You've been consuming too much 4chan. There's your problem.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTSvLKY7HEk

>I have the same level of a depressed 99 years old at 43.
According to who? Is there an NHS testosterone-age chart?

You plonker. Have a word with yourself.

Seems odd that your GP would agree to test you but then do nothing once the results came back poor.

Get a second opinion, or buy testosterone injections off the deep web.

Or start taking zinc supplements, they're meant to work.

>>4885
>>4887

Serum testosterone at 12. On the bottom of the range, the value you would expect on a 99 years old man. When I tried talking with the GP he was very dismissive and uncaring, his answers were like "so what?"
I am already taking zinc, and I would prefer to find somebody knowledgeable before injecting dangerous hormones. Maybe I will go to a gym and find the biggest, most doped bodybuilder and ask him.

>>4888

Go to a different doctor and express your concerns. From a brief google, it seems like your GP is shite and didn't respond in the way he should have. By the looks of it, the NHS is well set up for this sort of issue. There's an angry Sun article about how they spend £20m on testosterone gel and injections every year, you should be able to get in on that.

Having drastically low testosterone is linked to a higher likelihood of chronic illness, so the second opinion is surely worth it.

>>4888
>Serum testosterone at 12. On the bottom of the range, the value you would expect on a 99 years old man.
This in no way answers my question "according to who?"

>>4891
>"according to who?"

Whom.

>>4892

Thank you.

>>4891

Oh, shut up you idiot. It was a legitimate, serious question. Go troll somewhere else.

>>4890

Good point, I will try to speak with someone else. Failing that, there are some legal online pharmacies that sell NHS medications

>>4894
There's really no need for that aggressive tone and I'm not trolling. You believe that your test results show you that you are unhealthy, and I'm reasonably asking that, if your doctor hasn't told you that, who has.

Surely you agree that we'd be wasting our time taking you seriously if you were citing a source such as InfoWars for medical information.

>>4895

The accepted diagnostic threshold for adult-onset hypogonadism is around 10nmol/L. 12nmol/L is on the low end of the normal range, but it's within the normal range. The available evidence does not suggest that OP would see any significant clinical benefit from testosterone replacement therapy, but he would be exposed to risks of hair loss, prostatic hyperplasia and increased blood clotting. There is still significant uncertainty over the causal relationship between low testosterone and poor health outcomes - while it may be the case that low testosterone causes poor health, it is equally plausible that poor health causes low testosterone.

OP's GP was right and OP is needlessly worrying. Get some exercise, look after your mental health and stop trying to diagnose yourself on the internet.

https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24054931

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3770846/

I recently heard that the NHS are running on stockpiled HRT products following a botched trade deal a number of years ago (something about trying to reset the price of generic drugss, i dot know i'm just a twat who occasionally hears things on the radio). The stockpile is apparently running low, causing supply issues. Perhaps GPs are aware of the problem thus reluctant to send people toward dry wells. Or maybe OPs doctor is just a cunt who's burned out and just doesn't give a shit anymore - i've known a doctor with a similar attitude.

>>4897

Or maybe the doctor is doing the right thing by not prescribing medication to somebody who doesn't need it, as elucidated in >>4896.

I do worry about why people don't trust GPs anymore. I know most of them appear disinterested, they seem like they don't care, and their attitude frankly fucks me right off sometimes. But 99.9% of times they'll at least know what the fuck they're on about.

What's also worrying, but goes hand in hand with and I have no small suspicion is related to the mistrust of GPs, is people getting pseudo-medical bullshit from the Internet stuck in their heads and not listening to reason. It's the modern equivalent of snake oil- OP posted a picture from a bodybuilding site, where clearly the insecure, inadequately endowed, overcompensatory men who frequent the place are going to be uniquely vulnerable to such a strain of mindworms.

Britain used to be immune to this, because we've always had the health service, and we've largely trusted them to give us what we need when we need it. But since widespread Internet access has become the norm, more and more people are being drawn in by this Yank shite, where your health is a secondary concern, and selling you the solution to a problem that may or may not even exist is the top of the agenda. The important thing is you feel listened to.

