effects of low

T" as long as you do not view it as negatively affecting your quality of
life. Long term, you might have less muscle mass, more hair, less facial
and
body hair, less aggressive, possibly more depression, less energy, less
acne, increased risk of prostate cancer, reduced libido, impotence,
decreased bone mass, and maybe others...

Not "might" rather "will"

Sounds good for death curve squaring to me.


Some people seem to think there is something different about men that we
need T, where women do not. In terms of sexual functions, yes, T is
critical. But, our hearts and arteries don't need T anymore than women do,
nor do any other internal organs.


And some seem to want to believe T is the source of all problems!

The assertion that T doesn't do any good for aging related ailments
is without basis. What evidence there is points to being beneficial
provided the older male individual isn't already suffering from an
androgen sensitive neoplasm. Much of the research has not been performed
in humans, instead we hear or read these "old wives tales" or better
and more accurate "old andropausal farts tales" such as seen above.

The evidence is that the combination of low androgen levels and low
vitamin D result in an increased risk of prostate cancer.

In animal models, androgen reduce the severity of stroke.
In rheumatiod arthritis with animal models, additional androgens
reduce inflammation. Indeed, there is some evidence that
hypoandrogenemia is a significant cause of rheumatoid arthritis.

Further both males and female go thru andropause. And both will
benefit from supplemental androgens.

There is no evidence that restoring testosterone to levels found
in healthy young males causes aggression beyond that of a
healthy young male. Indeed, low T is related to dark dangerous
depressive moods that befall some men. Use of levels
beyond the normal natural levels in teens is another matter.

Granted not all androgen forms are safe for example methyltestosterone.
Users of T should monitor estrogen levels as certain modes
of use are prone to transiet excess T levels the results in the
conversion T to E. There are steps that can be taken
to block or correct this problem.

Let the patient have a choice...............................
Avoid old andropausal professional farts tales......

William A. Noyes at no.address@ctc.net wrote:


"Outsourced" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BC06CC33.9F23%spam@hotmail.com...
Dirk at dirknews@nycap.rr_REMOVE_ME.com wrote:


Is it a bit of a paradox?

T levels decrease with age - some suggest these lower T levels are
contributory to aging.

However other studies on more primitive species suggest the most
significant life extension is accomplished when both CR is practiced
and sex organs removed.

Since there is so much out there online that is more of a
"advertisement" to sell exogenous testosterone, it is a bit hard to
tell for me whether keeping my T levels at medium normal levels (as
opposed to low normal) is a wise thing to do.

There seems to be a lot of negative aspects of "high" T levels...
Prostate cancer (and possibly others)... Baldness?

I guess I'm just looking for peoples thoughts on TRT. (Torsion
damaged one of my testes and hence I have a lot less T in my system
than I used to, and am concerned about long term affects of both low T
and TRT)

Dirk

T causes all sorts of problems as you mentioned, including increased
oxidative stress. Everything you said is true. The reasons to raise T
are
quality of life issues, not life extension. It will likely have a
negative
impact on life extension. For some reason lots of people want to
believe T
is something wonderful. It does some cool things, but for aging and age
related disorders, its not good. Just because something declines with
age,
doesn't mean boosting it will counter aging in general. Like injecting
GH,
it's asking your body to do work, to work harder, expend more energy,
to
build muscle, increase aggression, etc. People will argue that it only
makes
sense to get your levels back up to where they were in your youth. That
might sound nice, but it still doesn't mean T was ever good for you in
terms
of longevity. I would not be concerned about the "long term effects of
low

T" as long as you do not view it as negatively affecting your quality
of
life. Long term, you might have less muscle mass, more hair, less
facial
and
body hair, less aggressive, possibly more depression, less energy, less
acne, increased risk of prostate cancer, reduced libido, impotence,
decreased bone mass, and maybe others...

Not "might" rather "will"

As you wish. I don't think you read my list correctly.

And, let me add to the list: reduced oxidative stress, and reduced risk of
heart disease.

Sounds good for death curve squaring to me.


Some people seem to think there is something different about men that
we
need T, where women do not. In terms of sexual functions, yes, T is
critical. But, our hearts and arteries don't need T anymore than women
do,
nor do any other internal organs.


And some seem to want to believe T is the source of all problems!

It's a source of a lot of them to be sure. Excess T and especially DHT,
can
cause a bunch of problems.

In some men, supplementation may be a net
positive. But, I would say, if your levels are a little low, be glad. If
your levels are high, be worried -- and take steps to avoid the damage
that
will do. If your levels are very low, consider supplementation, but only
if
you want it, not for health reasons, but for quality of life reasons.

Let me add that a big part of the problem is DHT

and not always T.
Conversion from T to DHT increases with age.

And so, if you supplement,
especially if you are older, you end up with tons of DHT,

and that's bad. If
you supplement to get your levels back up to youthful levels, you end up
with much more DHT than you would have if you were younger. If I were
going
to supplement T, I would also take a 5ar inhibitor with it.

