Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels
-
Has he ever shown his actual labs?
I've subscribed to his newsletter for years now and had signed up for one of his group experiments, but I've never been one of his paid subscribers. He talks about his labs and results often, but I don't know if he's actually ever shown them publicly for anyone else to give a good overall critique of what he has going on. I imagine his numbers are all over the place, though, because he's constantly running all these different experiments on himself with varying results.
-
Androgens are immunosuppressants, do with that as you will
-
@lobotomize normalizing androgens to a reasonable range is probably immuno-normalizing. pretty sure haidut has an article about this in context of wuflu
-
@sunsunsun When testosterone or DHT binds to the androgen receptor (AR) inside an immune cell, it changes gene transcription in ways that reduce inflammatory activity (e.g., lower IL-6, TNF-α, reduced T-cell proliferation, more Treg activity)
every increase in testo is followed by immuno suppresion. there is no bell curve
-
@lobotomize your inference is elementary
-
this is not Peaty at all
-
@sunsunsun https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5932344/?
And next time, back your blabber up with some evidence -
@lobotomize you still can't admit that normalizing androgen levels is probably immune restorative? why are you so insistent on not conceding a minor point of clarification I made and continuing to be obtuse and rigid about it? my first reply to you in this thread is in the spirit of discussion, not a competition to see who is more right that one of us needs to win.
greater inflammation =/ greater immune competence always
and here is haidut's article on it: https://haidut.me/?p=1452
hopefully the above helps you. your posts are not fun to read sometimes and you are not fun to try to have discussions with in this thread, and it makes sense that I dont get along with someone that literally subsists off a neurotic diet.
That article you posted me is probably interesting, but if you expect me to read it and somehow tell you that I agree that inflammation = greater immune competence from a bioenergetic health context, or that androgens are always immune suppressive, I doubt that is going to happen, and if that article makes that supposition it might be a really stupid article. I doubt it does though because you keep talking past me.
edit: your new post on height growth is actually fun to read. do you see how easy it is to concede a point when it is the right thing to do?
-
@sunsunsun You’re strawmanning. I never said "inflammation = competence." I am stating a biological fact: androgens downregulate immune activity (IL 6, TNF a, T cells).
This thread is about 3000 ng/dL (500mg/week), not "normalizing" a deficiency. You are moving the goalposts by trying to rename pharmacological immunosuppression as "immuno restorative." Inhibiting the immune response at 3x the natural limit is the literal definition of being immunocompromised, regardless of how you try to frame it. My point stands.
The rest of your post is just ad hominems about my diet and personality (a transparent tactic you’re now frequently using to lead your posts, likely to distract from the lack of a substantive rebuttal)) . And frankly, And frankly, your edit praising my other post while sneaking in a backhanded addition is a pathetic ingratiation tactic.
I haven’t "conceded" anything, my height post is a completely unrelated topic. Trying to frame my interest in other subjects as a "concession" is just a desperate manipulation tactic .
if i have unkowinlgy conceded something point it out and i will happily admit where i was wrong if i proved something i said was ignorant or not based on factsIf I have unknowingly conceded a point by proving myself wrong with my own evidence, point it out specifically; I would be happy to update my knowledge and admit where I was ignorant. Otherwise, stick to the science instead of trying to manipulate the tone just to "be cool" on a forum that has the goal to advance health knowledge
-
@lobotomize Just stop making stuff up in your mind about what you think I'm saying, things that are removed from what the literal words in my posts say. This isn't just because English isn't your native language, you're purposefully doing this in order not to "lose" an argument when I didn't even argue with you in the first place. You low-key conceding stuff now while still maintaining that I'm somehow wrong is hilarious.
-
Ad Hominem
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"your inference is elementary"
Instead of refuting the biological mechanism provided (AR binding reducing inflammatory activity), you dismiss the argument by attempting to frame your opponent as simple-minded ("elementary") without providing any counter-evidence.
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"why are you so insistent on not conceding ... and continuing to be obtuse and rigid about it?"
You attack my character calling me "obtuse and rigid" for sticking to the actual topic of the thread. You try to frame accuracy and consistency as a personality defect to dismiss the argument without addressing it.
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"your posts are not fun to read sometimes and you are not fun to try to have discussions with in this thread, and it makes sense that I dont get along with someone that literally subsists off a neurotic diet."
This is a direct personal attack. You dismiss the scientific arguments by attacking my likeability ("not fun") and my personal lifestyle choices ("neurotic diet"), which are completely irrelevant to the biochemistry of androgens. You are trying to signal social ostracization.