Your problem is psychological OP. Take some of the "men's health" tablets from Asda, stop wanking for a couple of weeks, and convince yourself that your bollocks feel heftier with all the extra ball batter. Then start doing routine cardiovascular exercises and cut the shite out of your diet.

As has been pointed out on this site many times the NHS is great for some things and pretty useless for others. If you want, say, decent NHS treatment then you simply have to go private. Escitalopram has become a sort of psychiatric paracetamol for GPs in the 21st century and they'll throw it at you for anything from premature ejaculation to panic attacks.

There are plenty of private doctors in the UK and around the world who will happily dose you up to the 900 ng/dL (31.2 nmol/L) range but you have to realise that it's a way one trip. Once you start using exogenous testosterone your balls are going to shrivel up for good and you'll rely on sticking a needle into your buttocks twice a week for the rest of your life. Do you really want that?

I doubt "mens health pills" or any off the shell garbage is going to fix your testosterone but you should exhaust all your other options before doing something quite so drastic as testosterone therapy. Make sure all your B vitamins and basic minerals are taken care of, eat a decent diet mainly made up of leafy green veg and lean meats. Sleep properly. Get off your phone/computer/netflix two hours before you want to go to sleep. Get your thyroid / cholesterol / fasting blood sugar checked. Do a liver enzyme panel if you can.

If, and only if, you eliminate all other possibilities should you even begin to consider something as drastic as full-time exogenous testosterone therapy.

Do normal adult men require a GP even once before the age of 40?

>>4901
I got my doctor to feel my balls when I thought I had a lump there.

>>4901
Not in the slightest.

>>4900

>they'll throw it at you for anything from premature ejaculation

(Es)citalopram definitely works for premature ejaculation though. Too well in my case. I need at least an hour of constant, intense stimulation to blow my beans. My knob looks like a Rottweiler has been using it as a chew toy, it's just scar tissue on scar tissue at this stage.

>>4904

Been on it a year or two now and I wank far more than is probably healthy with very little effort at all. Different strokes I guess.

>>4900

The point is there's a difference between someone's wants and needs, in medical terms. A very fucking big difference, and it gets onto morally dubious ground very fucking quickly. It's just the other side of the coin with private doctors. They'll happily write you out a prescription for just about anything, because fuck it, you're paying.

Like you mention there are a lot of downsides to HRT like OP is asking for, and he probably doesn't need it. But he doesn't want to hear that. He just wants someone who will say "Yes, you're right. Here are the magic injections to make your balls work the way you imagine they should be."

The other lads are right to question whether testosterone is really your problem. Testosterone does fluctuate, and it's hard to tell whether you just got a single anomalous reading. Your GP will probably be reluctant to prescribe TRT if that's what you're hoping for.

That said, there are absolutely things you can do to increase testosterone. Ironically, they're often things that will generally better your health. I have to wonder whether all the supposed benefits labelled in the chart are related to T or whether things that increase T happen to correlate with living a healthier life.

Regardless, here's some of the most actionable stuff with reasonably well understood biological mechanisms:

* Strength training leads to elevated testosterone, acutely and on average over the long term https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15831061/

* Get good sleep; T is dramatically lowered by disordered sleep https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955336/

* A moderate intake of saturated fats https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/6538617/

* Generally retainijg or building as much lean bodymass as possible into older age https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10442580/

* Small amounts of alcohol have no affect acutely, but large amounts will suppress T production for 72 hours or more https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-7075-11-26

* You mentioned you don't drink, but for the benefit of our resting actors on .gs, I'll say chronic alcoholism will lower testosterone levels, as long as a load of other more obvious problems https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh25-4/282-287.htm

* While you're obviously not obese from your stats, obesity will lower testosterone and cause many other hormonal problems; generally having as much lean, non-fat bodymass is the goal https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955331/

* There's varied findings on acute and chronic stress that may be worth looking into, but generally stress will affect all of the above behaviours

You mentioned you've trained hard in the past. If you can, I'd highly recommend taking up your training back up and getting your eight hours of sleep in, and taking care of any other obvious health issues.

