The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
Now, it's kind of understood that if somebody chooses, they can usually find a doctor that if they're at the low end of normal, they can push to the high end of normal or to the middle of the of the range so that they can get their symptoms away and just feel right to optimize within the normal range.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
we would give trt for a period of 8 to 12 weeks we would determine that we've fixed the biochemical issue so they go from being at say the 30th percentile to being at the 80th percentile
my general philosophy on testosterone replacement is that there has to be a biochemical case for it I.E free testosterone needs to be relatively low at least below the 50th percentile and there needs to be more importantly a symptomatic case for it if both of those conditions are met and of course the patient understands the risks and benefits
my general philosophy on testosterone replacement is that there has to be a biochemical case for it I.E free testosterone needs to be relatively low at least below the 50th percentile and there needs to be more importantly a symptomatic case for it
your total testosterone might be below the 30th percentile or even 40th percentile um and your free is commensurate with that