Page 2 of 2
Re: Is 203 low enough?
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 2:24 pm
by kristoff
gandalf (imported) wrote: Sat Jul 10, 2010 11:13 am
Thanks Bobbie. Since I am older than 60, I assume that my reading should be around 350 ng/dl or at least 10.0 nmol/L.
I feel good as I am right now so won't worry about it. I can always drop the amt of Androgel I use to get it lower if I want it lower to be rid of all erections.
He's providing a stated range starting at 350, not a hard and fast standard. A test is merely a starting point for a discussion with your physician that can and should be wide ranging. The effects of low testosterone are many and wide, and a good doctor will cover most or all of them in any such discussion.
Re: Is 203 low enough?
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 5:08 pm
by gandalf (imported)
kristoff wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2010 2:24 pm
He's providing a stated range starting at 350, not a hard and fast standard. A test is merely a starting point for a discussion with your physician that can and should be wide ranging. The effects of low testosterone are many and wide, and a good doctor will cover most or all of them in any such discussion.
Thanks. I go for lab work Wed the 14th and then to the Dr. on the 21st.
I will be sure to ask about the readings. Among othr things.
Re: Is 203 low enough?
Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:20 am
by TgEunuch (imported)
Hi Lister02-
Is 203 low enough? Late last year I had my T levels checked because of erectile dysfunction, I can't pee standing up without making a mess. My results came back at 228 and fell to 151 in May, so my Doc put me on 50mg of Testosterone Gel. It's now 250, but I hate how testosterone is fucking with my mind, I'm a lot more horny and its very distracting.
My penis has gone from turtle to almost 5 inches hard.
If I have to go on TRT, why do I need non-working nuts, they don't work, the only thing that they will do for you is putting me at risk for testicular cancer.
I wish that I had tested my T levels years ago so I can a baseline. Having low T level for years, if not decades, explains why I feel like I'm a eunuch and have a strong desire to be casterated and live as a eunuch. At 49, I have no interest in having kids. I wish that Dr. Kimmel was still around and done with it.
So is 203 low enough? For me 151 wasn't low enough.-WDW
lister02 (imported) wrote: Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:13 am
A side effect of a vasectomy I had in 1994 is delayed testicular failure. My recent T levels all tested low (around 203-205). I did not know it was happening but my abilities were weakening. I started to have less erections and they required direct stimulation and were easy to lose. My orgasms did not feel that good anymore, sometimes I am not sure if I even come. Touching my wife's body barely does anything for me anymore, But none the less I still miss the orgasms I once had. My wife did not enjoy intercourse before and hates it now that I take so long. It would be easier for us we would rather that I quit desiring sex and forget about what it was. Right now I seem to have the worst of both worlds :-\. Is my T level still too high or am I just addicted to an old habit and not letting my libido go south on its own?
PS: I could try HRT but I have long fantasized about being castrated and becoming a eunuch. However I likely never would have done it otherwise. So this just might be a dream come true.
Re: Is 203 low enough?
Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:21 am
by nullorchis (imported)
bobbie (imported) wrote: Sat Jul 10, 2010 8:46 am
0-13 years ---1-619 ng/dL (0.04-21.48 nmol/L)
14-15 years --- 100-540 ng/dL (3.47-18.74 nmol/L)
16-19 years --- 200-970 ng/dL (6.94-33.66 nmol/L)
20-39 years --- 270-1,080 ng/dL (9.00-37.48 nmol/L)
40-59 years --- 350-890 ng/dL (12.15-30.88 nmol/ L)
60 years and older --- 350-720 ng/dL (12.15-24.98 nmol/L)
__________________
I would like to see an explanation of how a 0-13 year old can be as high as 619 but a 14-15 year old can be as high as only 540.
What happens that makes the highest ng lower at 14-15 than at 0-13.
Can a pre-puberty child really have a higher high number than someone 15 years old. The source of information is webmd, but what is their source. Just who came up with this chart.
In any event my last check was below 200, so I'm doing good.
It's like loosing weight, the lower you go, the harder it is to get a lower number. Hopefully a half a year on siterone will yield under 100 for me on my next lab test later this year.
Re: Is 203 low enough?
Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 5:00 am
by kristoff
bobbie (imported) wrote: Sat Jul 10, 2010 8:46 am
0-13 years ---1-619 ng/dL (0.04-21.48 nmol/L)
14-15 years --- 100-540 ng/dL (3.47-18.74 nmol/L)
16-19 years --- 200-970 ng/dL (6.94-33.66 nmol/L)
20-39 years --- 270-1,080 ng/dL (9.00-37.48 nmol/L)
40-59 years --- 350-890 ng/dL (12.15-30.88 nmol/ L)
60 years and ol
__________________
I would like to see an explanation of how a 0-13 year old can be as high as 619 but a 14-15 year old can be as high as only 540.
What happens that makes the highest ng lower at 14-15 than at 0-13.
Can a pre-puberty child really have a higher high number than someone 15 years old. The source of information is webmd, but what is their source. Just who came up with this chart.
In any event my last check was below 200, so I'm doing good.
It's like loosing weight, the lower you go, the harder it is to get a lower number. Hopefully a half a year on siterone will yield
under 100 for me on my next lab test later this year.
What is your source for this? Data?
Re: Is 203 low enough?
Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:33 pm
by saywhat (imported)
kristoff wrote: Sun Aug 08, 2010 5:00 am
nullorchis (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:21 am
I would like to see an explanation of how a 0-13 year old can be as high as 619 but a 14-15 year old can be as high as only 540.
What happens that makes the highest ng lower at 14-15 than at 0-13.
Can a pre-puberty child really have a higher high number than someone 15 years old. The source of information is webmd, but what is their
source. Just who came up with this chart.
I believe the reason is because when infants are born they can have a spike in T up to (if I remember correctly) the first 6 months. That could explain the odd range.
Not sure who came up with the chart, but I do know that these numbers are just a base. What is really important to a doctor is the reported symptoms. If a man complains of ED and low libido at 300-330ng/DL then it is possible that he will be treated with T regardless of which lab was used, but if the test was done for lets say testicular atrophy without ED or low libido he might not treat even if T was at 260ng/DL.
It is truly at the discretion of the doctor (within reason).