• Just need to talk it out

Posted: **Sun Dec 09, 2007 11:41 pm**

I'm scheduling surgery for the inguinal hernia (which I've had since childhood but is bad this past year) for April in Toronto: I had to cancel the Dec. 27 date because the money they want in the US is just way beyond what I can do. The Canadians want half as much, still a bite but I have time to try and raise it. If I feel bad about money woes I can always read the "One Day in the Life of a Wolf" thread and remind myself that I am blessed.

Jan. 4 I have an appointment to discuss the blood-work results; I'll share the T figures with you. Like I say the blood-draw was when I was at the bottom of the cycle: thanks mismatched for the suggestion of getting more T tests done, I'll send you a line if I want to follow through on that (and thanks for your story, especially; definitely a more severe case than mine but I relate to some of it).

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:15 pm**

So what do these numbers mean? PSA 0.63, AM Free Testosterone 92

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:12 pm**

XtheUndead (imported) wrote: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:15 pm So what do these numbers mean? PSA 0.63, AM Free Testosterone 92

PSA is very low, and is very good.

Free testosterone at 92 means that you are operating at or about adrenal testosterone level - essentially at eunuch level.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:02 pm**

Yow.

The blood was drawn at the "low" of my cycle. It would be interesting to see, if I get back to a "high" like in October, whether that is an actual change in the testosterone level or a change in my responsivity to the same low levels. DonFL has offered to help me get that done if the situation arises.

Thanks (I guess) for the info.

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:02 am**

Maybe there is a "units" confusion with my reading? The clinic has sent me the full printout on my tests (with all the different cholesterols and blood fractions etc. mostly boringly normal) and says the 92 testosterone is "pg/mL" in a "ref. range" of 49 to 244, with a note "to convert to pmol/L multiply by 3.47" (meaning, for those without a chemistry education: there are about 3470 grams of testosterone to the "mole", the number derived from adding up the atomic masses of all atoms in that moderately-large molecule, a "mole" being a unit with the same number of molecules in it regardless of which substance we are talking about).

So, perhaps Kristoff is used to the "mole" scale, in which my reading would be 319 in the low-middle of a reference range from 170 to 887?

I ask because, although I was in a "low" all December around when the blood was drawn (no acne or orchialgia, urges down to once a day or so without nullo-wannabe thoughts, responses to exasperation more lethargic/procrastinating than impulsive/angry), it was not a state where I would have thought "this is what it's like with my balls completely shut down". I seem to be going back to a "high" (I sent an ill-considered e-mail at work last weekend, fortunately to someone who is a little self-aware about her tendencies to get bitchy so she apologized and I apologized and all is calm now; then I started getting fresh pimples again, probably the most objective marker of testosterone hyper-response; and had a three-in-a-row masturbatory session yesterday) and if I get to any state like I was in October I'll want to get the free-testosterone tested again, check if I really have hormonal fluctuations or, as I intuitively suspect, just fluctuations in response-level (whether biochemical or psychosomatic).

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:42 am**

XtheUndead (imported) wrote: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:02 am Maybe there is a "units" confusion with my reading? The clinic has sent me the full printout on my tests (with all the different cholesterols and blood fractions etc. mostly boringly normal) and says the 92 testosterone is "pg/mL" in a "ref. range" of 49 to 244, with a note "to convert to pmol/L multiply by 3.47" (meaning, for those without a chemistry education: there are about 3470 grams of testosterone to the "mole", the number derived from adding up the atomic masses of all atoms in that moderately-large molecule, a "mole" being a unit with the same number of molecules in it regardless of which substance we are talking about).

So, perhaps Kristoff is used to the "mole" scale, in which my reading would be 319 in the low-middle of a reference range from 170 to 887?

I ask because, although I was in a "low" all December around when the blood was drawn (no acne or orchialgia, urges down to once a day or so without nullo-wannabe thoughts, responses to exasperation more lethargic/procrastinating than impulsive/angry), it was not a state where I would have thought "this is what it's like with my balls completely shut down". I seem to be going back to a "high" (I sent an ill-considered e-mail at work last weekend, fortunately to someone who is a little self-aware about her tendencies to get bitchy so she apologized and I apologized and all is calm now; then I started getting fresh pimples again, probably the most objective marker of testosterone hyper-response; and had a three-in-a-row masturbatory session yesterday) and if I get to any state like I was in October I'll want to get the free-testosterone tested again, check if I really have hormonal fluctuations or, as I intuitively suspect, just fluctuations in response-level (whether biochemical or psychosomatic).

I am accustomed to using a scale that reads in ng/dl. Not sure offhand what the conversion factor is between pg/ml and ng/dl

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:23 pm**

"nano" is one-billionth (10 to the -9), "pico" one-trillionth (to the -12). So, multiply pg/ml times 100 ml/dl times 1 ng/1000 pg should move the decimal point once, and my "92" is your "9.2"??? That sounds like the wrong direction. Maybe it's "920" on your scale?

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:13 pm**

XtheUndead (imported) wrote: Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:23 pm "nano" is one-billionth (10 to the -9), "pico" one-trillionth (to the -12). So, multiply pg/ml times 100 ml/dl times 1 ng/1000 pg should move the decimal point once, and my "92" is your "9.2"??? That sounds like the wrong direction. Maybe it's "920" on your scale?

If it is 920 (correct direction, I assume), Then your T level is in the high end of normal range. Depending on whose scale one uses, normative range can be anywhere from 200-1200 nd/dl.

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:39 pm**

There is also a difference between "free" testosterone (measured in my test) and "total" testosterone level (more commonly measured, includes all the bound forms). Is there a doctor in the house?

I seem to be on the up-ramp: twinges today from my left nut (the one that in younger days was surrounded by a huge varicose hydrocele until my scrotum felt like a bag of worms) though not my right (generally better behaved) and not the sharp pains that make me want the whole package off.

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:28 pm**

Finally got my condition diagnosed. I have a chronic low-level infection with an exceedingly rare species of bacterium, Mycobacterium gordonae, <100 cases in the US. The Canadians will not do the hernia repair surgery thinking it might trigger a major flare-up of what has been so far a "minor" condition. There is no treatment for it, no prospect there will be any (given the low number of cases, no motive for research), not much knowledge about it (it is from the family of the germ that causes leprosy, great). I've had it a long time, so it's not like I have "six months to live", but I probably shouldn't plan on seeing eighty, either.

Just need to talk it out

Re: Just need to talk it out

Re: Just need to talk it out

Re: Just need to talk it out

Re: Just need to talk it out

Re: Just need to talk it out

Re: Just need to talk it out

Re: Just need to talk it out

Re: Just need to talk it out

Re: Just need to talk it out

Re: Just need to talk it out