The testosterone range controversy

**NateDEEzy** · 07-11-2012, 07:26 AM

I read somewhere that testosterone levels in men around the year 1900 ranged more around 800-2000 ng/dl, than they do today at, 300-1000. I can understand this do to all the environmental estrogens we are exposed to daily, which must play some role in the declining levels. But it begs the question, if this is true, why is the normal range 300-1000? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a guy who feels GREAT at levels in the 300's, or I'd venture to even say 400's. Additionally, people who supplement exogenous testosterone usually report feeling amazing at levels around 1000 or even above, so long as they keep all their other hormone levels in check, which seems to be best accomplished at injecting frequently, ie 1x/wk, 2x/wk, or even EOD. I'd love to hear your thoughts. Why are we being told one thing, when the majority of case studies and personal testimonies from websites like these seem to say differently?

**JAMIE07652** · 07-11-2012, 07:54 AM

I wonder how " they" came up with average test ranges for men from 120 years ago ..?

**Brazensol** · 07-11-2012, 08:12 AM

I've read in more than one study that men tested in the 30's and 40's did indeed have significantly higher testosterone levels . Not sure what the earliest tests were for testosterone but they were doing them in the earlier part of the last century. And that is exactly what I thought when I learned of the higher levels; why are our "modern" ranges so low? I'm not a big conspiracy theory kind of guy but it does make you wonder...Gov't's are forever trying to find ways to control people.

**ZombieFred** · 07-11-2012, 10:49 AM

I suspect lower body fat in men 50-100 years ago and less estrogen conversion because of it (along with fewer carbs in the diet, etc.). I've been scanning a lot of old family photos and with few exceptions a lot of men were what we'd consider "skinny" these days.

**Times Roman** · 07-11-2012, 10:56 AM

maybe it's like radio active decay...

...."they" know the current rate of feminization of men due to testosterone inhibitors (plastics, food products, etc.), can gauge it accurately as to when these products were introduced to populations in general, and can reverse engineer the test rates back then?

or it is possible to find pockets of untouched populations of men currently. These men can be tested and comparative analysis made.

**Brazensol** · 07-11-2012, 12:13 PM

I do believe there are studies of men from isolated tribes who have both higher testosterone and iodine levels. I've read so much over the last few months about low T and hypothyroid a lot of it just kind of blurs together. Of course with short term memory loss being a symptom of both who knows what I remember and what I forget...LOL.

**yannick35** · 07-11-2012, 12:46 PM

People back then where eating a lot more saturated fats then today, after the sixties and all the myths about saturated fats most people went fat free. You need saturated fat to produce testosterone . Sea salt has a lot of iodine. I use it a lot on food.

**NateDEEzy** · 07-11-2012, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by JAMIE07652

I wonder how " they" came up with average test ranges for men from 120 years ago ..?

I realize it sounds a bit hearsay, but its validity becomes a bit more believable when you read studies like this.
www (dot) endo-society (dot) org/media/press/2006/Testosterone_LVLS_in_Men_Decline (dot) cfm

In summary, this long spanning study details how testosterone levels in American men has been declining over the past 20 or so years, by somewhere in the range of 20%. Meaning a 60 year old man in 1980 had 20% higher testosterone than a 60 year old man in 2000. Now if you can imagine this decline has been occurring since the introduction of environmental estrogens (birth control was introduced to the public in 1960), not to mention the countless others in existence, one can picture how this decline has potentially been happening for quite some time.

Additionally, just because the current implemented range is called "normal", this doesn't mean it's correct. Just as the "normal range" for thyroid has changed, IMO, so too will the normal range for testosterone. Especially when testimonial evidence points toward feelings of better well being occurring at the higher end of the range, not the lower.

All in all, logically, it makes sense that this range is outdated or misunderstood.

**Brohim** · 07-11-2012, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by yannick35

People back then where eating a lot more saturated fats then today, after the sixties and all the myths about saturated fats most people went fat free. You need saturated fat to produce testosterone. Sea salt has a lot of iodine. I use it a lot on food.

