What do you think about my estradiol result?

[CJ]

I wonder how long before the eq builds up enough to start controlling estrogen? Last time I ran it I came off test completely and ran ran eq for 2 weeks before adding test

Not a bad plan. Or start lower on Test, and add more every other week. So 200 to start, bump up as you wish. That way you have escalating doses for 6-8 weeks.

I'm a fan of using as little as possible, as I believe more is not better, that's where problems come in, so whatever you feel is best.

 

[Wizbang]

Not a bad plan. Or start lower on Test, and add more every other week. So 200 to start, bump up as you wish. That way you have escalating doses for 6-8 weeks.

I'm a fan of using as little as possible, as I believe more is not better, that's where problems come in, so whatever you feel is best.

Reminds me of when I see people stack multiple things at high dose and then try to diagnose what's causing their side effects, less variables (i.e. less drugs) helps you narrow those things down. If you don't know how a compound is going to affect you start small, you can always increase.

 

[Wizbang]

Also @Jonjon what is your frequency of dosing? is the test currently just 1x weekly? did I miss that in the thread someplace?

 

[CJ]

Also @Jonjon what is your frequency of dosing? is the test currently just 1x weekly? did I miss that in the thread someplace?

Yeah, more frequent injections will lower the peaks, and could possibly lower the estrogen conversion.

 

[Jonjon]

Also @Jonjon what is your frequency of dosing? is the test currently just 1x weekly? did I miss that in the thread someplace?

I inject every day but Sunday. So pretty much daily

 

[CJ]

I inject every day but Sunday. So pretty much daily

The Lord will be happy that you don't sully your body on the Sabbath... Or some shit like that.

 

[buck]

E2 levels of 35 are pretty good for long term health from the studies i have seen. If i was going to raise my T dose 60% as you are mentioning. I would definitely consider using more AI if E2 levels rise to much.

 

[Send0]

E2 levels of 35 are pretty good for long term health from the studies i have seen. If i was going to raise my T dose 60% as you are mentioning. I would definitely consider using more AI if E2 levels rise to much.

And how much total test did the men have in the studies you've seen? Did they have 1400ng/dL or higher total test?

Can you provide links to some of the studies that youve seen?

E2 is relative to testosterone; it's a balancing act. I don't know that I'd trust any studies that looked at only E2 without also discussing the amount of total test in their sample pools.

 

[Jonjon]

I wonder what my estradiol would be if I kept test dose the same and dropped the adex?

 

[buck]

And how much total test did the men have in the studies you've seen? Did they have 1400ng/dL or higher total test?

Can you provide links to some of the studies that youve seen?

E2 is relative to testosterone; it's a balancing act. I don't know that I'd trust any studies that looked at only E2 without also discussing the amount of total test in their sample pools.

OK I will provide links to the studies. They are the same ones i have posted in the past though.

And can you supply the studies showing it is a balancing act as i have never seen any documented proof of that. Doing so leads to a long healthy life span. Short term i can see where there may be no symptoms but that is not the same as good health. Thanks.

https://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2010/5/why-estrogen-balance-is-critical-to-aging-men

Estradiol levels are elevated in older men with diffuse cutaneous SSc and are associated with decreased survival - Arthritis Research & Therapy

Background Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a female-predominant disease, characterized by excessive extracellular matrix deposition (ECM) with dermal and internal organ fibrosis. Considering the sex-based disparity in disease incidence, estradiol (E2), an estrogen form with pro-fibrotic effects, may...

arthritis-research.biomedcentral.com

Adverse Effects Of High Levels Of Estradiol In Men - WorldHealth.net

Article courtesy of: Thierry Hertoghe, MD., author of u201cTestosterone, the Therapy for Real Gentlemenu201d. A manu2019s body is adapted to relatively high amounts of male hormones, such as testosterone and dihydrotestosterone, and relatively low levels of female hormones, such as estradiol and...

www.worldhealth.net

Hyperestrogenism is associated with sexual function impairment in men-findings from a cross-sectional, real-life study - PubMed

One out of five men seeking first medical help for erectile dysfunction showed elevated serum estradiol values suggestive of hyperestrogenism. Hyperestrogenism was associated with health-significant comorbidities, orgasmic function impairment, and erectile dysfunction severity.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Send0]

OK I will provide links to the studies. They are the same ones i have posted in the past though.

Thanks

And can you supply the studies showing it is a balancing act as i have never seen any documented proof of that. Doing so leads to a long healthy life span. Short term i can see where there may be no symptoms but that is not the same as good health. Thanks.

The studies I have are about sexual health, and not about longevity or overall health. I will not post them as they are not directly relevant to the point you are trying to prove; on that same note, you really shouldn't have included some of the links you did because they have the exact same problem I just mentioned... They aren't entirely relevant to your point.

