Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Testosterone is the drug of the future

fusion.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 308 posts

Re: Testosterone is the drug of the future

#261

Post by zdc »

lectrick wrote: post #257
davak wrote: post #55

MD here. Just remember that women live longer than men. Although it'll never be proven that hormones are part of that provess, I think it's a good assumption. Many males as they get older become more lovable and more pleasent to be around because of natural hormone declines. There are a ton of health issues such as balding, coronary artery disease, prostate cancer, obstructive sleep apnea that are related to testoste…

Obstructive sleep apnea increases cortisol levels which in turn decrease testosterone levels. Source: I have obstructive sleep apnea and low testosterone, both of which are being treated finally, and my income rose by... triple? quadruple? ever since

What did you do to take care of your sleep apnea? Just curious, as a sufferer of OSA as well.

Re: Testosterone is the drug of the future

#262

Post by gwern »

return0 wrote: post #16

I wonder if it is possible to compare today's T levels with men of 100 years ago or even more. It could be that the industrialization and urbanization has caused a massive change in T levels because of natural reasons (less sun, less exercise, less anxiety, processed foods, tight clothing, what have you)

There are a few blood archives going back multiple decades which might allow this. For example, I read a while ago one study which used a US military blood archive with samples from the 1950s to check that some blood biomarker had genuinely increased since then.

Re: Testosterone is the drug of the future

#263

Post by [deleted] »

chrisbennet wrote: post #82
jriley wrote: post #66

I found DHEA in the natural aisle of local grocery store under $10. I take a low dose daily (in my early 30s). Worth researching. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehydroepiandrosterone

Given the recent revelation by the New York attorney general's office [1], what confidence do you have that you are actually getting what is on the label? (I didn't down vote you.) [1] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/new-york-attorney-g...

[deleted]

Re: Testosterone is the drug of the future

#264

Post by sanoli »

saiya-jin wrote: post #159
vidarh wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do power lifting (non-competitive), and while I'm noticeably muscular and lift more than most people at my gym (no competitive lifters there, so doesn't say all that much), I'm not nearly at peak muscle volume nor do I look nearly as big as body builders much smaller than me - leanness makes a huge difference to perceived muscle size. Still, from an hour 2-4 times a week (2 times a week at the moment), with no ster…

Yeah, definitely, but there are drawbacks too. if you already have a woman by your side that you want to spend rest of your life with (and judging by your comment about son, you should be there) - extra ladies attention is annoying as hell. If you are actually mentally a grown up, this ain't an impressive result as it might seem :) (Yes, been/am there, but to impress ladies you don't need to be creepy muscular type.…

He has a son, probably also a wife, he probably has a steady job. And he goes to the gym 2-4 times a week, for 1 to 2 hours each time. Lifting weights is one of the best things he can do, exercise wise, to his health. A 3-week effort on Aconcagua? When do you think the parent does that, and how often? Does he take his 6 year old son with him? I don't really see any drawbacks from him being powerlifting strong.

Re: Testosterone is the drug of the future

#265

Post by igrekel »

cgh wrote: post #193
repsilat wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that they're necessary conditions for its production doesn't mean they're sufficient, though. It doesn't follow that you can just take a vitamin pill and get some sunlight and you'll naturally have high levels of testosterone.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21154195 The evidence is strongly suggestive that vitamin D supplementation has an effect on testosterone levels in men. On a purely anecdotal, personal level, I had my free test checked some years back, before I started vitamin D supplementation. After supplementing with 10,000 IUs a day for around a year, I had it checked again and it was significantly higher (I don't have the num…

10 000 IU a day? Was that a typo? How did you got that target?

Just asking because I was considering 10 000 IU a week following my MDs advice (which is already higher than what it the normal off the shelf dose: 1000 IU a day).

Re: Testosterone is the drug of the future

#266

Post by sanoli »

laichzeit0 wrote: post #132
mattlutze wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increasing muscle mass, and maintaining that muscle mass, will/may: - decreases stress on tendons and ligaments - protect delicate or complicated joints from injury - help maintain healthy weight and body fat levels - improve bone density, and help maintain bone density - increase stamina / reduce fatigue - support attention - get up out of the bathtub or off the couch when you're older - improve sleep - improve ment…

Not to mention that a large percentage of females find muscle mass attractive when combined with a low body fat percentage in males. Indirectly this can lead to a boost in self-confidence levels in an individual, which has other positive spinoffs.