>>4899
>>Britain used to be immune to this,
not true
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

>>Your problem is psychological OP
Bullshit. I am already eating better than 99% of the local populace, not drinking, smoking or taking drugs, and I attend a local gym. Even the trainer is astonished at my lack of progress, he was the one that advised me to have my test level checked.

>>4906
There are some people in the world with real physical problems. Not every illness is psychosomatic. You talk like a psychologist, and you probably have the same IQ as one.

>>4908

A quick question for everyone. Before full cunt off breaks out Was OP always a monster? Or did the condescending dismissive attitude of Britfa.gs turn them into a monster.

Who is the real monster here, the monster, or the society that created it???

>>4909
I don't think he's a monster, but is a victim of believing too much he reads on the internet; at least this place has "propaganda and lies" on the front page.

>>4911

We all have our misinformed beliefs and political dogma. I'm talking more about the lashing out.

>>4912
>I'm talking more about the lashing out.

Completely understandable. Poor lad has read too much late night internet, thinks he's a beta and has "low T" - goes to Doctor (medical establishment, obvs) who laughs - comes back to apparently sympathetic bit of internet, who also laugh, even more. The Americanised bits of the internet are bad for people - they have adverts on TV for fucking testosterone pills, it's mental.

I wish I had something to sell him.

>>4913 I wish I had something to sell him.

Black pudding. Full of testosterone precursors. Probably.

>>4908
OP, I'm going to ask you for the fourth time: who told you that your test results mean you are unhealthy?

>>4908

Have you ever used steroids?

>>4914
Uuuurrrrggghhhhhhh.

>>4913
You genius, if I wanted to just buy some integrator I would have done that ages ago. I was just hoping for some advice, thankfully I got some in the middle of idiocy and trolling. Speaking of trolling:

>>4916
You are either badly trolling or denser than lead. As >>4896 said, the official NHS guidelines give 10nmol/L as the lowest of the normal range. Now get lost, please.

>>4917
No. Only multivitamins, fish oil and whey proteins. I tried Huel, but the taste is just too horrible. I had to drink vinegar to cleanse my mouth.

>>4918

>You are either badly trolling or denser than lead. As >>4896 said, the official NHS guidelines give 10nmol/L as the lowest of the normal range. Now get lost, please.

So your testosterone level is normal. The low end of normal, but still normal. As >>4896 said, you don't need testosterone replacement therapy as the risks would outweigh the benefits.

Get some exercise, look after your mental health and stop trying to diagnose yourself on the internet. That's not idiocy or trolling, it's the best advice I can give you based on the available evidence.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3880087/

>>4918

So what part of the fact that your result is above the lowest of the normal range don't you understand?

>>4920

Not OP but it works like this. The "normal range" is taken from a range of men from 18 to 80 with no weighting for age. We know that testosterone production decreases with age with a massive drop-off between 50 and 60. From that we can deduce that OP should be somewhere in the mid-range given his age (600ng/L give or take).

>>4921
THIS.

>>4919
I will assume that you are not trolling, and that you simply do not possess enough brainpower to read a chart. Sorry for assuming that you were trolling, I tend to be too optimistic about people.

Ah, no, I will try to explain one more time:

Try find and read a chart with test level for AGE. That chart you posted groups all men together. Test level vary with age. Simple?

>>4918
Again, I'm not trolling (which I'm starting to think you don't know the meaning of). It's a perfectly reasonable question to find out why you believe the things you believe.

You said you "got some advice in the middle of idiocy and trolling". A majority of posts have either questioned, mocked, or disagreed with you. Choosing to disregard the posts you don't like as "idiocy and trolling" in order to listen to the ones you do suggests you are suffering from a heavy case of confirmation bias, just like some of the lads in this thread have said.

