http://www.askmen.com/sports/health_200 ... ealth.html

The article discusses 5 myths about testosterone.

The author appears to be a fan of testosterone.

The article was pointed to in an article about men's boobs and how they develop. Useful reading.

Check out these 5 testosterone myths

Thanks to stories about doping Olympic athletes, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, the words "testosterone" or "steroids" create unsavory associations. However, testosterone is a key hormone that has numerous important and beneficial functions in men. In fact, if it weren't for testosterone, all little boys would be born with a labia instead of a scrotum!

In adults, testosterone is important for normal sexual function, sperm production, as well as muscle development and tone. In my work as a urologist at Men's Health Boston, I treat men with infertility (i.e., vasectomy reversal) and sexual problems. Many of these men are diagnosed with low levels of testosterone, or what I call "low T."

Low T can also cause chronic fatigue, depression, and reduced muscular/athletic performance. Treatment with testosterone can improve erections and sex drive, restore muscle and reduce fat, and increase energy and motivation. I have written a book, Testosterone for Life (McGraw-Hill), to help men figure out if they have low T, and if so, how best to obtain treatment. New evidence suggests that normal testosterone levels are important for reducing the risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and men with normal levels live longer than men with low T. However, stories about cheating athletes and muscle-crazed bodybuilders have given testosterone a bad name, and have created a number of myths. Here are five of the most common testosterone myths.

1- Testosterone is an illegal drug

Nope; testosterone is a perfectly legal prescription medication. It is also a key hormone present in every man that is responsible for fetal development of the male genitalia, the physical changes that occur during male puberty, and that contributes to a variety of functions in the adult man including sperm production, erections, Sex drive, muscle tone, and bone health, among others. Testosterone is only illegal when it's used without a physician’s prescription. However, many sports organizations have strict rules regarding substances such as testosterone that may influence athletic performance. Athletes who violate the rules of their sport are cheating, and lying about it to Congress may lead to prison time.

2- Testosterone is a steroid, and steroids are dangerous

Testosterone is a steroid, but that doesn’t make it dangerous. In fact, we’re all naturally loaded with various kinds of steroids. The word "steroid" simply refers to a molecule with a “backbone” of four rings of carbon -- examples include estrogen, progesterone, cortisol, and even cholesterol. Clearly, when an athlete tests positive for “steroids,” no one is concerned that he injected himself with cholesterol. In the sports world, the word “steroid” is shorthand for an “anabolic steroid hormone,” meaning steroids that specifically act to build muscle and bone, like testosterone. Whereas testosterone has been shown to be relatively safe, even at high concentrations, there is almost no information at all about the safety of the newer “designer” steroids produced to escape detection in drug testing.

We continue to clear up 5 testosterone myths you might not have known about...

3- Testosterone causes uncontrollable violent behavior

There is absolutely no reliable evidence that testosterone causes “’roid rage” or any type of violent, aggressive or uncontrollable behavior. No violence, aggression or unpredictable behavior has been seen in studies where men were administered testosterone, even at extremely high doses. In fact, the opposite appears to be true; many men with low T describe being more irritable, or having a short fuse, and this often improves with normalization of testosterone levels. A recent patient treated with testosterone told me that his wife found him “unbearable” to be around before he was diagnosed with low T and subsequently treated; “I’m a nicer guy now,” he said.

4- Testosterone causes prostate cancer

New evidence conclusively shows that men with higher levels of testosterone are at no greater risk of developing prostate cancer than men with low testosterone. Moreover, treating men with testosterone has not been shown to cause any increased risk of prostate cancer either. The basis for this myth originated from studies in the 1940s in which men with metastatic prostate cancer showed benefits when they were castrated. It appears that the only men at risk for prostate cancer growth with higher testosterone are men who have already been castrated. An exciting, but controversial, development is the use of testosterone to treat symptomatic men with low T who have undergone prior therapy for prostate cancer (I have a special chapter on this in my book, Testosterone For Life).

5- Higher testosterone causes baldness

On average, men with male pattern baldness have the same testosterone levels as men with a full head of hair. Baldness seems to be genetically determined. The confusion arises because medicines like finasteride (Propecia) that block conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone (DHT) can prevent or treat baldness. Since only very small amounts of DHT are needed by the scalp to do what the genes tell them to do (in this case, lose hair), men who are pre-destined to pull a Kojak will do so whether their T concentrations are high or low.