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"This isn't just because English isn't your native language, you're purposefully doing this in order not to "lose" an argument"
You weaponize an assumption about my background (ESL status) to devalue the argument, implying my disagreement is due to a lack of comprehension rather than a valid difference of opinion. You then assign a malicious motive ("purposefully doing this") to what is a standard debate.
@sunsunsun said in dht and creativity:
"ts because your attempts at humor are unfunny and cringe , you think youre being creative but youre just being kind of unlikeable... you are esl tho so its less bad but its still dumb"
Again, you attack the person rather than the argument, appointing yourself the judge of "actual sense of humor" to socially exclude the opponent. And once again, you bring up presumed ESL status ("it's still dumb") as a way to condescend and dismiss me.
Ingratiation
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"edit: your new post on height growth is actually fun to read. do you see how easy it is to concede a point when it is the right thing to do?
"
You offer a strategic compliment on an unrelated topic to lower my defenses and manufacture a sense of rapport. This "kindness" is calculated to make your subsequent demand for concession seem more reasonable, effectively using social validation as a bribe to buy my submission in the current argument.
Mind Reading
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"you're purposefully doing this in order not to "lose" an argument"
You claim access to my internal mental state and intentions. You assert that my disagreement is a calculated strategy ("purposefully") rather than a position based on objective facts and evidence. This allows you to bypass the need to prove the biology wrong by simply asserting that I am acting in bad faith, a claim you cannot possibly verify.
Speculation as Fact
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"normalizing androgens ... is probably immune restorative"
You use vague probability ("probably") to counter specific physiological mechanisms (AR binding). By presenting your speculation as a sufficient rebuttal to established biological pathways, you attempt to lower the standard of evidence to a level where your opinion holds equal weight to scientific fact. This speculation effectively sets the stage for your Strawman Argument.
Strawman Argument
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"greater inflammation =/ greater immune competence always"
Building on your speculation, you refute a claim I never made. I cited specific biological markers of suppression (IL-6, TNF-a). You simplified this to "inflammation equals competence," creating an easily defeated argument that misrepresented my actual position.
Moving the Goalposts
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"normalizing androgens to a reasonable range is probably immuno-normalizing. pretty sure haidut has an article about this in context of wuflu"
The thread topic is specifically about Hans Amato's 3000 ng/dL levels (pharmacological/supraphysiological). You immediately shifted the argument to "normalizing" (replacement levels) to avoid addressing the immunosuppressive effects of the specific high dose being discussed.
Revisionist History
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"my first reply to you in this thread is in the spirit of discussion"
You attempt to re-frame your initial goalpost-shifting comment (diverting from the 3000ng/dL topic to "normalizing") as a benign "spirit of discussion." This ignores that your initial comment was a derailment of the specific thread topic, painting your disruption as virtuous and my fact-checking as hostility.
Gatekeeping
@sunsunsun said in dht and creativity:
"unlikeable to actual sense of humor peoples"
You appoint yourself the arbiter of what constitutes "actual" humor. By creating an exclusive group ("actual sense of humor peoples") and explicitly expelling me from it, you try to establish social dominance and define my contributions as objectively invalid based on your subjective preference.
Mockery
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"is hilarious"
You use laughter and amusement ("hilarious") to belittle my position. This signals to the audience that my arguments are not even worth taking seriously, reducing a serious debate about health risks to a spectacle of your own superior amusement.
Badgering
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"you still can't admit..." / "why are you so insistent on not conceding..."
You repeatedly pressure me to yield on a point I have already addressed or dismissed as irrelevant. This repetition ("still," "insistent") attempts to wear down my resistance through attrition rather than logic, treating my refusal to submit as a character flaw rather than a valid position.
Gaslighting
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"Just stop making stuff up in your mind about what you think I'm saying, things that are removed from what the literal words in my posts say."
You accuse me of hallucinating ("making stuff up") when I am actually responding accurately to the implications of your strawman arguments. This attempts to destabilize my confidence in my own perception of the conversation.
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"I didn't even argue with you in the first place."
You participated in a back-and-forth exchange where you questioned my logic ("inference is elementary") and demanded concessions. Claiming now that you "didn't even argue" is an attempt to rewrite history to make my responses seem unprovoked or hysterical, effectively denying the reality of the interaction we just had.
Pathologizing
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"Just stop making stuff up in your mind about what you think I'm saying, things that are removed from what the literal words in my posts say."