Lad, I'm not even trying to draw any conclusions from your test results. I just wanted to know why you decided to disregard your doctor's advice to readily. Now, from your behaviour in this thread, we know: you are only looking to be told what you want to hear.

>>4925

Your image seems to have not uploaded correctly.

>>4922

Lad, women wont find you any more attractive if you start rubbing HRT gel on your balls, they’ll shrivel to the size of peanuts and you’ll still look the same.

You’re also in your 40s, everything is harder. It seems like you’re making excuses for your own lack of dedication to training.

Id love to see a breakdown of your macros and where you are getting them from before I take your “I ain’t daft lads” spiel as gospel, because you seem to have far too much faith in the opinion of a lad with a 2 year Diploma in Sports Science over an actual GP.

No one is trolling you, you’re just harbouring a gale force cognitive dissonance in my opinion. Train harder, eat better, this “problem” goes away.

>>4927
Ladies are the last of my problems right now. As >>4921 told you (and you ignored because you are too stupid to understand), a test level of 12 at my age is not normal. My physical problems were dismissed by the GP with a "so what?" I understand that he has to deal with horribly sicly and dying people every day. He is not accustomed to people asking for a better quality of life. A gym instructor would be useless for saving lives, but he is trained to improve quality of life, it's the gist of his job.
I also understand that this place is full of stupid cunts. It's normal, going on the internet trains you to filter the background noise and extract the useful info, even if the ratio is 10:1.

>>4922
>>Lad, I'm not even trying to draw any conclusions from your test results.
Yes, you are, and failing miserably. You asked four times "who told you that those values were unhealthy?", when 15 seconds of Google would have given a result. I understand that you are probably plastered and stoned, but that does not keep you from Googling something...

>>4928
> and you ignored because you are too stupid to understand
> I also understand that this place is full of stupid cunts.

How to make friends and influence people, Christmas Cunt-Off edition.

>>4921

Not everyone is the same, though, a variance is normal and expected. Why do you think some lads go bald in their 20s and some men have a full head of hair at 60?

Testosterone isn't a linear more = better, higher = manlier musclier and bigger bollocked. It's a regulatory hormone, a very bloody complex affair that depends on your body mass, fat percentage, metabolic rate, god knows how much other shit.

End of the day, OP is a 40 odd year old bloke. He might have had a few more years left in him, he might not, but either way he's well past his prime. We all are by that age, you could be Arnold Schwarzenegger and you're still going to be slowing down by your 40s. The chances are there is very little for him to gain from any form of testosterone therapy.

>>4928

>15 seconds of Google would have given a result

The main issue here is that you think 15 seconds of google is better than 7 years at medical school.

It doesn't matter if you think GPs are neglecting your priorities because they're concentrating on saving lives. That's simply not the case. It would take your doctor fifteen seconds to scribble out a prescription. But he doesn't think it would be healthy, so that's why he didn't.

You're reminding me of one of those customers I used to deal with at Maplin, where they wanted some silly bugger HDMI to parallel port converter or whatever bollocks. You'd tell them you didn't sell anything that could do it and they'd refuse to believe you, and go find some random connectors that just so happen to fit together. They'd get properly angry at me for telling them that it's not going to do what they want it to, and then I'd have to keep a straight face the next day when they sheepishly brought it all back for a refund.

>>4928

What I find interesting about you is: the doctor is wrong. Not only that, but the entire NHS is 'designed' to ignore your problem, and a second opinion is out of the question. Everyone on here saying that your problems lie elsewhere is wrong, and you decide to be rude about it too. On top of that, you can't even call anti-depressants by their real name. Most finally, you've avoided detailing what is actually wrong with your life- if you are miserable, how or why are you miserable?

>I also understand that this place is full of stupid cunts. It's normal, going on the internet trains you to filter the background noise and extract the useful info, even if the ratio is 10:1.

While the internet is certainly full of junk, I'd always say that a room full of people telling me I stepped in shit meant I most likely had stepped in shit.

>He is not accustomed to people asking for a better quality of life.

