A lot of people also have been saying, when I get older, I'm just going to hop on TRT.

It just seems like there's like this like idea that TRT is essentially like, it's kind of like the natty way.

It's like it's like, it's like that people don't associate it with anabolic.

They're just like, oh, yeah, I'm getting older.

I'm going to hop on TRT.

Why do you think people see it that way? Yeah, it's tough because a lot of the literature that has come out is addressing true hypogonadism.

So if somebody has, for example, primary hypogonadism is literally when your testes don't

respond to the signaling hormones from your brain to the testes. So it's literally

not responsive enough to make an adequate amount of testosterone to function properly.

In that case, that guy needs TRT essentially because what else are you going to do?

Those studies will get conflated often with, you know, those outcomes were good,

equals I should be on TRT to optimize as well. But then the spectrum of risk, like I said,

there's a reference range on blood tests that you'll see that goes from as low as 270 upwards of like 1,200, depending on the lab.

Some of it is more narrow.

Like in Canada, we have, I don't know, it's like 300 to 900 or something absurd.

And then in the U.S., some places would go up to 1,100.

It kind of depends.

But at the end of the day, there's obviously a difference between 350 and 1,000 in terms of how much

androgens are floating around in your blood. So to say that I'm on TRT at 1,000 versus I'm on

TRT at 600, it's like, you're technically on replacements based on a therapeutic reference

range at both of those amounts. But how much did you actually need to replace, you know, the R in TRT?

How much did you need to replace what you naturally produced?

...