Sea salt doesn't have any iodine. You need iodized salt for this.

**bass** · 07-11-2012, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Brohim

Sea salt doesn't have any iodine. You need iodized salt for this.

true!

**forrest_and_trees** · 07-11-2012, 02:28 PM

This begs some interesting questions, but all you have to do is look at photos of men from previous generations. The further back in history you go, the older and more masculine they looked even in their teens, 20's and 30's. Men in their 20's back at the turn of the century looked like they were in their 40s or 50s by today's standards. I even remember looking at high school yearbooks from my siblings, who were 10 years older than me, and the students from that periord all looked so much older in high school than students my age, who graduated in 86. There seemed to be a significant change in the late 60's and 70's that began to show up in the 80's when those children were reaching puberty.

As far as why is the current "normal" lower? It's hard to say. But IMHO, it's possible it has to do with what I call the, "CYA" factor. We live in a litigious society and sadly, Dr.s are so worried about malpractice lawsuits, that they will tend play it safe, even if it's not necessarily in the best interest of the patient. Added to that, over the past 20 years, thanks to the media and various scandals, anything to do with steroids has become taboo.

The other sad truth we all know is healthcare has become a business of profit and it's more profitable to sell someone dozens of medications and have them coming back constantly, for a laundry list of maladies, than to cure them.

Of course this is all just speculation on my part.

**yannick35** · 07-11-2012, 02:36 PM

As far as why is the current "normal" lower? It's hard to say. But IMHO, it's possible it has to do with what I call the, "CYA" factor. We live in a litigious society and sadly, Dr.s are so worried about malpractice lawsuits, that they will always play it safe, even if it's not necessarily in the best interest of the patient. Added to that, over the past 20 years, thanks to the media and various scandals, anything to do with steroids has become taboo.

I know i am have expose two medical doctors so far to the medical college they are under investigation. One gave me steroids when i did not need them, he will pay for that.

**yannick35** · 07-11-2012, 02:45 PM

http://www.naturalnews.com/028724_Hi..._salt_sea.html

Himalayan pink sea salt has 84 minerals and tones of iodine. Sorry forgot to mention Himalayan sea salt.

**SEOINAGE** · 07-11-2012, 03:07 PM

one thing i read a while back had just 50 years ago mens average level being 300 points higher than today. Personally at top end of range I still don't feel like my hormones are anywhere near what they used to be when I was 20.

**Brazensol** · 07-11-2012, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by SEOINAGE

one thing i read a while back had just 50 years ago mens average level being 300 points higher than today. Personally at top end of range I still don't feel like my hormones are anywhere near what they used to be when I was 20.

I am seriously considering having my sons tested at their 20th birthday so they will have a baseline. Probably get them a full nutritional panel as well. Probably one of the best 20th birthday presents I could give them.

**steroid.com 1** · 07-11-2012, 03:41 PM

There is a school of thought out there that believes that both genetic aging and excessive youthful high GI carb consumption have one dominant effect; the relentless downregulation of our resting metabolic rate.

Men's hormone levels are strongly dependent on their resting metabolic rate, ie:
a) the higher the resting metabolic rate, then the hypothalamus will allow hormone levels to be higher - and this is our optimum youthful situation.
b) the lower the resting metabolic rate, then the hypothalamus will force hormone levels to be lower - this gets worse and worse the older we get.

Interesting...

**NateDEEzy** · 07-11-2012, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by gdevine

There is a school of thought out there that believes that both genetic aging and excessive youthful high GI carb consumption have one dominant effect; the relentless downregulation of our resting metabolic rate.

Men's hormone levels are strongly dependent on their resting metabolic rate, ie:
a) the higher the resting metabolic rate, then the hypothalamus will allow hormone levels to be higher - and this is our optimum youthful situation.
b) the lower the resting metabolic rate, then the hypothalamus will force hormone levels to be lower - this gets worse and worse the older we get.

