Reluctant Doc, Reference Ranges, and T-Level

[Whitecollar10]

Having not had a physical for about 7 years, and soon to be 45 in a month, I set out to get a physical. I also wanted to seek out a new doctor for my GP, since the one I had been seeing is getting closer to retirement and isn't in a convenient location to where I currently live.

I found a new doc who is near my home. In addition to being a GP he is also an internist. He seemed to be very easy to talk with and I liked the appointment. I asked him to check my T levels (total and free) as well as E2. This would not have been his recommendation despite my discussing my ED, lack of libido, lack of energy, falling asleep too soon in the evening, general malaise, etc. But, he agreed to check.

My blood tests came back, and they picked up a few things... Low vitamin D and LDL a tad too high. So this was good. But there were none of the tests I was particularly interested in. When I asked him about this, he said that it looked like they hadn't been ordered after all, and he ordered it right then. (Apparently the lab retains some of your blood for a period of time after returning the results...I did not know this.)

He gave me the results yesterday, but he ended up only running the total T test, not the free and not the E2. So I have an incomplete picture.

The reference range listed from the lab was 262 - 1593 ng/dL. I've typically seen the reference range listed as something like 250-850 or 300-800.


Does this mean that the test method was different??


My Total T level came back as 460, so my doctor's comment was "Testosterone level was in the normal range."

What do you guys think of this? Is your opinion colored by the reference range?


In my "travels" on the internet, I came across this:



So with my level at 460, does this mean I am average... for a 75-84 year old?


Reference ranges are purported to represent 90% of the population. With the reference range published with the above table, it is implied that 90% of the male population has T levels between 250 and 850.

Applying the standard deviations, it would look like 70% of those aged 35-44 would be between 456 and 880 (std. dev. goes above the 850). and 70% of those aged 45-54 would be between 393 and 819.

If a "healthy target" would be the upper third of a young man's range, should I be in the target range of 738 to 880???


As an aside, while seeking a new GP, I also have found an "Anti-Aging" doctor who prescribes TRT with HCG an AI's as needed. So, I can go that route... it's just $$.

[zaggahamma]

numbers are just that....numbers

you have a decent level on paper compared to a lot of us that started trt but maybe you had an even higher (in proportion) level in your prime so even though your natty levels are still in the 400's at age 45 you may have been pushing close to 1,000 and so you are going to feel the symptoms similar to one that had levels at 700 in prime then plumetted to 200....

SO...IMO...yes, you would fair on getting your levels up to where you suggested/guessed

[GotNoBlueMilk]

Interesting that the number of total Test between ages 25 and 54 isn't that much. Statistically speaking those sample sizes are way too small unless they pruned outliers, but it is very informative.