Most hormones are double edged. A study finds that the Castrati live as
long
as normal males. Listening to you, one would think the Castrati would die
sooner and have horrible disorders.

This is not the case. Listening to me,
you would think they would live longer. Why didn't they live longer?
Probably because of the protective effects of estrogen. Yes, estrogen,
because low T will yield low E in men.

Supplementing T is another matter.
This study was comparing normal men, whose levels naturally fall. If you
compare men who supplement, I bet you will see shorter lifespan.

The assertion that T doesn't do any good for aging related ailments
is without basis. What evidence there is points to being beneficial
provided the older male individual isn't already suffering from an
androgen sensitive neoplasm. Much of the research has not been performed
in humans, instead we hear or read these "old wives tales" or better
and more accurate "old andropausal farts tales" such as seen above.

The evidence is that the combination of low androgen levels and low
vitamin D result in an increased risk of prostate cancer (PC).

One of the treatments for prostate cancer is castration plus strong
systemic
anti-androgens. Obviously, low androgen levels do not put someone at
increased risk of prostate cancer -- that would put someone at less risk.

Its a complicated picture because of the conversions and feedback between
the hormones and their production. And, if you are talking about cancer
cells, they again can act differently to hormones.

In animal models, androgen reduce the severity of stroke.
In rheumatiod arthritis with animal models, additional androgens
reduce inflammation. Indeed, there is some evidence that
hypoandrogenemia is a significant cause of rheumatoid arthritis.

In many ways androgens induce inflammation.

Further both males and female go thru andropause. And both will
benefit from supplemental androgens.

T stays pretty constant through menopause, and since E plummets, the T:E
ratio goes up considerably.

Androgens shorten the longevity of women: sopranos last longer.
Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2003 Jun;111(4):230-1.

There is no evidence that restoring testosterone to levels found
in healthy young males causes aggression beyond that of a
healthy young male. Indeed, low T is related to dark dangerous
depressive moods that befall some men. Use of levels
beyond the normal natural levels in teens is another matter.

You are right.

Granted not all androgen forms are safe for example methyltestosterone.
Users of T should monitor estrogen levels as certain modes
of use are prone to transiet excess T levels the results in the
conversion T to E. There are steps that can be taken
to block or correct this problem.

One of the reasons to supplement T is for extra E. The bone loss seen in
men
with low T, is actually from low E not low T.

But, without T, men have
little E. But, then, conversion from T to E goes up with age, and then you
can end up with too much E. E, like most hormones, does some bad things
too.

Taking an aromatase inhibitor might make sense in theory, but it would be
easy to drive E too low again.

Let the patient have a choice...............................
Avoid old andropausal professional farts tales......

Agreed. It's a quality of life issue, and it is up to the individual. I am
not completely against it, and I might even choose it myself if I were in
the same situation as the OP.

"Outsourced" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BC07F632.A11D%spam@hotmail.com...
William A. Noyes at no.address@ctc.net wrote:


"Outsourced" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BC06CC33.9F23%spam@hotmail.com...
Dirk at dirknews@nycap.rr_REMOVE_ME.com wrote:


Is it a bit of a paradox?

T levels decrease with age - some suggest these lower T levels are
contributory to aging.

However other studies on more primitive species suggest the most
significant life extension is accomplished when both CR is practiced
and sex organs removed.

Since there is so much out there online that is more of a
"advertisement" to sell exogenous testosterone, it is a bit hard to
tell for me whether keeping my T levels at medium normal levels (as
opposed to low normal) is a wise thing to do.

There seems to be a lot of negative aspects of "high" T levels...
Prostate cancer (and possibly others)... Baldness?

I guess I'm just looking for peoples thoughts on TRT. (Torsion
damaged one of my testes and hence I have a lot less T in my system
than I used to, and am concerned about long term affects of both low T
and TRT)

Dirk

T causes all sorts of problems as you mentioned, including increased
oxidative stress. Everything you said is true. The reasons to raise T
are
quality of life issues, not life extension. It will likely have a
negative
impact on life extension. For some reason lots of people want to
believe T
is something wonderful. It does some cool things, but for aging and age
related disorders, its not good. Just because something declines with
age,
doesn't mean boosting it will counter aging in general. Like injecting
GH,
it's asking your body to do work, to work harder, expend more energy,
to
build muscle, increase aggression, etc. People will argue that it only
makes
sense to get your levels back up to where they were in your youth. That
might sound nice, but it still doesn't mean T was ever good for you in
terms
of longevity. I would not be concerned about the "long term effects of
low

T" as long as you do not view it as negatively affecting your quality
of
life. Long term, you might have less muscle mass, more hair, less
facial
and
body hair, less aggressive, possibly more depression, less energy, less
acne, increased risk of prostate cancer, reduced libido, impotence,
decreased bone mass, and maybe others...

Not "might" rather "will"

As you wish. I don't think you read my list correctly.

And, let me add to the list: reduced oxidative stress, and reduced risk of
heart disease.

That is a change in your list of claims.