Interesting...

While I do believe diet might play some role, it doesn't really explain the whole decrease in average levels over the years. The only real culprit, IMO is, I guess to some degree diet because we consume them, but environmental estrogens. They are in our meats (chickens are pumped with estrogen in increase breast growth), in our milk, in our water (from birth control), in our produce (pesticides- pesticides function by changing male sex characteristics of pests into females), exist in plastics. WTF.. it seems we can't escape them. Additionally, this is why girls are going through puberty at much lower ages now. My Mom just retired as a grade school teacher and she can attest to this, as she's seen it develop 1st hand throughout the years

**Brazensol** · 07-11-2012, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by gdevine

There is a school of thought out there that believes that both genetic aging and excessive youthful high GI carb consumption have one dominant effect; the relentless downregulation of our resting metabolic rate.

Men's hormone levels are strongly dependent on their resting metabolic rate, ie:
a) the higher the resting metabolic rate, then the hypothalamus will allow hormone levels to be higher - and this is our optimum youthful situation.
b) the lower the resting metabolic rate, then the hypothalamus will force hormone levels to be lower - this gets worse and worse the older we get.

Interesting...

Use it or lose it...I believe that is true to some degree.

**steroid.com 1** · 07-11-2012, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by NateDEEzy

While I do believe diet might play some role, it doesn't really explain the whole decrease in average levels over the years. The only real culprit, IMO is, I guess to some degree diet because we consume them, but environmental estrogens. They are in our meats (chickens are pumped with estrogen in increase breast growth), in our milk, in our water (from birth control), in our produce (pesticides- pesticides function by changing male sex characteristics of pests into females), exist in plastics. WTF.. it seems we can't escape them. Additionally, this is why girls are going through puberty at much lower ages now. My Mom just retired as a grade school teacher and she can attest to this, as she's seen it develop 1st hand throughout the years

Really well stated and a very thought out response...NICE!

**kelkel** · 07-12-2012, 06:51 AM

I think diet factors in very heavily. It's a fast food society with 1 in 5 being clinically obese. Everything is now done electronically for us in this advanced age that we live in, while most americans sit on the couch getting fatter by the minute watching junk food ads on TV....

Just walk in a Mcdonalds and look at the people. WTF are they thinking!

**flatscat** · 07-13-2012, 04:05 AM

Originally Posted by gdevine

Really well stated and a very thought out response...NICE!

Interesting thread guys. Throwing in that special sea salt took it over the edge lol.

But really think about your logic. If you are ingesting or absorbing any form of exogenous estrogen then it should not effect your t levels because it is not being converted from the t. You would just have higher e levels. I believe this IS happening though and it is effecting many people young and old.

What's up G?

Flats

**SEOINAGE** · 07-13-2012, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by flatscat

Interesting thread guys. Throwing in that special sea salt took it over the edge lol.

But really think about your logic. If you are ingesting or absorbing any form of exogenous estrogen then it should not effect your t levels because it is not being converted from the t. You would just have higher e levels. I believe this IS happening though and it is effecting many people young and old.

What's up G?

Flats

I'm pretty sure excess E levels can lower test, I am not positive and don't have time to research right now, but wouldn't it cause feedback to the hypothalamus to signal less to the pituitary? Anyways, some mechanism in there will effect your test production. Especially if you are exposed to estrogens on a regular basis over long periods of time. Like steroids suppress your HPTA when done for a longer period of time harder to bounce back, or depending on compounds you took can really effect it. I'm sure a little research would reveal exactly the process.

**flatscat** · 07-13-2012, 10:13 AM

You might be right maybe someone has time to research it. I find it highly more likely that the effect on t if any, would be influenced by other issues caused by increased e like higher Bf, etc and not that t is converting to e. Are u saying that e should lower t due to an effect on the axis just as t raises e in some cases?