BobTheOldLifter

Just thought I comment b/c it seems we're very similar. A couple months ago I was about 265. Started TRT about 6 wks ago, down to about 238 now, with a few more to go, but getting there! Added a little (and I do mean a little, low dose) RAD 140 for the last couple weeks and now I'm hitting PR's - all time PR's and I'm >50. Couldn't be happier - good luck to you. A little test goes a long way! Good luck! Edit: FWIW, I'm doing 16/8 time restricted eating with fairly low calories. Supplemental protein only post workout. Waist shrinking and muscles growing!

I think this is excellent advice. My experience with prescription TRT at 100mg/wk has been great in terms of mood, libido etc. My T levels were originally similar to yours, just a hair higher, but on the low side. Diet and training dialed in, and even while cutting pretty hard, I've seen PRs with a low dose RAD 140 on top. Can't wait to see what happens when I "blast" the T at 250 or 300/wk

Ugh, that ain't good. Especially since it sounds like your first doc had you all nicely dialed in and actually listened to you.

Just curious, if you followed instructions, what dosage are you 'supposed' to be on?

Congrats! And I couldn't agree more, I totally and completely understand what you're feeling here - I feel it too. Kinda impossible to describe unless you've experienced this. Very cool!!

Excellent! Thanks for the recommendation.

Just thought I'd share my experience and excitement. I've been on TRT now, for a relatively short time - about 6 weeks so far. As I explained in my intro, I'm a lifetime lifter and am in this for the long term. I just mean my health and quality of life is very important, and getting larger (or much larger at least) as a side benefit is great, sure, but isn't my primary focus. My experience so far has me very very exited and I thought I'd share. My initial goal was/is to get leaner. My diet is pretty good/strict, and for the first 8 weeks or so (starting before TRT begain) I tried the Sarm S4. Meh... Didn't really notice anything different, no sides though, but yeah my strength held out pretty good for the first 20lbs of loss, so that's good I guess but overall I was underwhelmed. When I started the TRT (just 100mg/wk initially) I did notice my waist began shrinking a little quicker so that's cool. Now I've given RAD 140 a shot, pretty low dose just looking for a little help getting leaner and staying strong. But, now THIS is different!! Last workout (about 2 weeks or so into RAD 140), BOOM!! Hit a PR on the bench (and still losing weight)!! Not a total weight PR, but got two extra reps at about 80% 1RM. I log all my workouts and this was a breakthrough. I'm stronger now, than when I was 35 (at least in the bench) Just totally excited to be enjoying some unexpectedly great results so soon even at my age (over 50) and am really hopeful that some moderate 'boosts' to my TRT just might produce even better results! Also, the TRT so far has really helped with mood, outlook, and libido. I'm really diggin' it! I think the only other person who may be enjoying the TRT more is my wife. If anybody is wondering if these effects are real, don't wonder any more. And, bless her heart, she's perfectly willing to do the pinning for me. Is it wrong that my wife injecting me kinda turns my crank? Is that wrong ??

FWIW, I think it's a wise approach. While I'm huge advocate of free speech in general, this is not a public forum. There is a narrow focus here and protecting that is wise. Just my $0.02

Yep. I'm a butt man too!

Yeah thanks, I learned of this shortly afterwards, but I just didn't want to take a chance of 'rocking the boat' with the doc by buying his first script from an 'alternative' source . But yeah, it cost me more than $100 for the pharmaceutical stuff - probably triple what it should be.

Happy to help anyway I can. If this helps, my TRT doc is North GTA, not particularly convenient from Niagara, but 3 or 4 times a year maybe isn't too bad. I get no extraneous BS as part of the program. Regular blood tests and consultations. So far he seems to be an good guy and a good doc. For comparison purposes the cost, all-in, is probably about $1500/yr. The Test is basically free for me too(drug plan) but he also has me on lowish dose DHEA (which I'm not sure is really beneficial, but he believes it is and my levels were low) and this wasn't cheap and wasn't covered. Also some of the blood testing 'extras' have to be paid out of pocket, so all in about $1500 above OHIP and drug coverage per year.

