Are Testosterone Boosters SnakeOil?

[gasman]

Originally Posted by mgm777

Gasman -- Thank you.

You bet.

[jimcav]

Originally Posted by mgm777

Slight thread drift....

For the docs, has there been any medical research that links cycling to an increased risk or rate of prostate cancer?

pubmed is easy to search:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26999116

[gasman]

Originally Posted by jimcav

pubmed is easy to search:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26999116

True but it's well known prostatitis raises your PSA as does having sex before a PSA level is drawn.

[stephenmarklay]

Originally Posted by gasman

Interesting, hadn't heard that. I have two biking buddies that got orchiectomies for their prostate cancer. They both still ride and said it was hard getting back in shape but they are okay at the moment.

I personally feel like some of the medical practices we adhered to today are archaic and are akin to a frontal lobotomy. This is one of them.

[dziehr]

Originally Posted by Kirk007

seconding others, my doc, who is the team physician for a major league baseball team said yeah, if you test low I can prescribe but the tradeoff is increased risk of prostate cancer - which do you prefer?

Experimental models have shown that exogenous testosterone can drive prostate cancer though, to my knowledge, there's no strong correlate in humans. I'm sure some of this is due to lack of equipoise. That is, since a mainstay of therapy of some types of prostate cancer is androgen deprivation (in the past achieved with orchiectomy and now with androgen blockers, GnRH agonists/antagonists, and newer agents), investigators (and IRBs) probably aren't to keen to give testosterone to men with prostate cancer for fear of accelerating the disease. Huggins and Hodges won a Nobel Prize in the 1960s for their work on the role of androgens in prostate cancer and numerous studies have shown that for men with particular types of prostate cancer, androgen deprivation is life-saving or life-prolonging. An important distinction in prostate cancer is the disease's sensitivity to androgen blocking medications; early disease is often stopped but mutations can render these medications ineffective.

You could argue that while there are no good studies of testosterone replacement in patients with prostate cancer, the administration of the medication to any middle-aged men is a natural experiment, as a significant percentage will have pre-cancer (prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia) or frank indolent prostate cancer (as confirmed by some post-mortem studies that show indolent/undiagnosed disease in folks dying of other causes, >50% in men >70). That similar men do not develop explosive disease could be seen as validation of the safety of testosterone regarding cancer risk. However, importantly, not all prostate cancer is created equally and we're still trying to understand why some disease is aggressive and other is indolent.

There's no good answer for the questions raised here. In short, the decision to administer testosterone should be tailored to a patient and his medical history. For men without a history of prostate cancer or significant risk factors, I feel the decision to pursue testosterone replacement should be made in conjunction with an endocrinologist. For men with (or with a history of) prostate cancer, talk with your medical oncologist. Some medical oncologists will give testosterone to men who have had their prostate cancer cured, though I'm not sure how widespread this is.

Nota bene: not a urologic oncologist or urologist, though I'm a physician and formerly studied prostate cancer from a few angles.

[weiwentg]

I found this thread while searching for a different topic. I just wanted to say that I was feeling like I might have hypogonadism, i.e. low testosterone. Mine was at the low end of the normal range. The endocrinologist offered to prescribe me testosterone or Clomid, leaning towards Clomid due to lower side effects. However, he wanted me to take a confirmatory testosterone test first.

That test indicated I had elevated prolactin levels. Prolactin is the lactating women's hormone. What causes that in men? Apparently, a benign tumor on the pituitary gland called a prolactinoma. I had to get an MRI to confirm that, but I started on a dopamine agonist called cabergoline. Just throwing this out there in case it helps anyone.

Wikipedia cited a study estimating that 6-25% of deceased US residents have small pituitary tumors. These may or may not cause a noticeable effect. I haven't examined the study. It's probably a rare thing, but if your testosterone is low, an endocrinologist will probably check this hormone. My primary care doctor did not think to order it measured during my first lab test.

For those of you who actually want to play by the rules and get a TUE for clomid or testosterone, I think that USADA won't grant one for low-normal testosterone. They require testosterone lower than the reference range (i.e. I wouldn't have qualified), and I think their literature said they would need some documentation of the organic cause of the low T. Cabergoline or dopamine agonists (also used for Parkinson's disease, but they prefer the second generation agonists, whereas cabergoline is first gen) in general don't appear to be on WADA's prohibited list. I mean, honestly, if there weren't a clear cause of low T, I might have just got clomid anyway and not competed in a sanctioned race. The problem is 'competing' in gran fondos and the like. So, I'm pretty thankful I have a clear cause.

[redir]

Anything sold as a miracle for this and a miracle for that is probably just the opposite.

My understanding is that T only works by injection, otherwise it's marketing.