Our NHS is reasonably good at quality of life stuff. Go have a try at an asian NHS if you want to see a real lack of regard for quality of life. You were offered anti-depressants because you feel miserable, or in other words, depressed.

>>4933
>>On top of that, you can't even call anti-depressants by their real name.

What's so strange in that? The GP used the term "happy pills", too. Almost all my acquaitances of my age pop happy pills like Tic Tac or Pringles. I won't be surprised if I discovered that I am his only patient that is not addicted to that crap.

>>4933
>>asian NHS
Asian NHS? First, the doctor is as Asian as he could be. Second, in Asian countries there is no national service, you only get what you can pay for

>>4928
>I also understand that this place is full of stupid cunts.
You've still not posted your macros or your training regimen.

>>4935

They would be ignored, as >>4921 was. Cunts cannot accept being wrong, so they just ignore conflicting data. It's useless to give data to somebody who is here only to cunt out.

>>4936

I've asked you specifically twice, I want to know so I can advise you, you berk. You don't want to, because you don't want to deal with the possibility that you don't know what you're doing in the gym or the kitchen, or that you're just an old fart who doesn't train hard enough,

FYI, your gym trainer is literally paid to tell you what you want to hear. "Oh, you're not making gains? You work so hard though! Make sure you come back next week, actually have you tried this supplement?"

You're a cretin lad, post your fucking macros or piss off

>>4936

>>4921 is missing the point. There's no clinical significance to having an "average" level of testosterone for your age. The question is whether a) a level of 12nmol/L is likely to make you unwell and b) testosterone replacement therapy will improve your health. The answer to a is "we don't know which way the causality goes" and the answer to b is "almost certainly not"; I've given good citations for both claims.

OP thinks that his testosterone levels are making him ill, but the best available evidence says otherwise.

>>4930
> The chances are there is very little for him to gain from any form of testosterone therapy.

I agree with everything in your post apart from this. I'm not saying it's healthy or that there aren't collateral effects but half a gram of test a week will basically turn you into superman.

Joe Rogan seems to be all about TRT and HGH and publicly encourages many of his friends to hop on the bandwagon as does former MMA contender Brendan Schaub. Fuck it, pump yourself full of stem cells every six months as well.

Joe Rogan retreated from his belief in a hoaxed moon landing, so you know he's a man of science.

>>4941
I find it vaguely worrying just how influential he is. I don't have anything against the bloke but through sheer luck and confluence of circumstance he's become mind bogglingly popular.

And although he seems nice enough I do think he's a bit thick. This is anecdotal but it's kind of mad the cross sections of people he reaches, you speak to people who aren't "internet savvy" but they fucking love a bit of Rogan. Sometimes I think maybe it weighs positive in that at least he's reasonably open minded and might broaden your typical idiots perspectives a bit, but also, as I say, he's thick as pig shit an all. So fuck knows.

Sage for tipsy rambling.

>>4942
He isn't thick at all, he's just easily persuaded by an articulate argument and he takes a lot of drugs so he's open to anything that sounds interesting.

He knows his shit about MMA and boxing though, I only watch his MMA podcasts and I still get drip feed of his opinions elsewhere.

>>4942
It's not necessarily about him though, it's about having good guests too. I can't imagine listening to him solo for too long. As long as he's smart enough to keep the conversation going, and letting it go to some interesting places, then that's all that matters.

>>4943
>>4944

Yeah maybe was being a bit harsh calling him a thick cunt. I think he's usually (not always) pretty good at what he does. And I'd agree it really depends on the guests he has.

I think it's just the level of reach he has that's a bit scary, and also possibly platforming some absolute shitcunts, (ben shapiro, milo, etc etc) where you'd kind of like him to really challenge their shitey views but his affable open mindedness doesn't really help.

Anyway, fuck knows I'm hungover to all fuck. Just something about the cultural influence he has unnerves me a bit but the same could be said for all sorts of internet twats.

Ramblerambleramble

>>4945

Oh yeah also sorry for the derailment. I guess it's partly on topic as it's stuff like Rogan banging on about testosterone or stem cell injections that can lead people into some misguided and potentially damaging types of thinking.