Abraham Morgentaler, MD is an associate clinical professor of urology at Harvard Medical School and the founder of Men’s Health Boston (www.MensHealthBoston.com), a center focusing on sexual and reproductive health for men. Dr. Morgentaler’s newest book, Testosterone for Life, (McGraw-Hill), is the first consumer book about low T by a specialist in the field, and it explains every aspect of this common medical condition and its treatment.

Umm, the aggression is definitely more pronounced with increased testosterone. I get really violent thoughts (like wanting to randomly attack police and stuff) when on high testosterone, and am totally mellow otherwise. I'm certain that in animal studies, aggression is highly correlated to testosterone levels. He confusing irritability with violence. Violence from testosterone means you start to enjoy the idea of fighting just for the fun of it. Like when I take boxing classes, it is simply a joy for me to punch other people (even though I'm not at all mad at them). And if you look at drive in the gym and in business, that is also aggression that is enhanced by testosterone.

I suppose in humans, much aggression gets contained by our higher intellect (for example I don't actually attack cops), but I bet if you measured violent thoughts they would definitely rise on testosterone. Also, it may not be consistent for everyone. But saying there is no evidence tying aggression to testosterone is having blinders on. I'm pretty pro testosterone for those who can handle it, but it does in fact have many drawbacks.

An individual's personal experience and feelings real or perceived are not statistically meaningful except for that individual. That said, I've been cautious about testosterone's effects and do, indeed, rule my feelings by intellect rather than allow feelings to run riot.

The placebo effect is well understood. If one is expecting to feel more aggressive while taking testosterone, that may well work to create that result. On the other hand, really heavy use of androgens other than and in addition to testosterone in its various forms can contribute to mental responses that would be grouped together into one causality and directed to testosterone as the culprit of causing real aggression.

One's mental serenity is composed of many contributing factors, including the common drugs such as tobacco, caffeine, various prescription drugs, alcohol and so on. Some feel that biorhythms are meaningful and there is statistical reliable studies that point to the existence of biorhythms altering one's feelings in a wide variety of ways.

Taking a simplistic view of our complex selves is never reliable over a larger statistical universe, that is, generalizing from one's personal experiences to predict the responses of others is unreliable.

kristoff wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2011 12:08 pm 3- Testosterone causes uncontrollable violent behavior

There is absolutely no reliable evidence that testosterone causes “’roid rage” or any type of violent, aggressive or uncontrollable behavior. No violence, aggression or unpredictable behavior has been seen in studies where men were administered testosterone, even at extremely high doses. In fact, the opposite appears to be true; many men with low T describe being more irritable, or having a short fuse, and this often improves with normalization of testosterone levels. A recent patient treated with testosterone told me that his wife found him “unbearable” to be around before he was diagnosed with low T and subsequently treated;

“I’m a nicer guy now,” he said.

This is simply bad science. They make no distinction between short acting hormones like adrenaline or insulin and longer acting hormones like testosterone and estrogen. If you take an injection of adrenaline it's effect is immediate. Your heart rate goes up; anger and aggression increase immediately. With the sex hormones though the effect is not immediate and not immediately dose dependent. I have read several of the studies on this. They gave people doses of testosterone and looked for immediate responses. They found none. But the effects of testosterone and estrogen are not related to the short term dosage but to the exposure over a period of time. For the mathematically inclined the effects of testosterone are as follows. If you graph dosage against time, the effects would vary directly not with the immediate dose, but with the integral of the dosage. And we have four thousand years of evidence on this. The human race has been making eunuchs, steers and geldings for at least that length of time. And the differences in aggression between castrated and intact males is consistent across many species. Clearly males with full testosterone are (Ceteris paribus) more aggressive than castrates. The effects of anabolic steroids illustrate this. "Roid rage" come not with the initial use of these drugs but after long term abuse.

Transward

Seems I always have to be one of the outliers...

I was absolutely more confrontational (bitchy) without testosterone than with it. It's like how most grandmothers are nice, sweet, kind little old ladies, but there's always the odd one that's... well.... not. For me, testosterone restored a calm, a centre. I feel much more patient and balanced with it than without it.

gelding (imported) wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2011 6:07 pm The placebo effect is well understood. If one is expecting to feel more aggressive while taking testosterone, that may well work to create that result.