This. Times ten. I can't stress this enough to my non-lifting, skinny, geek friends who wish they were more attractive to women. I always tell them that the number one thing they can do is to begin lifting weights. They'll look healthier, more athletic, manlier, and their self-confidence will go up. Oh, actually weights are number two. Number one is to ditch the anti-girlfriend geek t-shirts with programmer's inside jokes (you know, the 'only 10 people who know binary' stuff) ;-)

Re: Testosterone is the drug of the future

#267

Post by hoka »

eyeJam wrote: post #149
johnward wrote: post #107

I'm 28 now and I have hypogonadisn and have experience using T and other options like clomid. My total T was I finally went to the doc. Got the blood work and was put ona low dosage of Testosterone. Enough to get me to the 500ng/dl range. My quality of life improved dramatically and I was the happy and productive person I used to be. I felt like I did in my early 20s instead of like I was approaching 50. Now I have t…

If anyone's ever watched the documentary "Bigger, Stronger, Faster*" they raise some interesting points questioning why steroids are demonized. Professional musicians take beta-blockers, athletes get laser eye surgery and take cortisone and opiate shots before/during competition, programmers take Adderall and Modafinil, male porn stars shot their penises full of drugs to stay erect for hours on end, etc. etc. Plenty…

I do agree that it should be up to the professionals, but consider amateurs moving into professional sports.

If college football players can't take steroids, they will get __destroyed__ in the NFL. If college players can take steroids, then highschool players will stand no chance at moving up. Likewise, if you make it fine for high school players, middle school gets punished, etc.

I don't doubt that professionals could successfully regulate it and do it (mostly) responsibly. I have a severe lack of faith in desperate parents living vicariously through their kids in little league games.

Re: Testosterone is the drug of the future

#268

Post by vldx »

igrekel wrote: post #265
cgh wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21154195 The evidence is strongly suggestive that vitamin D supplementation has an effect on testosterone levels in men. On a purely anecdotal, personal level, I had my free test checked some years back, before I started vitamin D supplementation. After supplementing with 10,000 IUs a day for around a year, I had it checked again and it was significantly higher (I don't have the num…

10 000 IU a day? Was that a typo? How did you got that target? Just asking because I was considering 10 000 IU a week following my MDs advice (which is already higher than what it the normal off the shelf dose: 1000 IU a day).

I'm also taking 10,000 UI daily. Anything below 20,000 UI daily is fine and non-toxic. References - pubmed.

Re: Testosterone is the drug of the future

#269

Post by vldx »

slantyyz wrote: post #181
gadders wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Many males as they get older become more lovable and more pleasent to be around because of natural hormone declines. I resent that. I don't have low testosterone but I'd still say I was a loving father and husband and a generally good person. Being "manly" doesn't mean being a dick, quite the opposite.

I think you're overthinking what he's saying. He's simply talking about the side effect of reduced testosterone -- I think he's just trying to say men simply mellow out more when he says "more lovable". I can speak to this with first hand experience. I had testicular cancer for a _second_ time in my 30s and while I was waiting several weeks for a chance to see an endocrinologist about replacing the testosterone my bo…

I've read somewhere that Testosterone could be described as simple as - Fuck or Kill :)

Re: Testosterone is the drug of the future

#270

Post by nl »

ashworth wrote: post #194
will_work4tears wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes me wonder though, is the statistic that women live longer than men a first world, modern thing, or is it a historical trend? I'd think as little as a hundred years ago it might not have been as true, or am I off base?

I would think the ratio would have been MORE skewed in the past because war and violence were much more prevalent.

No where near.

WW1 (which was by far the most deadly war prior to WW2) killed around 10 million military personal[1]. Assume they were all male.

World population in 1918 was about 1.8B.

Breaking those 10 million deaths over the 4 years of WW1 gives around 1.4 deaths per 1000 people on earth.

Maternal mortality in England and Wales was around 40 deaths per 1000 births in the same period (England and Wales probably had as good a health system as anywhere on earth at this point, so most places were worse).

I'm not sure how to convert from deaths per birth to deaths per people. Women generally had multiple children.

By comparison, a place like Somalia currently has a death rate of around 10 per 1000 births[4].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

[2] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=what+was+the+world+popu...

[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1633559/figure/f...

[4] http://kff.org/global-indicator/maternal-mortality-ratio/

Post reply on HN