Ok, here's what I'd suggest. Go to the appointment at the private clinic next week and get all the info. At this point I assume it's unknown whether or not they want to reel you into a bunch of stuff that you don't want/need, whether or not the cost is too high and so on. Get all this info, then check back in. Then take it from there. Does the clinic's program make sense for you? Do you need other Ontario-based TRT suggestions? Is cost the only issue? Once the problem(s) are nicely clear, it's easier to solve them.

That's a crappy situation - totally sucks. They must have learned the prostate cancer/testosterone link in med school and many won't change their view despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. Kinda kills confidence in the medical profession a little... Do you have no other TRT alternatives? What general area of the country do you live in?

I'm still definitely a noob at this, but from what I've read about Sustanon, would this be a better choice for TRT? Most others (including me) that I know on TRT are on Test cyp. Wouldn't Sustanon be better? Am I missing something?

FWIW, I live in the GTA and have a pro-TRT doc and am happy to point anyone in the right direction if you're interested. Warning - it's not free - charges on top of OHIP, but totally worth it!

Haha! You're not the only one!

I assume this doesn't apply if they're prescribed?

Yep, agreed!

No disagreements with that. I just bristle at the Environmentalist movement taking on more and more characteristics of a fundamentalist religion where it becomes 'blasphemous' to question any part of the dogma. This is not good. We need to keep our minds open to facts and science. And FWIW, a little more than 60% of your Tesla's electricity is nuclear in origin in Ontario.

"You can argue that burning fossil fuels like we are is natural? Please do that." Humans are a natural part of this world. Therefore, just like any other animal, there is nothing we can do that is unnatural. Disagree, then please argue that humans are not natural. But seriously, it's not that I believe that humans can't do 'unnatural' things. I don't really believe that argument, but the point stands that 'an imbalance from the natural state' is simply not an acceptable definition of pollution. "How can you know if an imbalance causes harm without using the scientific method? And you can't use the scientific method because you can test such macro changes." I totally reject this. We can and do use the best science we have to answer these questions to the best of our ability, but it seems we are very reluctant to say 'we don't know' in the politically charged world of climate science, or is that climate politics. Doesn't seem like there's a difference and that's a HUUUUGGGE problem.

FYI, just released from NASA recently: "An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States." CO2 emissions thought to account for 70% of this. Pollution?? Unnatural?? Harmful?? Anything but clear. Edit: NASA Article

"Anything that causes an imbalance from the natural state is pollution." What? No way. An imbalance from the 'natural' state could be beneficial. You'd have to define it as something like 'causing net harm' or something. But even if we go with the original definition for a moment, we'd just degenerate into arguing about what's natural. I could argue that what we're doing now is natural and reducing emissions is unnatural because by that definition it's causing an imbalance from the new status quo. My point is that defining pollution like this not conducive to a productive discussion. "sulfur dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide." Agreed. Should be taxed. Is taxed. "These are all natural gases but releasing excessive amounts leads to an unnatural imbalance." No. They, from what we can tell, cause net harm, not 'unbalance'.

I have no prob with a healthy disagreement. Basically, I'm on board with most of your argument actually. Avoiding the 'Tragedy Of The Commons' issue is generally sound economic policy, I'll agree with that. This is basic ECON, but while taxation is a blunt instrument, I'll agree it's a valid tool in this case. However, first of all CO2 is not pollution. Secondly, we already have a HUGE carbon tax on gasoline now. Slapping more tax on gas and calling it a valid 'Carbon Tax' is straight-up deception. It is definitely a 'scam'.

Haha...Whew! I'm glad I'm not the only one I really liked it a little while back where the guy gave him a really hard time for taking the photo op instead of helping sandbagging. Only thing that would have made it better is if he kneed him in the 'nads.

Even if - just for the sake of argument - even if someone believes in the worst case scenario of the climate 'emergency' fanatics, it still doesn't make sense. Basically the government can't get anything right. They can't even figure out how to get the trains to run on time, not to mention healthcare, education, spiraling debt, and on and on and on... But they want us to believe that they're going to change the weather by raising taxes???!!! What a sad joke...