So you think you only need estrogen and the amount of testosterone is irrelevant? I mean in men estradiol is only produced via the aromatization of testosterone. It is going to aromatize a percentage of testosterone. Things like SHBG, fat stores, etc will influence the amount of estrogen converted... but to look at a single hormone in isolation is a really poor way to say that "you're going to live a long time because your estrogen is low". Which is unusual because higher estrogen tends to lead to better health markers than low estrogen.

https://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2010/5/why-estrogen-balance-is-critical-to-aging-men

This is an article, not a study. Even then, this same article you used to back your claim states the following

URL unfurl="true"]https://arthritis-research.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13075-019-1870-6[/URL]

This study did not use LC/MS-MS to measure E2. The sample pool was also only 83 men. That's a pretty weak pool size to draw a conclusion from.

The sample pool with high E2 also had half the people in that pool that had the same E2 levels as the control group. Kind of weak evidence when half the pool you're trying to use to prove a case have the same results as the control group.

This study is specific to men with diffuse cutenous Ssc. It's not relevant to normal men who do not have diffuse cutenous Ssc.

Lastly, this study acknowledged that it did not measure testosterone, but that it was important to mention that testosterone drives E2. Kind of an important factor to exclude from measurement or evaluating during the actual study.

Adverse Effects Of High Levels Of Estradiol In Men - WorldHealth.net

Article courtesy of: Thierry Hertoghe, MD., author of u201cTestosterone, the Therapy for Real Gentlemenu201d. A manu2019s body is adapted to relatively high amounts of male hormones, such as testosterone and dihydrotestosterone, and relatively low levels of female hormones, such as estradiol and...

www.worldhealth.net

This is an article, not a study. It does mention mortality, but under very specific contexts of things like obesity. It also says that men should not be higher than 25pg/ml, which is pretty damn low especially when it doesn't even acknowledge that total testosterone is a factor in estradiol production.

This article is pretty much useless. I could write something too, post it on the internet, and tell people it's proof of something... But it wouldn't be

Hyperestrogenism is associated with sexual function impairment in men-findings from a cross-sectional, real-life study - PubMed

One out of five men seeking first medical help for erectile dysfunction showed elevated serum estradiol values suggestive of hyperestrogenism. Hyperestrogenism was associated with health-significant comorbidities, orgasmic function impairment, and erectile dysfunction severity.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This is an abstract, not a study. It gives no detailed insight into methodologies, data sets, or anything. It's also about erectile dysfunction.

With that said, it said 1 out of 5 men with erectile dysfunction has elevated estrogen... Which they considered anything higher than 42pg/ml as being high . Another way to say it is that 4 out of 5 men had normal levels of E2.

Imagine if I used a an article or study that said 80% of men with erectile dysfunction had normal E2 levels... .

This isn't evidence of anything. The 20% effected could have other issues causing their ED.

 

[Send0]

With that said, I am not going to argue and say that maybe lower E2 isn't beneficial; however if these studies are the best that anyone can provide to "prove" that low E2 is better then I'll just continue doing what I'm doing, because these studies don't even directly support the claim you are trying to make. The sample pools have co-morbities that aren't relevant to us, estradiol was measured in isolation with nothing else measured, none of them discuss overall health (the point you were making) and instead focus on specific aspects of health, or they are articles or abstracts which are pretty much useless when trying to definitively state something is or isn't true, in addition to a number of other flaws.

I am not being hypercritical of @buck. I am being hypercritical of these articles under the context of proving that lower E2 contributes to better overall health.

If anyone wants to use those links as basis to make a decision, then I won't try to stop anyone... at the same time I would never make a decision based on those links because they are kind of trash.

 

[buck]

With that said, I am not going to argue and say that maybe lower E2 isn't beneficial; however if these studies are the best that anyone can provide to "prove" that low E2 is better then I'll just continue doing what I'm doing, because these studies don't even directly support the claim you are trying to make. The sample pools have co-morbities that aren't relevant to us, estradiol was measured in isolation with nothing else measured, none of them discuss overall health (the point you were making) and instead focus on specific aspects of health, or they are articles or abstracts which are pretty much useless when trying to definitively state something is or isn't true, in addition to a number of other flaws.

I am not being hypercritical of @buck. I am being hypercritical of these articles under the context of proving that lower E2 contributes to better overall health.

If anyone wants to use those links as basis to make a decision, then I won't try to stop anyone... at the same time I would never make a decision based on those links because they are kind of trash.

You seem to think i am trying to prove something which i am not. I didn't tell anyone to keep their leves at any certain range as i have seen no great studies on the matter. I know many need to be the top expert but that is not me. I can only go by the best studies i have seen regarding what can be healthy and how i choose to deal with it. And what is healthy in one area would probably tend to be healthier than just guessing. I am more than open to seeing other studies done over time. If you or anyone else has any i would like to see them.. But if i see none than anything else by my way of thinking is just personal preference with no data at all to support it., And i support others deciding how ever they want for themselves as i never tell people what they should do. I only tell my personal experience and post the best data i can find. For others to do with as they please. If some one goes by "i feel good now" i am fine with that. I feel the same at an E2 of less then 15 as i do at 100. Others have their own standards for deciding their future. i just try to go by what data i can get. I look long term with virtually everything i do. For those that have a different time line then they should consider that as well.