Sounds good for death curve squaring to me.


Some people seem to think there is something different about men that
we
need T, where women do not. In terms of sexual functions, yes, T is
critical. But, our hearts and arteries don't need T anymore than women
do,
nor do any other internal organs.


And some seem to want to believe T is the source of all problems!

It's a source of a lot of them to be sure. Excess T and especially DHT,
can
cause a bunch of problems.

Mainly in supra-physiological doses.

In some men, supplementation may be a net
positive. But, I would say, if your levels are a little low, be glad. If
your levels are high, be worried -- and take steps to avoid the damage
that
will do. If your levels are very low, consider supplementation, but only
if
you want it, not for health reasons, but for quality of life reasons.

Let me add that a big part of the problem is DHT

No it not. It not the simple. Quit listening to Merck rep!

Read the following: Journal of Clinical Endocrinology &
Metabolism Vol 87, No 4 1462-1466
Pubmed provides a link to the full text special feature article.
"Should the Nonaromatizable Androgen DHT Be Considered
as an Alternative to Testosterone in the TX of Andropause?"

and not always T.
Conversion from T to DHT increases with age.

Evidence? I am still not up to speed on this topic so I
have numerous blind spots. If this is true, perhaps it is
the result of higher LH secretions seen in some males
as their organism vainly tries to keep its androgen levels up.

And so, if you supplement,
especially if you are older, you end up with tons of DHT,

I am more concerned about the added estrogen(E) due it aromatization
from T.

and that's bad. If
you supplement to get your levels back up to youthful levels, you end up
with much more DHT than you would have if you were younger. If I were
going
to supplement T, I would also take a 5ar inhibitor with it.

A patient might need such TX but it is far from ideal. Better to use DHT
gel.
Its use suppresses E2 , T & LH. I'll repeat estrogen seems to be the
main cause of BPH and a cause of some PCs.

Most hormones are double edged. A study finds that the Castrati live as
long
as normal males. Listening to you, one would think the Castrati would die
sooner and have horrible disorders.

That doesn't follow completely follow. As I recall Castrati at least the
Chinese Forbidden City version did suffer from more low bone density
problems in their old age than normal males.
The Castati in the Italian version were
castrated before theire prostate and genitals were fully developed and hence
would have had reduced sex apparatus to been pathological.
Castrated animals are less vigorous in very harsh environments.
Still I agree the Castrati suggest that lower T isn't completely
disasterous as reguard length of life. I'll suggest that
the Castrati bodies may have partly compensated
by increases in the adrenal hormone DHEA.



This is not the case. Listening to me,
you would think they would live longer. Why didn't they live longer?
Probably because of the protective effects of estrogen. Yes, estrogen,
because low T will yield low E in men.

You are unclear here. Yes too little E and too much E
are both problems.

Supplementing T is another matter.
This study was comparing normal men, whose levels naturally fall. If you
compare men who supplement, I bet you will see shorter lifespan.

If the supplement is DHT gel plus a little DHEA you will likely see a
longer lifespan. Ideally the DHEA dose would be titrated to provide
the optimal E levels.

If the supplement is T gel we may see something closer to a "wash"
with individual winners and losers.


The assertion that T doesn't do any good for aging related ailments
is without basis. What evidence there is points to being beneficial
provided the older male individual isn't already suffering from an
androgen sensitive neoplasm. Much of the research has not been performed
in humans, instead we hear or read these "old wives tales" or better
and more accurate "old andropausal farts tales" such as seen above.

The evidence is that the combination of low androgen levels and low
vitamin D result in an increased risk of prostate cancer (PC).

One of the treatments for prostate cancer is castration plus strong
systemic
anti-androgens. Obviously, low androgen levels do not put someone at
increased risk of prostate cancer -- that would put someone at less risk.

Wrong.

Low androgen combined with low vitamin D level yield greater
chances of PC.

High T alone might a risk.

In low T, higher vitamin D
doesn't help prevent PC.

Its a complicated picture because of the conversions and feedback between
the hormones and their production. And, if you are talking about cancer
cells, they again can act differently to hormones.

Of course. And they adapt.


In animal models, androgen reduce the severity of stroke.
In rheumatiod arthritis with animal models, additional androgens
reduce inflammation. Indeed, there is some evidence that
hypoandrogenemia is a significant cause of rheumatoid arthritis.

In many ways androgens induce inflammation.

Further both males and female go thru andropause. And both will
benefit from supplemental androgens.

T stays pretty constant through menopause, and since E plummets, the T:E
ratio goes up considerably.

Androgen decline in women also. Granted it isn't in lock step with the
declines
in E and P.

Androgens shorten the longevity of women: sopranos last longer.
Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2003 Jun;111(4):230-1.

There is no evidence that restoring testosterone to levels found
in healthy young males causes aggression beyond that of a
healthy young male. Indeed, low T is related to dark dangerous
depressive moods that befall some men. Use of levels
beyond the normal natural levels in teens is another matter.

You are right.

