- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 9:49 pm
Posted on 12/7/22 at 9:49 pm
(no message)
This post was edited on 12/8/22 at 6:41 pm
6
Posted on 12/8/22 at 7:48 am to FlexDawg
thats not always the case. sometimes body still wants to stop producing nearly as much.
i was 100% healthy, in my late 20s and still stopped due to varicosile.
i was 100% healthy, in my late 20s and still stopped due to varicosile.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 9:06 am to FlexDawg
This seems like a pretty poorly designed study to draw that conclusion from their results tbh.
First of all, healthy in this study looks to mean that they didn’t have anything grossly wrong in a physical and that their junk works (prostrate was tested not so much their fitness).
25 people 18-29, and 25 people 45-65 are their two groups. The maximum measured test in the older group is 700, the mean in the younger group is 766, and there’s no statistical difference. Or in other words, 12 of the 25 younger subjects have total test higher than the highest test levels in the 45-65 group. But statistically they couldn’t say there was a difference.
You could potentially have a scenario with this dataset where plotting age vs test levels is a straight line with negative slope, but the way the data was blocked/analyzed you get no significant difference. In fact, seeing a regression of age vs. test levels before running the stats would have made a lot of sense and would have probably been more useful than the included t-test.
First of all, healthy in this study looks to mean that they didn’t have anything grossly wrong in a physical and that their junk works (prostrate was tested not so much their fitness).
25 people 18-29, and 25 people 45-65 are their two groups. The maximum measured test in the older group is 700, the mean in the younger group is 766, and there’s no statistical difference. Or in other words, 12 of the 25 younger subjects have total test higher than the highest test levels in the 45-65 group. But statistically they couldn’t say there was a difference.
You could potentially have a scenario with this dataset where plotting age vs test levels is a straight line with negative slope, but the way the data was blocked/analyzed you get no significant difference. In fact, seeing a regression of age vs. test levels before running the stats would have made a lot of sense and would have probably been more useful than the included t-test.
This post was edited on 12/8/22 at 9:08 am
Posted on 12/8/22 at 9:39 am to FlexDawg
I believe we should question whether it’s a bad thing that testosterone drops with aging.
I’m not saying you should have low test in your 30s.
But lower levels in late 40s and beyond? I don’t think it’s an open and shut case that it’s a bad thing.
I’m not saying you should have low test in your 30s.
But lower levels in late 40s and beyond? I don’t think it’s an open and shut case that it’s a bad thing.
This post was edited on 12/8/22 at 9:39 am
Posted on 12/8/22 at 1:09 pm to lsu777
(no message)
This post was edited on 12/8/22 at 6:40 pm
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:09 pm to FlexDawg
quote:
So you were 100% healthy and then acquired a health condition? Got it.
so in other words if you are in perfect shape and have absolutely no issues what so ever.....you should not dip?
then why was the average in young group in the study higher than the highest in the older group? did you read the study or just the conclusion?
its a shite study sorry
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:10 pm to Canuck Tiger
quote:
This seems like a pretty poorly designed study to draw that conclusion from their results tbh.
First of all, healthy in this study looks to mean that they didn’t have anything grossly wrong in a physical and that their junk works (prostrate was tested not so much their fitness).
25 people 18-29, and 25 people 45-65 are their two groups. The maximum measured test in the older group is 700, the mean in the younger group is 766, and there’s no statistical difference. Or in other words, 12 of the 25 younger subjects have total test higher than the highest test levels in the 45-65 group. But statistically they couldn’t say there was a difference.
You could potentially have a scenario with this dataset where plotting age vs test levels is a straight line with negative slope, but the way the data was blocked/analyzed you get no significant difference. In fact, seeing a regression of age vs. test levels before running the stats would have made a lot of sense and would have probably been more useful than the included t-test.
its a terribly designed study and how they come the conclusion they do....
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:11 pm to Earnest_P
quote:
I believe we should question whether it’s a bad thing that testosterone drops with aging.
I’m not saying you should have low test in your 30s.
But lower levels in late 40s and beyond? I don’t think it’s an open and shut case that it’s a bad thing.
i dont think it is & personally beleive you should be in the zone for your age group
but there are a couple studies that show so long as you dont go above natural levels overall at any age....really no downside so long as the levels dont start creeping into supra levels
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:29 pm to lsu777
(no message)
This post was edited on 12/8/22 at 6:40 pm
Posted on 12/8/22 at 3:08 pm to FlexDawg
quote:
Please, I’m begging you.
Strange compulsion dude. If all the hills to plant a flag….weird.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 3:50 pm to FlexDawg
Hard to have a conclusive study on something with so many uncontrollable variables.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 4:15 pm to FlexDawg
If you're a fatty your T will drop faster.
But there's an evolutionary reason it drops. Once you're in your 40s you should have adult sons. In caveman days, there was no advantage to competing with them for mates. And a slight advantage to being a provider/nurturer if you were still around, since that's a good thing for your grandchildren.
But there's an evolutionary reason it drops. Once you're in your 40s you should have adult sons. In caveman days, there was no advantage to competing with them for mates. And a slight advantage to being a provider/nurturer if you were still around, since that's a good thing for your grandchildren.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 4:27 pm to FlexDawg
Here’s a much better study to address whether test levels decline with age:
LINK
“We measured T and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), by RIA, in stored samples from 890 men in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study on Aging…we observed significant, independent, age-invariant, longitudinal effects of age on both T and free T index (free T index = T/SHBG), with an average change of- 0.124 nmol/L·yr and -0.0049 nmol T/nmol SHBG·yr. T, but not free T index, also decreased with increasing body mass index.”
LINK
“We measured T and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), by RIA, in stored samples from 890 men in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study on Aging…we observed significant, independent, age-invariant, longitudinal effects of age on both T and free T index (free T index = T/SHBG), with an average change of- 0.124 nmol/L·yr and -0.0049 nmol T/nmol SHBG·yr. T, but not free T index, also decreased with increasing body mass index.”
Posted on 12/8/22 at 6:43 pm to FlexDawg
Why'd you delete this?
Posted on 12/8/22 at 8:34 pm to FlexDawg
If you believe so strongly in this why delete it?
But no study is really needed, all you have to do is look at median or average test levels by age group. Hell most unhealthy men are dead by 75, so why is the average 75 year old have so much less test than a 25 year old if your theory is correct??
Btw and for the record, I don’t think a 75 year old should have the same levels as a 25 year nor is it really that healthy
But no study is really needed, all you have to do is look at median or average test levels by age group. Hell most unhealthy men are dead by 75, so why is the average 75 year old have so much less test than a 25 year old if your theory is correct??
Btw and for the record, I don’t think a 75 year old should have the same levels as a 25 year nor is it really that healthy
Posted on 12/8/22 at 9:08 pm to lsu777
quote:
If you believe so strongly in this why delete it?
What did the goofball delete?
Posted on 12/9/22 at 8:31 am to jose
quote:
What did the goofball delete?
he posted a very very flawed study that came to the conclusion that in healthy individuals testosterone does not decrease as we age.
the study actually showed the average levels of the 19-30 group was higher than the highest in the older group. but yet found no statistical difference.
we challenged him on the study and if he actually read it or just saw the conclusion and assumed
he then doubled down and challenged us to provide a study where perfectly healthy individuals had their test decrease as they age
a study was posted about half hour later and next thing i know he deleted everything
Posted on 12/9/22 at 8:52 am to lsu777
quote:
a study was posted about half hour later and next thing i know he deleted everything
Can't believe I missed all this
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News