Can you share your longitudinal anecdata? I am considering going back on AAS for the QoL benefits, but would like to create a better mental model of long-term ramifications for testicular health.
It's my understanding that 40, it simply is expected that your hormones levels will be much lower (and that is not necessarily a bad thing). However my mind is failing to grasp what long-term damage TRT can do to the HPTA when not using an obscene amount of gear and on HCG.
Trying to figure out the mechanism. Perhaps receptor desensitization and epigenetic compensatory changes?
As an experienced polysubstance researcher, that's not exactly accurate.
TRT cessation does not inherently cause men to have suppressed hormone levels after. With precautions and extra steps like HCG to maintain leydig cell/testicular function, preventing atrophy, one may safeguard against that risk.
Coming off TRT, yes you will have lower levels as your HPTA has been suppressed by exogenous hormones. One may speed up this recovery using "PCT" (post cycle therapy), which involves taking a SERM (selective estrogen receptor modulator, e.g. enclomiphene) to resensitize and restart your HPTA. However this is not always necessary, and if one takes a look at the HARLEM study, most users return to their baseline levels within a year of going cold turkey.
In the cases of true permanently lowered levels of hormones, I believe the two most common reasons are: using other AAS besides testosterone (1) and lifestyle or health factors that correlate with the need to be on TRT (2).
With 1, this can be seen in users of decadurabolin (deca), which notoriously has hormone receptor active metabolites that last around for atleast a year, continuously suppressing the system. Or trenbolone (tren/cattle bulking hormone) which is inherently neurally and endocrinically otherwise toxic.
With 2, you hop on TRT because there is some reason your hormones are not at healthy levels. Whatever the reason is, it is still there, and once you've stopped bandaiding the issue its effects resurface.
---
I have also used many GLP-1s (semaglutide, tirzepatide, and retatrutide). No there is no off-ramp, but the only effects I've noticed are a return to my baseline of appetite, and neurological state.
N.B. GLP-1s are good for impulse and behavioral disorders like ADHD, which it did help. However, I have decided to not take it due to the negative effects on personality and reward seeking behavior.
They are neuro-active in the brain, and their effects I've decided are not worth it.
Thank you for the info on the TRT, I was getting a little worried reading some of the other comments. I'm getting on it due to years of low testosterone. I'm also getting on Zepbound due to years of obesity. The two may be linked, but I need help controlling my appetite and reducing my fatigue.
They're good kickstarts/spark plugs for your use-case.
The obesity likely is the main culprit-- if I had to guess. Fat stores act as sites for testosterone to be aromatized to estrogen -- so if your E2 is elevated that would be a marker.
This reasoning is not flowing through for me. It feels like you are saying:
1. There is an off ramp for TRTs but some people have, “true permanently lowered levels of hormones.”
2. For GLP-1s, “there is no off-ramp, but the only effects I’ve noticed are a return to my baseline.”
To clarify my original post, I consider the ability to return to baseline to mean there is an off-ramp and permanently impacted to mean there is no off-ramp.
1. Yes, but that is not -- to the best of my understanding-- because of TRT itself
2. Yes
There is no "off ramp" for GLP-1s in my experience, because the off ramp is so insignificant to not worth a mention. You just don't take another dose after a week has passed from the previous one, and you're back to baseline. Same way there is no off ramp on taking aspirin -- just don't take it.
> GLP-1s are good for impulse and behavioral disorders like ADHD
As someone diagnosed with ADHD, I wasn't aware of this (although I haven't had reason to research GLP-1's). Is this just your N=1 or an effect proven in studies?
Having done the research myself, it seems to be biofilms that the bacteria create leading to a "dormant" yet still metabolically active state that releases inflammatory byproducts throughout the body.
The recommended course of action seems to be disulfiram to bust those biofilms + antibiotics to finally kill it all off.
In my understanding (from some years back when I was researching this myself), Lyme takes multiple forms, and in some phase in their life cycle are able to hide inside red blood cells. Antibiotics work only for some of the forms.
Agree. There are probably more than a million tiny contextual data points that make a person look at something (whether it’s a tech product or a musician) and go: “cool, man.”