Granted not all androgen forms are safe for example methyltestosterone.
Users of T should monitor estrogen levels as certain modes
of use are prone to transiet excess T levels the results in the
conversion T to E. There are steps that can be taken
to block or correct this problem.

One of the reasons to supplement T is for extra E. The bone loss seen in
men
with low T, is actually from low E not low T.

I'll bet a dose somewhere in the range 5 to 50 mgs of DHEA provide
enough E to help the bones. Of course supplements with ample vitamin
D ~ 1000 IU/d and ample vitamin K ~ 1.0 mgs/d

But, without T, men have
little E. But, then, conversion from T to E goes up with age, and then you
can end up with too much E. E, like most hormones, does some bad things
too.

Yes this seems to be a problem. The weight gains of middle age
clearly worse the situation as this results in higher E levels and
heavier prostate adenomas because of the additional E.
Obese male have twice the E levels. PMID 8738620

Taking an aromatase inhibitor might make sense in theory, but it would be
easy to drive E too low again.

I agree that may well be a risk.


Let the patient have a choice...............................
Avoid old andropausal professional farts tales......

Agreed. It's a quality of life issue, and it is up to the individual. I am
not completely against it, and I might even choose it myself if I were in
the same situation as the OP.


It certainly is a big quality issue. A least a third of the population
will spend the last part of their lives overtly deficient in some endrocrine
hormone.


I am pretty positive on androgen replacement TX if the old
andropausal farts ever chose to practice good medicine.
Having said that, I observe that they and big Pharm
found numerous ways of screwing up the HRT used in women.
Bottom line, I might have to choose
such TX if I live long enough.

William A. Noyes at no.address@ctc.net wrote:


"Outsourced" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BC07F632.A11D%spam@hotmail.com...
William A. Noyes at no.address@ctc.net wrote:


"Outsourced" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BC06CC33.9F23%spam@hotmail.com...
Dirk at dirknews@nycap.rr_REMOVE_ME.com wrote:


Is it a bit of a paradox?

T levels decrease with age - some suggest these lower T levels are
contributory to aging.

However other studies on more primitive species suggest the most
significant life extension is accomplished when both CR is practiced
and sex organs removed.

Since there is so much out there online that is more of a
"advertisement" to sell exogenous testosterone, it is a bit hard to
tell for me whether keeping my T levels at medium normal levels (as
opposed to low normal) is a wise thing to do.

There seems to be a lot of negative aspects of "high" T levels...
Prostate cancer (and possibly others)... Baldness?

I guess I'm just looking for peoples thoughts on TRT. (Torsion
damaged one of my testes and hence I have a lot less T in my system
than I used to, and am concerned about long term affects of both low
T
and TRT)

Dirk

T causes all sorts of problems as you mentioned, including increased
oxidative stress. Everything you said is true. The reasons to raise T
are
quality of life issues, not life extension. It will likely have a
negative
impact on life extension. For some reason lots of people want to
believe T
is something wonderful. It does some cool things, but for aging and
age
related disorders, its not good. Just because something declines with
age,
doesn't mean boosting it will counter aging in general. Like
injecting
GH,
it's asking your body to do work, to work harder, expend more energy,
to
build muscle, increase aggression, etc. People will argue that it
only
makes
sense to get your levels back up to where they were in your youth.
That
might sound nice, but it still doesn't mean T was ever good for you
in
terms
of longevity. I would not be concerned about the "long term effects
of
low

T" as long as you do not view it as negatively affecting your quality
of
life. Long term, you might have less muscle mass, more hair, less
facial
and
body hair, less aggressive, possibly more depression, less energy,
less
acne, increased risk of prostate cancer, reduced libido, impotence,
decreased bone mass, and maybe others...

Not "might" rather "will"

As you wish. I don't think you read my list correctly.

And, let me add to the list: reduced oxidative stress, and reduced risk
of
heart disease.

That is a change in your list of claims.


Sounds good for death curve squaring to me.


Some people seem to think there is something different about men that
we
need T, where women do not. In terms of sexual functions, yes, T is
critical. But, our hearts and arteries don't need T anymore than
women
do,
nor do any other internal organs.


And some seem to want to believe T is the source of all problems!

It's a source of a lot of them to be sure. Excess T and especially DHT,
can
cause a bunch of problems.

Mainly in supra-physiological doses.

In some men, supplementation may be a net
positive. But, I would say, if your levels are a little low, be glad.
If
your levels are high, be worried -- and take steps to avoid the damage
that
will do. If your levels are very low, consider supplementation, but
only
if
you want it, not for health reasons, but for quality of life reasons.

Let me add that a big part of the problem is DHT

No it not. It not the simple. Quit listening to Merck rep!

Haha. Im not a doctor, but thanks. I will take that as a complement.

Read the following: Journal of Clinical Endocrinology &
Metabolism Vol 87, No 4 1462-1466
Pubmed provides a link to the full text special feature article.
"Should the Nonaromatizable Androgen DHT Be Considered
as an Alternative to Testosterone in the TX of Andropause?"