This goes beyond simple disagreement; you are implying that I am hallucinating ("making stuff up in your mind") or mentally dissociating from reality. It frames my accurate interpretation of your subtext as a symptom of delusion rather than a valid rhetorical counter-point.
False Victory
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"do you see how easy it is to concede a point when it is the right thing to do?"
You are treating an interaction in a completely different thread as a "concession" in this one. It is a manipulative tactic to treat me like a child who is "behaving well" only when I stop disagreeing with you.
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"You low-key conceding stuff now while still maintaining that I'm somehow wrong is hilarious."
I explicitly stated "I haven't conceded anything." Just saying I have conceded doesn't make it true. You are attempting to rewrite reality to force a defensive position where I have to argue that I haven't lost, rather than arguing the facts.
Invincible Ignorance
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"That article you posted me is probably interesting, but if you expect me to read it ... I doubt that is going to happen... if that article makes that supposition it might be a really stupid article."
You explicitly refuse to read the evidence provided while simultaneously calling it "stupid." This is bad faith argumentation—rejecting data you haven't even looked at because it contradicts your narrative.
Moral Posturing
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"my first reply to you in this thread is in the spirit of discussion, not a competition to see who is more right that one of us needs to win."
You claim the moral high ground ("spirit of discussion") while simultaneously using insults. This attempts to paint me as aggressive ("trying to win") for simply citing facts, while you are the one engaging in personal attacks.
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"hopefully the above helps you."
This is a passive-aggressive sign-off meant to frame yourself as the helpful educator despite having just insulted my intelligence ("elementary") and ignored my evidence. It serves to effectively talk down to me while maintaining a facade of politeness.
Loaded Question
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"you still can't admit that normalizing androgen levels is probably immune restorative?"
You are demanding admission to a point ("normalizing") that was never the central disagreement, trying to force me to agree to a general truth (TRT is good) to invalidate the specific point (3000ng/dL is bad).
Contextual Misapplication
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"pretty sure haidut has an article about this in context of wuflu... and here is haidut's article on it"
You take findings from a reputable source ("Haidut") regarding a completely different context ("wuflu"/viral infection) and misapply them to the specific pharmacological context (3000ng/dL testosterone) we are discussing. You use this cross-contextual reference to bypass the need to address the actual mechanism I proposed.
Dismissal
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"it's probably fine"
A low-effort dismissal of valid health concerns regarding 3000 ng/dL testosterone. You offer no reasoning, just a vague assurance that minimizes the risk, setting the stage for your later refusal to engage with actual biological evidence.
Victim Playing
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"I doubt it does though because you keep talking past me."
You frame my direct rebuttals to your points as "talking past you," effectively casting yourself as the victim of poor communication. This shifts the blame for the disagreement onto my "failure to listen" rather than your "failure to address the evidence."
Coercion
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"why are you so insistent on not conceding a minor point..."
You characterize my principled disagreement as stubborn "insistence," applying pressure for me to yield just to smooth over the social friction. It attempts to make "agreeing with you" the path of least resistance.
Hypocrisy
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"my first reply to you in this thread is in the spirit of discussion... your posts are not fun to read... subsists off a neurotic diet"
You claim to be operating in a high-minded "spirit of discussion" while in the very same breath you engage in personal insults about my diet and character. You demand a high standard of pleasantry and "fun" from me while providing low-quality dismissals and ad hominem attacks yourself, demonstrating a clear double standard between your words and your actions.
-
@lobotomize so haidut's article is wrong and based on lies?
a few of the things you said in your response are deliberately the opposite of what my words say. You are a weird nigga.
-
@sunsunsun said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:
"so haidut's article is wrong and based on lies?"
False Dilemma / Strawman
You attempt to force a binary choice: either I agree with your interpretation, or I must believe the source ("Haidut") is a liar. This ignores the nuance that the source is correct (about physiological doses) but you are misapplying it (to pharmacological abuse). It attempts to trap me into defending a reputable figure instead of attacking your flawed logic."a few of the things you said in your response are deliberately the opposite of what my words say."
Projection / Gaslighting
You accuse me of twisting your words ("deliberately the opposite"), which is exactly what you did with my initial argument about immunosuppression (turning it into "inflammation = competence"). You project your own rhetorical dishonesty onto me to deflect accountability.Furthermore, you fail to cite a single instance where I actually did this. If I had misrepresented you, you would simply quote the error to prove me wrong. Your inability to point to a specific example confirms that this is a baseless accusation, designed to cast doubt on my integrity without burdening yourself with the need for evidence. I never twisted your words, I engaged directly with your literal statements using direct quotes.