What are you guys talking about now? Joe Rogan? All I know him for is doing an amusing video about how Carlos Mencia is a joke-stealer about ten or more years ago, and then when I next heard of him it was in the context of being just another horrible American right-wing shock-jock.

>>4947
Have you heard of podcasting? It's like a show on the wireless but delivered over the internet that can also be recorded for later consumption. He can lay claim to having the most popular one on the planet.

I doubt you could ever have legitimately called him a right-wing shock jock. But he's not a fan of politically correct cancel culture, no.

>>4949

Maybe not fair to call him a right wing shock jock, but Rogan is a bit credulous.

>>4950
> but Rogan is a bit credulous.
That might be part of his success though. If he can go along with the guest, saying "Hmm that's interesting tell me more", perhaps he can get deeper into a subject and the guest's views, compared to a host with their own strong opinions that would argue with conflicting views, and you'd not really get anywhere.

Also he does speak some sense regarding motivation etc. This bit here about "The path of the fuck-off" starting from about 1:27 is brilliant.

Everytime I try and justify blowing off some plans now, there's part of my brain saying "Path of the fuck-off".

>>4951

Could you give us a bit of a summary of "the path of the fuck off" without me having to actually watch it?

>>4951

I am a different lad by the way. I'm not sure, you don't need to be stridently opinionated, but critical thinking and informed questions are important to a good interview. Joe has had some abysmal guests on, and failed to challenge them on their obvious leaps of logic, anecdotal evidence, etc.

He's not an unintelligent guy, but it's clear the main focus of the podcast (and his career) is entertainment rather than accuracy. Sometimes he'll strike on someone with a huge amount of knowledge and scientific training, like Rhonda Patrick. Then other times he'll have on basketcases and the discussion will slide into stereotypes and that weird American brand of right wing edginess.

I say this as someone that's listened to hours upon hours of his show, by the way. I enjoy it, but I also think most of the discussion on there should be taken with a huge dose of salt.

On another note, you'll probably love the Goggins episode if motivation is what you're after. And his coverage of boxing and MMA is fantastic.

>>4952
Let me google that for you, with some editing by me because it seems a bit shit (I think it's just pulled from Youtube auto-captioning)

... blowing something off it's not just (like blowing off an exercise that you planned) is not just bad for you physically it's also bad mentally because then that option is now available - The option to fuck off is available and you did it before and you are probably going to do it again.

And you'll get mediocre results not just in that aspect of your life but maybe in all aspects of your life because I think that option to fuck off when you embrace it that is a pathway that you might choose when it comes to dealing with conflict in your personal life dealing with business decisions dealing with career decisions - like an uncomfortable decision that you might be faced with or maybe you need to make a change as far as like what your pathway is in life but you don't do it instead you fuck off.

And that the inclination to fuck off I think that gathers momentum as well the inclination to be disciplined that comes with momentum too and I think both things like you did you take a path: the path of the healthy person or the path of the fuck off - like both of them are available and ...

>>4953
He challenged Alex Jones on how the paedophile globalists came to control worldwide AI development. Not sure what more you want.

>>4954

what I'm hearing here is that he has just rediscoved stocism poorly and crudely.

>>4953
Part of it is people running youtube channels in this vein just need to keep a constant conveyor belt of guests to interview to keep getting videos out.
I've never really watched any of his videos but I would guess his approach to interviews is intentional. With good guests you can ask tough questions and you get good answers, but when you're interviewing the quacks and basketcases if you don't agree with them they become defensive and will never return for another video.

It was the same with Dave Asprey/Bulletproof. For every podcast with a guest whose work is based on good quality peer reviewed science, there would be two or three interviews with quacks with ideas like "you have to walk barefoot so waste electrons can flow out of you into the ground".

>>4953
> you'll probably love the Goggins episode
?

>>4959
Dunno what your picture is supposed to mean but it's JRE #1080 and JRE #1212.

>>4960
It's Mrs Goggins from Postman Pat.