Okay, I looked at it. It had one reference to lowered prostate volume with
DHT gel. Basically, the entire study hinges on that one reference, a
French
study.
Im not impressed.
I see several references in the paper. Further, consider the following from

There are numerous studies showing DHT makes BPH
worse.

DHT inibitors, especially dutasteride, improve prostate conditions --
these raise T, raise E, and greatly lower DHT. Those born without 5-ar, or
who are castrated, never have prostate problems.

I feel like these DHT gel
studies are using low doses to eke out a positive effect for some
conditions
and just hoping that none of the negatives show up.

Maybe I should gather up
some negative DHT studies for you, but I don't think I have the energy
because my T is too low. Haha.

Look at how long it took researchers to
figure out that HRT for women was a dud.

I think this is the same kind of
tree they are barking up. They want to believe! You can just see it in
their
wording, describing T as a "remarkable". Yeah, okay, its remarkable, but
could you spare me the drama in a scientific study?

and not always T.
Conversion from T to DHT increases with age.

Evidence? I am still not up to speed on this topic so I
have numerous blind spots. If this is true, perhaps it is
the result of higher LH secretions seen in some males
as their organism vainly tries to keep its androgen levels up.

Changes in serum concentrations of conjugated and unconjugated steroids in
40- to 80-year-old men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1994 Oct;79(4):1086-90.

"However, serum dihydrotestosterone levels remained constant, but the
glucuronidated derivatives of dihydrotestosterone metabolites
(androstane-3
alpha, 17 beta-diol glucuronide, androstane-3 beta, 17 beta-diol
glucuronide, and androsterone glucuronide) were reduced by 45-50%,
suggesting that 5 alpha-reductase activity in peripheral tissues may show
a
compensatory increase during aging."


"Taken together, these data show that despite a marked lowering in the
serum
concentrations of C19-steroid precursors (DHEA-S, DHEA, D 5-DIOL, D
5-DIOL-S, D 4-DIONE, and testosterone), the serum concentrations of 5a
-reduced C19-steroids, as determined by the levels of DHT alone, remained
unaffected, suggesting that 5a --reductase activity could be increased
with
age."

And so, if you supplement,
especially if you are older, you end up with tons of DHT,

I am more concerned about the added estrogen(E) due it aromatization
from T.

and that's bad. If
you supplement to get your levels back up to youthful levels, you end
up
with much more DHT than you would have if you were younger. If I were
going
to supplement T, I would also take a 5ar inhibitor with it.

A patient might need such TX but it is far from ideal. Better to use DHT
gel.
Its use suppresses E2 , T & LH. I'll repeat estrogen seems to be the
main cause of BPH and a cause of some PCs.

Finasteride reduces BPH, reduces the risk of PC, and yet raises estrogen
and
lowers DHT. Yes, I am aware of studies showing correlation with E. There
is
something there, but I don't think anyone has it figured out yet.

A study
suggests that there is a defect in androgen metabolism in those with BPH,
and so it could have nothing to do with absolute levels of any particular
hormones.



Most hormones are double edged. A study finds that the Castrati live as
long
as normal males. Listening to you, one would think the Castrati would
die
sooner and have horrible disorders.

That doesn't follow completely follow. As I recall Castrati at least the
Chinese Forbidden City version did suffer from more low bone density
problems in their old age than normal males.
The Castati in the Italian version were
castrated before theire prostate and genitals were fully developed and
hence
would have had reduced sex apparatus to been pathological.
Castrated animals are less vigorous in very harsh environments.
Still I agree the Castrati suggest that lower T isn't completely
disasterous as reguard length of life. I'll suggest that
the Castrati bodies may have partly compensated
by increases in the adrenal hormone DHEA.



This is not the case. Listening to me,
you would think they would live longer. Why didn't they live longer?
Probably because of the protective effects of estrogen. Yes, estrogen,
because low T will yield low E in men.

You are unclear here. Yes too little E and too much E
are both problems.

Supplementing T is another matter.
This study was comparing normal men, whose levels naturally fall. If
you
compare men who supplement, I bet you will see shorter lifespan.

If the supplement is DHT gel plus a little DHEA you will likely see a
longer lifespan. Ideally the DHEA dose would be titrated to provide
the optimal E levels.

If the supplement is T gel we may see something closer to a "wash"
with individual winners and losers.


The assertion that T doesn't do any good for aging related ailments
is without basis. What evidence there is points to being beneficial
provided the older male individual isn't already suffering from an
androgen sensitive neoplasm. Much of the research has not been
performed
in humans, instead we hear or read these "old wives tales" or better
and more accurate "old andropausal farts tales" such as seen above.

The evidence is that the combination of low androgen levels and low
vitamin D result in an increased risk of prostate cancer (PC).

One of the treatments for prostate cancer is castration plus strong
systemic
anti-androgens. Obviously, low androgen levels do not put someone at
increased risk of prostate cancer -- that would put someone at less
risk.

Wrong.

Wrong?

Low androgen combined with low vitamin D level yield greater
chances of PC.

