Last year I got my hormone levels checked for the first time (normal), and I'm going to continue to do so yearly to keep track. Given how important it is, it's really surprising to me that testosterone levels aren't part of regular health exams/bloodwork panels - I had to convince my doctor add it on.

You might know this but be aware that lab testing companies have lowered the acceptable range of testosterone from 348-1197 ng/dL to 264-916 ng/dL, a ~25% decrease. Source: https://www.labcorp.com/assets/11476

Hormone levels fluctuate significantly from day to day based on a variety of factors so a single snapshot testosterone level test doesn't really tell you anything useful (unless it's way outside the reference range). If you suspect a deficiency then you'll need multiple tests over weeks taken at different times of the day in order to get a reliable diagnosis.

Yeah I'm aware. Didn't suspect anything wrong, just wanted to get a baseline established while I'm young

Right, and even then, different doctors/specialties have different standards for what counts as low testosterone. My primary swore up and down that my 300 was fine (and even 200 would be) but men's clinics would insist I need to be at 900.

I'm not sure I'd agree with the men's clinics that will probably more easily sell you appointments for test. prescriptions, but on the other hand LabCorp recently lowered their average range because of the declining measures in the population: https://www.labcorp.com/assets/11476

I think assuming this is the new norm for humans is a mistake, and should instead be treated as a widespread health issue.

Because the only real fix is giving the patient testosterone which has very real stroke risks.

Only slightly increased risk in the first two years

https://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20190723/testostero...

Citation? If you are deficient in testosterone, replacing it is giving your body what it needs.

There are also lots of conflicting studies like this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26248567/

> the only real fix is

What an irresponsible statement. Science has not yet exhausted the frontiers of biomechanics.

No reason to test for a condition now for a future better fix. Test in the future.

Curious if anyone can cite any equivalent research for women, or if it exists?

Girls are hitting puberty earlier and earlier, the average is no 10 years old, whereas it was 15 last century, and significant percents (differs by race though) are hitting it at 7.

Its true with boys to some extent as well according to studies. So at lease for boys/men, there is early onset of hormone production but an overall decrease in the hormone production.

That's not equivalent - indeed, it's not research. Who has measured girls' hormones over time?

High Quality Organic Milk delayed/postponed this for two years (11-13) in our household. Just one datapoint, but we did it on advice from others. We switched from generic milk upon the first indications/hints.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing

Genuinely, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Without scientific sources "high quality organic milk does x" might as well say snake oil. Unless I'm misreading your post, and you're not espousing snake oil.

If I had to guess...I think he is suggesting the added hormones in food (dairy/milk specifically) have a link to early onset of puberty.

It is my understanding both the hormones and antibiotics given to livestock do it fact have impact on the people that consume them.

---

> The phytoestrogen stuff that is popping up in other comments than your own seems a lot of BS, honestly

It's hilarious that "soy boy theory" gets parroted so loudly on HN.

---

Please stop.

Caring about men's issues is literally an insult. I don't know why you'd think society would give a rip.