But those millions of data points can (rarely, briefly,) coalesce around a product or company, even though that’s mostly out of the control of those building the product or company.
EG if you asked someone in 1965 if a Jaguar E-Type was cool, or someone in 2000s London whether the Fruityloops DAW was cool, they’d say “yeah”.
I’m mostly agreeing, and it’s a super minor point, but tech specs are part of the unknowable, constantly-shifting constellation of symbols that produce “cool”, and there isn’t a reason an Apple product couldn’t, in the future, align the stars. They did before! The white iPod earbud wire did, briefly, signify cool.
Pretty myopic viewpoint. You wasted an afternoon figuring out graph-traversal & loop detection from first principles -- using and stretching your mental abilities -- rather than being spoonfed it? That's absurd. Utterly absurd.
I get no satisfaction from rediscovering CS concepts & algorithms first put to paper by the field's pioneers between 1940-1970s, though it sounds like you do.
Some wood (or metal) workers take pride in making their own tools, and others, who are like me, buy off the shelf tools and use them to make actual things that people buy.
Yes immigrants are used as a scapegoat. No immigration is not a completely faultless thing that can be allowed willy nilly and have zero negative consequences.
I hate to write out these words, but you're strawmanning.
The point is caffeine etc. corrupt the mind and cause a person's mental faculties to run in a way they were not initially designed to.
The point is not that these drugs are all extremely harmful, only that they are all harmful. Caffeine and other things get a pass because the "hard drugs" are so uniquely and visibly harmful that they overshadow all other forms of harm.
One could even say that this has tricked us into thinking that lesser drugs like caffeine or canabinoids are "effectively harmless" because they're not causing us to OD or steal things to get another hit or causing visibly psychotic states. But that is not true. We've simply accepted that the harm they due is not worth thinking about (this is subjective, not objective).
The use of the term "corrupt" rather than "alter" or "affect" is assuming the conclusion here. The human mind is not something that always works in the same Platonic perfection in a state of nature. Biological and cultural differences are major factors in what is considered normal at any given place and time.
Some people have conditions that make the way their brains work different than what is considered normal. Western technological culture imposes differences in social interaction and pressures on thinking and required performance that are far different than existed in societies even mere hundreds of years before.
Drugs can be a way to compensate for these pressures and find a way to exist in the world with as much equanimity as possible. And I say all this as a person who avoids all caffeine and illegal drugs, and uses alcohol very infrequently. I'm lucky I can do this and thrive in today's Western culture. Not everyone is as fortunate.
A small percentage of people, like myself, have clearly autosomal genetic conditions that means being 'normal' is just not on the cards. I have to take psychopharmacological drugs just to get close to normal.
Not everyone is the same, there is a lot of variety, what you say could indeed be true for most people but can also not be true for a small minority of people.
hEDS, there is a very long list of comorbidities and I tick off most of them. Not guessing, runs in the family, did a WGS and found the TNXB SNPs responsible.
I tried the no-drugs and being super healthy approach for the vast majority of my life, I look like a pro-athlete, the only reason I started the meds was due to figuring out the statistical possibility of having X things wrong with me was next to impossible without a common cause, and the ME/CFS with brain fog was destroying my life.
I also tried to quit caffeine but that only resulted in very negative effects that persisted for more than 4 months after going cold turkey, that's 4 months being largely housebound and not able to work for that one experiment. I've been at this so long that if you can think of something I've probably tried it - including the healthiest of healthy lifestyles.
Just comparing within my own family most are anti-drugs and anti-medications and their health is an absolute mess. I wish living a healthy lifestyle would be sufficient, I wouldn't have to walk a tightrope of balancing meds, but I don't get that option.
Can you share your longitudinal anecdata? I am considering going back on AAS for the QoL benefits, but would like to create a better mental model of long-term ramifications for testicular health.
It's my understanding that 40, it simply is expected that your hormones levels will be much lower (and that is not necessarily a bad thing). However my mind is failing to grasp what long-term damage TRT can do to the HPTA when not using an obscene amount of gear and on HCG.
Trying to figure out the mechanism. Perhaps receptor desensitization and epigenetic compensatory changes?