Fine, but I don't want to talk about vitamin D.

High T alone might a risk.

Right.

In low T, higher vitamin D
doesn't help prevent PC.

Fine. This doesn't disprove what I said.

Its a complicated picture because of the conversions and feedback
between
the hormones and their production. And, if you are talking about cancer
cells, they again can act differently to hormones.

Of course. And they adapt.


In animal models, androgen reduce the severity of stroke.
In rheumatiod arthritis with animal models, additional androgens
reduce inflammation. Indeed, there is some evidence that
hypoandrogenemia is a significant cause of rheumatoid arthritis.

In many ways androgens induce inflammation.

Further both males and female go thru andropause. And both will
benefit from supplemental androgens.

T stays pretty constant through menopause, and since E plummets, the
T:E
ratio goes up considerably.

Androgen decline in women also. Granted it isn't in lock step with the
declines
in E and P.

Androgens shorten the longevity of women: sopranos last longer.
Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2003 Jun;111(4):230-1.

There is no evidence that restoring testosterone to levels found
in healthy young males causes aggression beyond that of a
healthy young male. Indeed, low T is related to dark dangerous
depressive moods that befall some men. Use of levels
beyond the normal natural levels in teens is another matter.

You are right.

Granted not all androgen forms are safe for example
methyltestosterone.
Users of T should monitor estrogen levels as certain modes
of use are prone to transiet excess T levels the results in the
conversion T to E. There are steps that can be taken
to block or correct this problem.

One of the reasons to supplement T is for extra E. The bone loss seen
in
men
with low T, is actually from low E not low T.

I'll bet a dose somewhere in the range 5 to 50 mgs of DHEA provide
enough E to help the bones. Of course supplements with ample vitamin
D ~ 1000 IU/d and ample vitamin K ~ 1.0 mgs/d

But, without T, men have
little E. But, then, conversion from T to E goes up with age, and then
you
can end up with too much E. E, like most hormones, does some bad things
too.

Yes this seems to be a problem. The weight gains of middle age
clearly worse the situation as this results in higher E levels and
heavier prostate adenomas because of the additional E.
Obese male have twice the E levels. PMID 8738620

You add obesity to the picture and you've just added a mountain of
problems
related to hormones, IGF-1, insulin levels, insulin resistance, FFAs,
TNF-alpha, SHBG levels, the list is endless.

Taking an aromatase inhibitor might make sense in theory, but it would
be
easy to drive E too low again.

I agree that may well be a risk.


Let the patient have a choice...............................
Avoid old andropausal professional farts tales......

Agreed. It's a quality of life issue, and it is up to the individual. I
am
not completely against it, and I might even choose it myself if I were
in
the same situation as the OP.


It certainly is a big quality issue. A least a third of the population
will spend the last part of their lives overtly deficient in some
endrocrine
hormone.


I am pretty positive on androgen replacement TX if the old
andropausal farts ever chose to practice good medicine.
Having said that, I observe that they and big Pharm
found numerous ways of screwing up the HRT used in women.
Bottom line, I might have to choose
such TX if I live long enough.

William A. Noyes at no.address@ctc.net wrote:


"Outsourced" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BC07F632.A11D%spam@hotmail.com...
William A. Noyes at no.address@ctc.net wrote:


"Outsourced" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BC06CC33.9F23%spam@hotmail.com...
Dirk at dirknews@nycap.rr_REMOVE_ME.com wrote:


Is it a bit of a paradox?

T levels decrease with age - some suggest these lower T levels are
contributory to aging.

However other studies on more primitive species suggest the most
significant life extension is accomplished when both CR is practiced
and sex organs removed.

Since there is so much out there online that is more of a
"advertisement" to sell exogenous testosterone, it is a bit hard to
tell for me whether keeping my T levels at medium normal levels (as
opposed to low normal) is a wise thing to do.

There seems to be a lot of negative aspects of "high" T levels...
Prostate cancer (and possibly others)... Baldness?

I guess I'm just looking for peoples thoughts on TRT. (Torsion
damaged one of my testes and hence I have a lot less T in my system
than I used to, and am concerned about long term affects of both low
T
and TRT)

Dirk

T causes all sorts of problems as you mentioned, including increased
oxidative stress. Everything you said is true. The reasons to raise T
are
quality of life issues, not life extension. It will likely have a
negative
impact on life extension. For some reason lots of people want to
believe T
is something wonderful. It does some cool things, but for aging and
age
related disorders, its not good. Just because something declines with

age,
doesn't mean boosting it will counter aging in general. Like
injecting
GH,
it's asking your body to do work, to work harder, expend more energy,
to
build muscle, increase aggression, etc. People will argue that it
only
makes
sense to get your levels back up to where they were in your youth.
That
might sound nice, but it still doesn't mean T was ever good for you
in
terms
of longevity. I would not be concerned about the "long term effects
of
low

T" as long as you do not view it as negatively affecting your quality
of
life. Long term, you might have less muscle mass, more hair, less
facial
and
body hair, less aggressive, possibly more depression, less energy,
less
acne, increased risk of prostate cancer, reduced libido, impotence,
decreased bone mass, and maybe others...