True, except lots of animal studies show this effect and aren't really affected by plac

BossTamsin (imported) wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:36 am ebo effect since the animal doesn't know what to expect.

I was absolutely more confron

tational (bitchy) without testosterone than with it.

I already addressed this -- confrontational in that sense is not the same as what aggression means in the testosterone context. Bitchiness, irritability, moodiness is defensive not offensive -- you're reacting to others. Testosterone aggression means you simply want to get physical, like you actually want to get into fights just for fun, or play contact sports, randomly punch something or throw something, or exert yourself to the point of pain. It is a sort of joy in physical aggression that testosterone affects. It is why football and such were invented -- fun aggression in its own right.

For example, when I have higher testosterone I actually am hoping someone will pick a fight (physically) with me. Like at a bar I am want to end the night with a street fight. When low testosterone, that has no appeal and I would rather avoid it.

Testosterone does make me lots more mellow in terms of less irritability, but I have a lot more fun lifting weights or competing.

I get road rage at times myself and I have no (or very little) testosterone. As in: SO, ARE YOU ON THE PHONE OR W-H-A-T-!-!-! What the phauque are DOING??! Gaudamette!!!

as you are an expert, i would like you to explain the advantages (smooth and a very esthetical look) as well as the disadvantages if being nullified.

Nullification is the ultimate surgical intervention. Even then there is the possiblity of another intervention in the body itself. Could you explain that to me?

i also read an article ( do not know if that is on Forum or Blogs) that probably was not started by yourself, because if i search on your name that article does not appear. In this article in question you set up as a mediator between wannabees and a surgeon. i do not know if that surgeon is a urologist or a plastic surgeon.

Maybe you can explain the difference and the preference to be given either to a urologist or a plastic surgeon. i enjoyed your picture very much.

Methinks the writer of "5 Testosterone Myths" is Abraham Morgentaler, MD, who, I have a hunch, is not a member of the Eunuch Archive community.

I find a particular difficulty in what I read of Morgentaler writing. One way of accomplishing biomedical research is to collect a bunch of "case histories" which share a particular set of features chosen to form the bunch and exclude those not having the particular set of features from the bunch. Having collected the bunch, one averages the properties of the chosen features to form a group feature set which is then used to describe the members of the bunch, as though all members of the bunch are, in terms of the properties of the chosen features, effectively interchangeable, which, within the chosen feature set, may well be so. Alas, the actual members of the bunch are individual people and not a set of selected features of identical, indistinguishable people.

This statistical categorization is an aspect of the debate (or whatever) of whether frequentist statistical methods (which exclude priors) are more, or less, subject to errors of bias than Bayes Theorem methods (which require estimating priors).

The resolution of frequentists versus Bayes is bloody simple for me. My brother's methods were frequentist regarding cancer risk. My methods were Bayesian. He died, I live on.

Perhaps one of the most serious hazards to the future of humanity is what I have come to think of as "single parameter optimization" in working to resolve a multiple parameter predicament. For instance, when I observe, as I have often done, a complex, multi-dimensional problem reduced to being evaluated through a single-parameter, five-point Likert scale, my pseudo-science sensor is alerted.

I apologize for my use of words here, particularly to those not versed in scientific and pseudo-scientific jargon. I am not working to impress anyone with my jargon skill set, but to write something without defining every word or using tens of thousands of words.

My personal (and professional?) sense is that Dr. Morgentaler has a good grasp of central-tendency research methods. I probably can do such work as well as he can. I also believe that I have a good grasp of outlier research methods. Most of my work is based on working with data at half or less of the common value for statistical insignificance. If the significance level is chosen to be 0.05, I strive to work with what is at or below 0.02, a region of research interest to me for which the commonplace frequentist methods are utterly data-toxic.

Thus, I am working away to be at the upcoming MoM, the better to speak directly with anyone who is interested in finding out whether the research methods I have developed may be useful in helping the Archive members attain a better quality of life in terms of our interfacing with the rest of human society.

In some people, testosterone levels may modulate the amount of distress needed to generate rage, so I would guess. It may not be a pure dichotomy. LIkewise, prostate cancer risk for a specific individual, as contrasted with risk for a large bunch in which individual differences have been averaged to seeming inconsequentiality. There is no average person.