[benb]

Funny thread to get resurrected.

Cycling is not a sport for getting jacked and getting your muscle mass back anyway.

It's a sport that burns you up and makes you get skinny and fatigued.

You get older and your body starts to lose muscle normally and it just gets worse.

Drugs + cycling isn't the solution, more focus on resistance training vs cycling is if you want to build muscle.

I'm only in my mid 40s.. joined this website when I was 29 I think. The difference for me in terms of how fast cycling will burn up my muscle mass other than my legs is kind of crazy. Focus on cycling too long and my upper body pays for it a heck of a lot faster than 10-15 years ago. It seems like the resistance exercise is way more important now.

I've always been the hard-gainer/loses-weight-easy type though. It seems like we get way too skinny too easily as we get older whereas easy muscle guys pack on fat in middle age a lot easier than they did when younger but have it a bit easier with maintaining muscle.

[enr1co]

Be prepared to buy larger jerseys

[tuscanyswe]

Originally Posted by rnhood

Yes, its very natural and a part of life. But that will not stop a few that continue looking for Ponce's fountain. They just keep on looking at seemingly any expense. I have no sympathy when they run into troubles.

Its not natural as in its just a part of life if you actually have low testosterone. This is why we have a "normal" range if you are outside it there is likely a reason for it. The normal range for T is huge meaning someone could have tripple the amount of another man and they could still both fall in the normal range. And if you are at the bottom of it you may experience symptoms. Symptoms however often correlates more with free testosterone than total testosterone so one would want to check that out as well.

As for plant boosters and stuff they can work but they also only do so for a certain amount of time. The body has feedback system and if it sense to much allrdy it will lower its natural production and perhaps leave u even lower than previously. This is why you cycles a lot of these drugs / boosters. How well one responds to drugs or boosters is very individual. Some can have a big response while others feel nothing..

[tuscanyswe]

Originally Posted by redir

Anything sold as a miracle for this and a miracle for that is probably just the opposite.

My understanding is that T only works by injection, otherwise it's marketing.

Not true. Most T therapy in europe is by gel as it more closely mimics the bodys own cycles as u take it every day opposed to once every x weeks with injections.

But perhaps u meant that only supplementing with real testosterone will work?

I dont think thats the case either. I think its very dependant on why and what the cause for your low levels are to begin with. If u have a pituary problem replacing the signal (lh) substance for the testies to produce their own T again can certainly elevate testosterone levels. Then the issues was them not getting the signal to produce any for a variety of reasons.

[tuscanyswe]

Originally Posted by benb

Funny thread to get resurrected.

Cycling is not a sport for getting jacked and getting your muscle mass back anyway.

It's a sport that burns you up and makes you get skinny and fatigued.

You get older and your body starts to lose muscle normally and it just gets worse.

Drugs + cycling isn't the solution, more focus on resistance training vs cycling is if you want to build muscle.

I'm only in my mid 40s.. joined this website when I was 29 I think. The difference for me in terms of how fast cycling will burn up my muscle mass other than my legs is kind of crazy. Focus on cycling too long and my upper body pays for it a heck of a lot faster than 10-15 years ago. It seems like the resistance exercise is way more important now.

I've always been the hard-gainer/loses-weight-easy type though. It seems like we get way too skinny too easily as we get older whereas easy muscle guys pack on fat in middle age a lot easier than they did when younger but have it a bit easier with maintaining muscle.

I think this is true. Its perhaps also true that a certain body type become good at cycling and therefor enjoy it and continue to do it and then have a hard time to put on muscle but they likely always did just more noticable as we get older. But so many variables with humans. None are a like.

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by Kirk007

seconding others, my doc, who is the team physician for a major league baseball team said yeah, if you test low I can prescribe but the tradeoff is increased risk of prostate cancer - which do you prefer?

So we can start the prostate fire with steroids, and then throw gasoline on the fire with Hgh.

I'd just stay away from the stuff. Age with class.

[redir]

Originally Posted by tuscanyswe

Not true. Most T therapy in europe is by gel as it more closely mimics the bodys own cycles as u take it every day opposed to once every x weeks with injections.

But perhaps u meant that only supplementing with real testosterone will work?

I dont think thats the case either. I think its very dependant on why and what the cause for your low levels are to begin with. If u have a pituary problem replacing the signal (lh) substance for the testies to produce their own T again can certainly elevate testosterone levels. Then the issues was them not getting the signal to produce any for a variety of reasons.

No I thought I read a while back that only injections was legit so thanks for the correction. Maybe times have changed or I read something wrong.

My guess is though that is by prescription. I would doubt anything over the counter that makes the same claims.

[ridethecliche]

If you're dealing with abnormal levels of fatigue the first thing to test is your thyroid function not testosterone.