Not "might" rather "will"

As you wish. I don't think you read my list correctly.

And, let me add to the list: reduced oxidative stress, and reduced risk
of
heart disease.

That is a change in your list of claims.


Sounds good for death curve squaring to me.


Some people seem to think there is something different about men that
we
need T, where women do not. In terms of sexual functions, yes, T is
critical. But, our hearts and arteries don't need T anymore than
women
do,
nor do any other internal organs.


And some seem to want to believe T is the source of all problems!

It's a source of a lot of them to be sure. Excess T and especially DHT,
can
cause a bunch of problems.

Mainly in supra-physiological doses.

In some men, supplementation may be a net
positive. But, I would say, if your levels are a little low, be glad.
If
your levels are high, be worried -- and take steps to avoid the damage
that
will do. If your levels are very low, consider supplementation, but
only
if
you want it, not for health reasons, but for quality of life reasons.

Let me add that a big part of the problem is DHT

No it not. It not the simple. Quit listening to Merck rep!

Haha. Im not a doctor, but thanks. I will take that as a complement.

Read the following: Journal of Clinical Endocrinology &
Metabolism Vol 87, No 4 1462-1466
Pubmed provides a link to the full text special feature article.
"Should the Nonaromatizable Androgen DHT Be Considered
as an Alternative to Testosterone in the TX of Andropause?"

Okay, I looked at it. It had one reference to lowered prostate volume with
DHT gel. Basically, the entire study hinges on that one reference, a
French
study.
Im not impressed.
I see several references in the paper. Further, consider the following from

There are numerous studies showing DHT makes BPH
worse.

DHT inibitors, especially dutasteride, improve prostate conditions --
these raise T, raise E, and greatly lower DHT. Those born without 5-ar, or
who are castrated, never have prostate problems.

I feel like these DHT gel
studies are using low doses to eke out a positive effect for some
conditions
and just hoping that none of the negatives show up.

Maybe I should gather up
some negative DHT studies for you, but I don't think I have the energy
because my T is too low. Haha.

Look at how long it took researchers to
figure out that HRT for women was a dud.

I think this is the same kind of
tree they are barking up. They want to believe! You can just see it in
their
wording, describing T as a "remarkable". Yeah, okay, its remarkable, but
could you spare me the drama in a scientific study?

and not always T.
Conversion from T to DHT increases with age.

Evidence? I am still not up to speed on this topic so I
have numerous blind spots. If this is true, perhaps it is
the result of higher LH secretions seen in some males
as their organism vainly tries to keep its androgen levels up.

Changes in serum concentrations of conjugated and unconjugated steroids in
40- to 80-year-old men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1994 Oct;79(4):1086-90.

"However, serum dihydrotestosterone levels remained constant, but the
glucuronidated derivatives of dihydrotestosterone metabolites
(androstane-3 alpha, 17 beta-diol glucuronide,
androstane-3 beta, 17 beta-diol
glucuronide, and androsterone glucuronide) were reduced by 45-50%,
suggesting that 5 alpha-reductase activity in peripheral tissues may show
a compensatory increase during aging."


"Taken together, these data show that despite a marked lowering in the
serum
concentrations of C19-steroid precursors (DHEA-S, DHEA, D 5-DIOL, D
5-DIOL-S, D 4-DIONE, and testosterone), the serum concentrations of 5a
-reduced C19-steroids, as determined by the levels of DHT alone, remained
unaffected, suggesting that 5a --reductase activity could be increased
with age."

And so, if you supplement,
especially if you are older, you end up with tons of DHT,

I am more concerned about the added estrogen(E) due it aromatization
from T.

and that's bad. If
you supplement to get your levels back up to youthful levels, you end
up
with much more DHT than you would have if you were younger. If I were
going to supplement T, I would also take a 5ar inhibitor with it.

A patient might need such TX but it is far from ideal. Better to use DHT
gel.
Its use suppresses E2 , T & LH. I'll repeat estrogen seems to be the
main cause of BPH and a cause of some PCs.

Finasteride reduces BPH, reduces the risk of PC, and yet raises estrogen
and lowers DHT. Yes, I am aware of studies showing
correlation with E. There is
something there, but I don't think anyone has it figured out yet.

A study
suggests that there is a defect in androgen metabolism in those with BPH,
and so it could have nothing to do with absolute levels of any particular
hormones.



Most hormones are double edged. A study finds that the Castrati live as
long
as normal males. Listening to you, one would think the Castrati would
die sooner and have horrible disorders.

That doesn't follow completely follow. As I recall Castrati at least the
Chinese Forbidden City version did suffer from more low bone density
problems in their old age than normal males.
The Castati in the Italian version were
castrated before theire prostate and genitals were fully developed and
hence
would have had reduced sex apparatus to been pathological.
Castrated animals are less vigorous in very harsh environments.
Still I agree the Castrati suggest that lower T isn't completely
disasterous as reguard length of life. I'll suggest that
the Castrati bodies may have partly compensated
by increases in the adrenal hormone DHEA.



