When is HRT/TRT NOT Appropriate

[Zeissteufel]

Does anyone know of any links, videos or published debates regarding the appropriate use and/or misuse of HRT/TRT?

It became pretty clear to me early on when researching HRT that there are two schools of thought when it comes to how treatment should be administered and to whom. With LowT clinics and 'aging centers' popping up all over the place, I assume that these dissimilar views have been subject to some form of open discussion.

For example, Dr. A thinks that putting someone in the high-end of a range (which they admit is not historically static and pretty much dictated by insurance companies) just to try and increase mood or quality of life is "bad medicine" while Dr. B basically says 'whatever ... there is no research to back the negativity and it makes peoples life's better, so pin up!'.

Just curious ... all I have ever been able to find are doctors trashing each other and a bunch of negative media/stereotypes/misinformation.

I realize that many of those receiving TRT/HRT have pretty much blown themselves out and do this because you have to, and even though that's not my situation, I would still be interested in thoughts from that group. Thanks!

 

[Zyglamail]

Im not really sure I follow your question. Personally I havent seen much debate between proponents of TRT/HRT and those against it.

Ive been extensively researching many nutrients and AAS for many years and what I have found is that for some reason certain studies get latched onto and viewed as gospel and once that happens no amount of case staudies or logic will alter the perceptions that are in place.

Whats ironic about AAS is there actually is a lot of data out there supporting AAS use for many things. Whats lacking is long term studies or low/moderate doses. Couple the fact there is no long term data with AAS being a scheduled substance and you get something that most docs just dont want to hassle with.

Im not sure I follow your comment about "high end of range test levels" and them being dictated by insurance. On the contrary I think you will find that endo's are generally low in their dosing and many insurance companies dont even cover or recognize andropause. I would wager a vast majority of folks on TRT are doing so out of pocket.

What do you mean by "those on TRT have pretty much blown them out"?

At the end of the day docs seem to thrive on studies to support their decisions. Studies cost a lot of money and therefor, generally speaking, the only products that get funding for studies are those with the potential to be patented and make a lot of money. Patents on drugs are protected for a certain amount of time (ie no generics can be made) so that initial expenses can be recovered. In the case of AAS that window is over so anyone can make it. There is no incentive for a pharm to pony up the funds for long term studies.

Thankfully there is a growing population of medical professionals who see the deterioration in the health of the worlds population. They are starting to see that drugs are not the answer to our ailing society, but nutrition and restoring the body back to a natural state is what is going to save lives and reduce disease.

These doctors are able to read the existing science and what we know about the various processes in the body and come to conclusions which help them treat people. These are the doctors that are amassing data over years that will support their theories. This case study data isnt as controlled as scientific studies but nonetheless has great value. Its being shared between clinicians and passed along from doctor to doctor as they expand their practices etc.

 

[Zeissteufel]

Zyglamail - Thanks for your well written and thought out response!

My relationship with HRT is about enhancing what i already have to reach optimal performance - mental, emotional and physical - with least risk and overhead. Almost all of my numbers are 'normal', so there is not really a deficiency if we are using standards that are typically referenced by doctors and insurance companies. My initial reasons for getting into HRT probably has less to do with hormones and more to do with sleep deficiency and/or mild depression; however, anyone who reads up on the symptoms will quickly see that the lines are grayed ... what came first, the chicken or the egg? In addition, symptoms of sleep disorders, lowT, depression, thyroid issues, etc are often identical which only complicates the prospect of finding relief.

In my search for relief, I noticed that all the traditional doctors that i dealt with were unwilling to treat with hormone replacement regardless of the symptoms IF the numbers came back within range. It did not matter that those ranges varied from lab to lab. It did not matter that there is more literature pointing to adverse affects of anti-depressants and sleep aids. It didn't matter that the correlation to prostate cancer doesn't even really exist. Their minds were set ... they would rather treat the symptoms with a whacky antidepressant or addictive sleeping pill ... Pretty much like you said above about studies becoming gospel. I have also noticed that some people who started with seriously low T levels (like true and rare unsolicited by previous steroid abuse low T)have a bit of an attitude with those of us in the normal range who are just trying to get to a high end number ... like we don't deserve to be doing that or don't have the right. So, i can't help but wonder if their logic and education on the subject isn't as skewed as the traditional doctors. Why is it bad for me to want to be at a 1300 but not the lowT guy? Is he better or more deserving just because he started at 100 and I started at 500? I'm 44 years old and fatigue is fatigue ... memory issues are memory issues .. lack of focus is lack of focus. My interest now is to see some dialogue from that perspective so that people like myself can push up to a higher number SAFELY. I mean, I'm good .. I already found a doctor and augment with HcG, but i would still be interested in hearing other peoples views.

What would really be cool is a head-to-head debate between a physician who views HRT/TRT (for quality of life .. optimization, etc ) as 'bad medicine' and a physician like mine. I know they exist in abundance ... every one of these lowT clinics and anti-aging centers has docs on staff and I KNOW they are not bending to these stupid ranges with 1000 point differentials that are supposed to apply to all adult males between 18-88 ... seriously? My doc says it's all about the codes and how those are worked. They don't care what your numbers are and they will get you covered.

What I meant by 'blown them out' ... I was referring to a lot of guys on these boards that may have used steroids at high levels in the past and lost testicular function permanently. Obviously, those guys are more tolerant of someone like me and probably wouldn't say much as long as atrophy issues are covered. That would be my guess, anyway.

Thanks!

 

[thelion2005]

I am 70 and have been taking steroids through out my life. I went through the decades when there was much self discovery and few laws to curtail use of any kind.

I take the position that your blood testing must be the guide for either the self prescription or Dr prescription.

And your goal of optimal health within accepted ranges or great acceleration decided. That is .... low dose HRT or cycles.

I think there is no abuse when doing HRT. And cycles can be abusive. But the results are very different. Even at my age I can pack on muscle using a cycle, but just look healthy doing HRT.

I'm leaning towards HRT now because I want longevity, not a scary juiced look.