Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels

@GreekDemiGod said in Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels:

@user2 He was claiming that before, his E2 was also high, so his T/E2 ratio was not that great. But then he fixed his gut or liver, and he is now able to maintain a very high T/E2 ratio.

Ok. Him claiming it is healthy(if he did) doesnt make it healthy. Most guys on social media that try to influence people claim they feel great energy, even when what they show of their physiognomy and what they say and do, do not seems to display a high energy state

sphagnum

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.

lobotomize

Androgens are immunosuppressants, do with that as you will

sunsunsun

@lobotomize normalizing androgens to a reasonable range is probably immuno-normalizing. pretty sure haidut has an article about this in context of wuflu

lobotomize

@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

sunsunsun

@lobotomize your inference is elementary

engineer

this is not Peaty at all

lobotomize

@sunsunsun https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5932344/?
And next time, back your blabber up with some evidence

sunsunsun

@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?

lobotomize

@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 facts

If 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