This is not the case. Listening to me,
you would think they would live longer. Why didn't they live longer?
Probably because of the protective effects of estrogen. Yes, estrogen,
because low T will yield low E in men.

You are unclear here. Yes too little E and too much E
are both problems.

Supplementing T is another matter.
This study was comparing normal men, whose levels naturally fall. If
you
compare men who supplement, I bet you will see shorter lifespan.

If the supplement is DHT gel plus a little DHEA you will likely see a
longer lifespan. Ideally the DHEA dose would be titrated to provide
the optimal E levels.

If the supplement is T gel we may see something closer to a "wash"
with individual winners and losers.


The assertion that T doesn't do any good for aging related ailments
is without basis. What evidence there is points to being beneficial
provided the older male individual isn't already suffering from an
androgen sensitive neoplasm. Much of the research has not been
performed
in humans, instead we hear or read these "old wives tales" or better
and more accurate "old andropausal farts tales" such as seen above.

The evidence is that the combination of low androgen levels and low
vitamin D result in an increased risk of prostate cancer (PC).

One of the treatments for prostate cancer is castration plus strong
systemic
anti-androgens. Obviously, low androgen levels do not put someone at
increased risk of prostate cancer -- that would put someone at less
risk.

Wrong.

Wrong?

Low androgen combined with low vitamin D level yield greater
chances of PC.

Fine, but I don't want to talk about vitamin D.

High T alone might a risk.

Right.

In low T, higher vitamin D
doesn't help prevent PC.

Fine. This doesn't disprove what I said.

Its a complicated picture because of the conversions and feedback
between
the hormones and their production. And, if you are talking about cancer
cells, they again can act differently to hormones.

Of course. And they adapt.


In animal models, androgen reduce the severity of stroke.
In rheumatiod arthritis with animal models, additional androgens
reduce inflammation. Indeed, there is some evidence that
hypoandrogenemia is a significant cause of rheumatoid arthritis.

In many ways androgens induce inflammation.

Further both males and female go thru andropause. And both will
benefit from supplemental androgens.

T stays pretty constant through menopause, and since E plummets, the
T:E
ratio goes up considerably.

Androgen decline in women also. Granted it isn't in lock step with the
declines
in E and P.

Androgens shorten the longevity of women: sopranos last longer.
Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2003 Jun;111(4):230-1.

There is no evidence that restoring testosterone to levels found
in healthy young males causes aggression beyond that of a
healthy young male. Indeed, low T is related to dark dangerous
depressive moods that befall some men. Use of levels
beyond the normal natural levels in teens is another matter.

You are right.

Granted not all androgen forms are safe for example
methyltestosterone.
Users of T should monitor estrogen levels as certain modes
of use are prone to transiet excess T levels the results in the
conversion T to E. There are steps that can be taken
to block or correct this problem.

One of the reasons to supplement T is for extra E. The bone loss seen
in men with low T, is actually from low E not low T.

I'll bet a dose somewhere in the range 5 to 50 mgs of DHEA provide
enough E to help the bones. Of course supplements with ample vitamin
D ~ 1000 IU/d and ample vitamin K ~ 1.0 mgs/d

But, without T, men have
little E. But, then, conversion from T to E goes up with age, and then
you
can end up with too much E. E, like most hormones, does some bad things
too.

Yes this seems to be a problem. The weight gains of middle age
clearly worse the situation as this results in higher E levels and
heavier prostate adenomas because of the additional E.
Obese male have twice the E levels. PMID 8738620

You add obesity to the picture and you've just added a mountain of
problems
related to hormones, IGF-1, insulin levels, insulin resistance, FFAs,
TNF-alpha, SHBG levels, the list is endless.

Taking an aromatase inhibitor might make sense in theory, but it would
be
easy to drive E too low again.

I agree that may well be a risk.


Let the patient have a choice...............................
Avoid old andropausal professional farts tales......

Agreed. It's a quality of life issue, and it is up to the individual. I
am
not completely against it, and I might even choose it myself if I were
in
the same situation as the OP.


It certainly is a big quality issue. A least a third of the population
will spend the last part of their lives overtly deficient in some
endrocrine hormone.


I am pretty positive on androgen replacement TX if the old
andropausal farts ever chose to practice good medicine.
Having said that, I observe that they and big Pharm
found numerous ways of screwing up the HRT used in women.
Bottom line, I might have to choose
such TX if I live long enough.

In terms of longevity. I would not be concerned about the "long term effects
of low T" as long as you do not view it as negatively affecting your quality
of life. Long term, you might have less muscle mass, more hair, less
facial and body hair, less aggressive, possibly more depression, less energy,
less acne, increased risk of prostate cancer, reduced libido, impotence,
decreased bone mass, and maybe others...

And, let me add to the list: reduced oxidative stress, and reduced risk
of heart disease.