"You are a weird nigga."
Ad Hominem
You resort to a racial/derogatory slur to degrade me. This is the lowest form of argumentation, essentially forfeiting any claim to a "spirit of discussion." It signals a complete loss of composure and an attempt to dominate through pure shock value and insults.[Citing Haidut's article which says: "The doses... were physiological... 5mg T..."]
Self-Immolation / Self-Contradiction
You cited a study to support your defense of 3000 ng/dL (approx 500mg/week), but the text you seemingly rely on explicitly states: "The doses of both T and DHT administered in the studies were physiological... 5mg T... daily".
You are using evidence for replacement levels (5mg/day) to defend abuse levels (70mg/day). By linking this, you have scientifically disproven your own argument that high-dose abuse is "probably immune restorative." -
@lobotomize
“False Dilemma / Strawman”
This label overreaches. The question is rhetorically aggressive, but it does not actually construct a formal binary where all alternatives are excluded. Treating it as a false dilemma imputes logical structure that isn’t present. Likewise, calling it a strawman presumes a misrepresentation of your position rather than a confrontational reframing. The label adds argumentative force, but it does so by exaggerating the logical failure.
“Projection / Gaslighting”
Invoking “gaslighting” is imprecise and inflated. Gaslighting refers to a sustained effort to destabilize someone’s grasp on reality, not a disputed claim about wording or interpretation. At most, this is an unsupported accusation, not psychological manipulation. The framing escalates the exchange and moralizes disagreement instead of clarifying an actual reasoning error.
“Ad Hominem”
This classification is technically correct but analytically low-value. Identifying an insult as an ad hominem does not engage the substantive issue or move the discussion forward. Once discourse reaches this stage, pointing it out functions more as commentary than critique.
“Self-Immolation / Self-Contradiction”
This label conflates distinct problems. The issue is not that the source contradicts itself, but that it is being extended beyond its evidentiary scope. Framing this as “self-contradiction” misplaces the error in the source rather than in the interpretation. A charge of evidentiary overextension or category mismatch would be more precise and harder to dispute. -
@lobotomize you keep saying my comment to you is in the context of 3000ng/dl
to clarify things
my first response in this thread is satirical. you dont have a funny sense of humour so you wouldn't get this. plus you dont know my postings enough to see this. there is a popular and funny meme where a character in a burning building surrounded by fire is saying "this is fine".
secondly you keep saying things that I said , which I did not say.
thirdly, my first reply to you in this thread has nothing much to do with Hans 3000ng/dl, and this is logically true just by reading the content of my post. if you think my comment is somehow related to 3000ng/dl even when I say "normal" androgens, idk what to tell you other than stop making things up in your mind about the words I am typing
you are selectively ignoring things ive specifically said to avoid admitting that what I said is likely true and correct
-
“my first response in this thread is satirical.”
This is a retroactive clarification, not something evident from the original text. Satire normally signals itself through tone, exaggeration, or contradiction. When a comment reads as literal and only later gets reclassified as satire, the ambiguity is created by the author, not the reader. Explanation after the fact does not transform unclear writing into effective satire.“you dont have a funny sense of humour so you wouldn't get this.”
This shifts responsibility away from the text and onto the reader. Disagreement is reframed as a personal deficiency, which makes the claim unfalsifiable. If understanding hinges on presumed familiarity with your personality or posting history, then the communication itself failed to stand on its own.“secondly you keep saying things that I said , which I did not say.”
This is a serious accusation, but it is made without a single quotation to support it. If words were falsely attributed to you, demonstrating that would be straightforward. The absence of examples suggests that the issue is interpretation, not fabrication.“my first reply to you in this thread has nothing much to do with Hans 3000ng/dl.”
This assertion conflicts with the observable context. Your comment appears within a thread explicitly centered on that topic, and it uses overlapping terminology. Context is established by placement and framing, not by later declarations of irrelevance. Simply insisting there is “nothing to do” with the topic does not negate the surrounding discussion.“if you think my comment is somehow related to 3000ng/dl even when I say ‘normal’ androgens.”
Using the word “normal” does not automatically sever contextual links, especially when the discussion contrasts normal versus extreme values.“you are selectively ignoring things ive specifically said.”
This imputes motive rather than identifying error. Claiming deliberate avoidance substitutes psychological speculation for argument. If something material was ignored, pointing to the exact sentence would resolve it immediately. -
