SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Testosterone treatment should be given only for sexual dysfunction, guideline suggests
The only scientifically proven use for the hormone in older men with age-related low testosterone levels is for sexual dysfunction, according to a new recommendation from the American College of Physicians published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
[...] Millions of men seek a quick health fix with testosterone replacement, both from prescriptions and over-the-counter supplements. The new analysis showed that there's no evidence that long-term testosterone supplementation improves — or damages — health, said Dr. Robert McLean, president of the APA and a rheumatologist at Yale New Haven Health's Northeast Medical Group. The only benefit is a short-term treatment for men with sexual issues.
Other issues, such as "general vitality and cognition do not seem to be symptoms that improve with testosterone replacement," McLean said. There's nothing in the data, he added, "that shows that testosterone is a fountain of youth."
And that means, doctors shouldn't even bother to check testosterone levels unless their older male patient "says my libido is in the tank," McLean said.
The new recommendation applies only to men in their 60s who have been diagnosed with a decline in testosterone.
Testosterone Treatment in Adult Men With Age-Related Low Testosterone: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians (open, DOI: 10.7326/M19-0882) (DX)
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 10 2020, @02:55PM (5 children)
So it is exactly as effective as homeopathy. That means this should die as quick a death as that treatment did.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Friday January 10 2020, @03:41PM (1 child)
Testosterone does not make you gay!
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 10 2020, @04:54PM
But it makes her happy.
(Score: 1, Troll) by RamiK on Friday January 10 2020, @05:13PM (2 children)
They cherry picked low dosage studies to the point they couldn't even find evidence for muscle increase let alone adverse side effects and then concluded since they can't assess the risks and found so little benefits outside sexual function, it's better to err on the side of caution and stick with the FDA recommendations and not prescribe it:
So, as far as the ACP is concerned, this guy [drlife.com] is all about genetics, protein shakes and creatine.
compiling...
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 11 2020, @05:06AM (1 child)
I don't understand why you're voted troll. The reasons these studies didn't supply enough testosterone to shift muscle patterns might include a lack of exercise (all the hormones in the world do not enlarge an arm in a cast, or other parts atrophying from disuse) but they didn't address this. Your point is excellent, in that a lack of physiological shift means an expected signal is missing and that void should be investigated, and correspondingly there should be a whiff of "check before you eat" to these results.
Testosterone's impact on muscle-building is well documented. There's a reason why it makes the list of forbidden drugs, in those competitive sports and events which test (olympics are the global example), though it's mostly women who get busted.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday January 11 2020, @01:53PM
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Actually there been studies showing taking high testosterone dosages without training still increases muscle mass: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101 [nejm.org]
To repeat myself, their whole methodology is, eh, unusual. They based "natural" levels on average for the population-wide age group without ruling out people with muscle dystrophy and other "age-related" problems since they're "natural with age" and then determined any person or study exceeding that, naturally or endogenously, shouldn't be part of the study. Then they established aiming for those levels, those low levels that don't reflect males at the primes but males at their "golden" years, as what they should aim for. It basically goes against every other hormone and even vitamin dosage setting methodology being used. When old women take estrogen pills it's by aiming at a 20-30 something means. When they tell you you don't have enough vitamin D, it's based on healthy 20 somethings studies. Calcium levels... Triglycerols... Amino acids... They're deliberately picking and choosing their methodologies and studies to get the results they want.
And sticking to existing regulatory recommendations when you're the medical body those same regulatory authorities rely on to make recommendations is ridiculous.
The whole thing stinks.
compiling...