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.
The guy who has sustained organ function is almost certainly going to have a smoother transition because he has maintained the natural function and output of the organ responsible for intraicular testosterone the entire time versus the other guy has literally deprived the tissue so significantly that it's a fraction of the size.
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.
So trying to compare a guy recovering with testes half the size or less compared to a guy who has fully functioning testes that have been maintained, that guy just needs to discontinue and get rid of that feedback inhibition and he's likely going to return to natural function within short order pending his ginadotrop and output from the pituitary is satisfactory.
So I would assert that the hCG guy is almost certainly going to be better off than the test guy.
if you are mindful of fertility it's worth consideration of HCG concurrently with your whatever you're going to be using like if you're on trt and going to shut yourself down don't make the mistake that thousands of bodybuilders have where they got on hormones ended up with atrophy testicles and then when they were 10 years later wanting to have a child realized the arduous recovery process was like pretty significant