PrivateMDlabs Lowers Ref Range for Total Test

[jmmdm2]

Kinda pissed me off to see this... ref range is changing to 264.0 - 916.0 ng/dl from 348.0 - 1197.0 ng/dl

Then again, we don't really care here because we know the levels we want to be at on and off cycle. Everyone feels good at a different "normal" level but it seems like the medical community is giving in to the hormone altering food products we're expected to consume. How many men will be viewed as within the normal range and not even considered for TRT or given the advise to eat better to improve test levels naturally? So many articles out there stating testosterone levels aren't what they used to be... so let's just change the test.

"well, you're within range..." followed by "have some antidepressants"

 

[rudolphp]

Yeah, stinks. They don't pull numbers out of their rump to get the ranges though. All reference ranges are compiled by testing a pool of individuals in this case 9000+. Seems the new reference is reflecting us getting more obese and an association with lower testosterone. But yeah, I'm obese and know even at me being just a bit in the normal range on the current scale I don't feel so hot.

Like you said, many more are gong to hear the you're in range mantra. I've heard it from 3 docs. sigh

https://www.labcorp.com/assets/11476

 

[Zeigo]

WOW.... <30BMI... are you kidding me that should be way lower... and the test levels higher...

 

[buen]

Lol...reference range is the actual observed (tested) results of over 9000 HEALTHY males in the stated age range ....

You are sorely mistaken if you think more is better

One man that has normal (for him) natural testosterone production of say 400ng/dL
may "feel and do better" than another man that normally produces 700ng/dL but has fallen to 550ng/dL

Each body is different...being at your bodies normal natural production level is what's important

Reference range isn't about ...oh...closer to the top is better and that's where I want to be
It doesn't work like that...TRT is for returning your testosterone level to what is normal FOR YOU
That's what is healthy....save elevated testosterone levels for your blast..you'll live a longer healthier life that way

Only 5% of healthy men have natural levels near the top of the reference range

All men should test their natural levels yearly...establish a baseline
That way when their natural production declines...they have a good number to shoot for..when and if they choose TRT

 

[RickRock]

Buen is absolutely right. This reference range doesn't mean a whole lot to a specific individual. Everyone is different. It's more like a range of averages across the board

 

[jmmdm2]

I understand we all feel good at different normal levels. I think most of us here know that.

My concern is that now with a lower range being consider normal, many of the inept doctors out there won't even consider low T as a possible cause for feeling sluggish, moody and the other associated symptoms. My doctor was one of these that simply didn't understand, he didn't even understand why I wanted to be tested for estrogen. If I hadn't pursued the cause of my low T and found this forum through research, I may have given up trying to feel better. I can't imagine going back to the way I felt and knowing there are others out there that may be feeling like I did... it bothers me.

 

[RickRock]

I understand we all feel good at different normal levels. I think most of us here know that.

My concern is that now with a lower range being consider normal, many of the inept doctors out there won't even consider low T as a possible cause for feeling sluggish, moody and the other associated symptoms. My doctor was one of these that simply didn't understand, he didn't even understand why I wanted to be tested for estrogen. If I hadn't pursued the cause of my low T and found this forum through research, I may have given up trying to feel better. I can't imagine going back to the way I felt and knowing there are others out there that may be feeling like I did... it bothers me.

Well any good doctor should be treating symptoms and not numbers. As stated, we all feel our best at different ranges with all hormones

 

[buen]

I understand we all feel good at different normal levels. I think most of us here know that.

My concern is that now with a lower range being consider normal.

LOL bro

It's not CONSIDERED NORMAL....it IS. NORMAL

YOUR problems finding a competent knowledgeable...have nothing to do with the actual data collected
That's why Hyogonadism needs to be diagnosed and treated by a specialist

What is not right is guys looking at a reference range...see that they are at 500ng/dL...and thinking they are low and need to add exogenous test...because the upper end of the range is 900ng

 

[jmmdm2]

Ok, so what was the range before? Was the range normal before the change or abnormal? If it's normal now, it couldn't have been normal before. My reason for posting to begin with was the fact that compared to the generations of recent past, the normal range is trending lower. This lower range is supposedly attributed to the hormones in our food and the current population is more obese than ever. Is this the healthy sampling used to determine the new range?

I really don't know how you're interpreting my original post to mean that every man should shoot for the top of the reference range. I didn't say that. I also understand why you're so adamant about advising people here... playing with hormone levels is no joke and a serious life choice. I can't convince you that I understand where you're coming from... when I moved up from the low 200's to the mid 300's, I felt pretty good. I did it naturally by losing weight and changing my diet plus adding in cardio & weight training. Maybe 350 was my sweet spot for my age and my current condition.

Can you think of what it would be like for someone that didn't have the knowledge we all share in this forum? I know my doc is not competent now, I didn't know that before I read much of the info I found from people like you, Dylan, Rick and every other contributor here. I'm thinking of the guys that don't have the knowledge, visiting their own incompetent doctor and not getting a proper diagnosis. I don't know what the rest of the world has for insurance but I have to visit my GP before I can see a specialist. If the GP doesn't alert the patient to the fact that he may have low T and the patient doesn't know any better... that's where I'm going with this. Let's say this patient has T at 275 but would feel really great at 650, not 1100 or 900 but 650 or 575 or even 350. Maybe he just needs some diet and exercise to bring up his levels naturally. We start messing with the range and people don't get help... maybe. I don't know how it will play out. Maybe it will raise awareness as more of us talk about it.

I hope I've conveyed my thoughts respectfully.

 

[buen]

Bro...DATA IS DATA !
Nobody is changing the reference range ...all they are doing is REPORTING what has been clinically observed in a population of healthy men
What would you say if I told you the "old" reference range was too high....would your same logic apply in reverse...NO....because data is just data..there is no agenda
It's like getting mad and not wanting them to report a drop in the homicide rate...because you feel it will give people a false sense of security

The previous reference range was from data collected before 1996
The "new" reference range is from data collected in the last 5 years

People need to manage their own health...not go to bad Dr's because it's what is provided by insurance
People need to seek out and pay for (out of pocket if necessary..or change insurance ..etc) qualified medical care
"cheap" medical care can be the most costly....don't accept 2nd rate improper care because of cost

 

[RedMorkai]

Reference ranges are scientists/doctors collective consensus of what is considered "normal". They are constantly being refined as we learn more. In the vast majority of circumstances, a new reference range should be more accurate, but in some cases we refine it back towards the other direction as we learn/interpret more.

 

[buen]

Reference ranges are scientists/doctors collective consensus of what is considered "normal". They are constantly being refined as we learn more. In the vast majority of circumstances, a new reference range should be more accurate, but in some cases we refine it back towards the other direction as we learn/interpret more.

Sorry...but you are mistaken

There is no "consensus"...there is nothing subjective involved
Reference range is a direct collection and correlation of results from a group with specific parameters
Different labs may have different reference ranges because they only use data collected from their own labs and equipment....(this is to negate variables in the results from other labs and test protocols)

 

[RedMorkai]

Sorry...but you are mistaken

There is no "consensus"...there is nothing subjective involved
Reference range is a direct collection and correlation of results from a group with specific parameters
Different labs may have different reference ranges because they only use data collected from their own labs and equipment....(this is to negate variables in the results from other labs and test protocols)

You're right, reference range is not necessarily the same as "normal" range. I guess I was talking about recommended values when doctors/nutritionists etc begin to address deficiencies. There is most certainly committees that get together that recommend values but you are correct in how a reference range is determined. The only potential for consensus would be ruling what is "healthy" but that might be rooted out by standard deviation in itself anyways.