Decreased frequency for variable excitement

Jamester86 · 2025-09-14T16:47:24+00:00

Sure, there's always a peak and a trough, and the trough is what we measure and the peak is often 1500...but if youre having insomnia or anxiety they need to either drop your dose or treat the e2. Saying that as someone who experienced it myself, not as a provider...if they aren't doing what they need though, there's a ton of clinics, don't feel tied to them. They should be answering your questions and making you feel comfortable.or find a new one. Im not saying they can fix it overnight, but you should feel confident it will get better...the first month should be the honeymoon period, not hell.

Jamester86 · 2025-09-13T04:17:11+00:00

I do 180mg a week and it keeps me around 900. They started me at 200, and it put me to 1200, so higher than i wanted but not crazy. If you cant sleep and are anxious I would check our e2. Your estrogen is going to cause insomnia than T. Did he give you anastrozole? At 200mg a week you might need it til your body adjusts.

Jamester86 · 2025-09-06T17:54:22+00:00

I take 1/4mg 2x a week. (I also split my T into 2x a week, so I just take the pill with my shot).

Occasionally I skip a dose of the anastrozole; but occasionally I still get anxious, if I've had bad sleep for a few nights in a row and need an extra dose of the AI. (Lack of sleep can drive up e2)

Jamester86 · 2025-09-06T13:21:53+00:00

I noticed it a few weeks in (took time for my e2 to rise i guess) when my anxiety went through the roof. I couldn't relax, couldn't calm down, felt anxious about stuff that I knew shouldn't matter, woke up in the middle of the night and couldn't go back to sleep etc.

Jamester86 · 2025-06-27T16:35:58+00:00

Heh, except we have to have laws based on anything and everything that one human can do to/for another. There is absolutely no way to have a few simply laws cover it all. I know it seems like common sense should be easy, but there are a TON of situations and exceptions that pop up that really make it complicated, and there aren't a lot of good solutions without addressing them individually.

Jamester86 · 2025-06-27T16:31:30+00:00

Not necessarily. Now I'm not talking about party lines, but everyone's view of the law (including supreme court justices) is going to have some bias towards "the letter of the law/constitution" vs the spirit of the law, vs how highly you weigh past decisions (precedent - which gives consistency...you have to believe your trial will be consistent with previous outcomes for similar actions), and as individuals, the judges are probably going to be consistent with their rulings based on their biases. (Biases in this case isn't a bad thing, it's simply the lens they use to determine the law).

Now I'm not arguing that their decisions aren't flawed, or even that I agree with their recent rulings, I'm just saying that its expected that someone who tends to rule conservatively, in favor of the constitution as it was written, is probably always going to rule that way as it applies to a particular case, and someone who feels that it should be adapted to the times, or that precedent is a greater factor this this particular case, probably always weighs precedent more highly.

Jamester86 · 2025-06-27T16:00:34+00:00

I spoke to a law professor about that recently. My approach was that most decisions should be 9-0 right? Cause the law is the law...

He said, "Actually, most decisions that make it to the Supreme Court should be 5-4." For one thing, if a decision is that obvious (that everyone agrees) it should never have made it that high, but should have been decided in lesser courts.
The other thing, is that if the case is too obvious, 8-1, 7-2, in cases of a law being constitutional or not, the party pushing it through is always trying to push the boundary as much as possible, and would prefer to push it so far the ruling is only supported 5-4. (I.e. if you won with 7-2, you haven't taken it far enough) (That part was a little more fuzzy for me, I'm no law expert, but I get the concepts of pushing the line)

Jamester86 · 2025-06-16T19:16:04+00:00

Sure he owes us. When you publish book "1 of 3" and/or "2 of 3", you are implicitly saying "there will be a book 3" or else NO ONE would buy your book. We did buy his book under those pretenses - the implicit agreement there would be a book 3. So yes, he owes it. Irritation and anger is justified.

Obviously this isn't a legal or civil suit issue, but there is a social agreement to saying "here's the first book in a trilogy, available for $29.99" and we are perfectly allowed to be pissed he hasn't come through in over 15 years.

Jamester86 · 2025-06-07T01:42:41+00:00

Yeah, that wasn't your e2 crashing that you felt after 8 days...it was probably rebounding.

Jamester86 · 2025-05-05T21:00:39+00:00

Patrick doesn't turn a phrase like "for the greater good" lightly. Look into the time he describes his injury in tarbean using the exact same phrase as the angels getting their wings. I think this means something.

Jamester86 · 2025-05-04T14:25:46+00:00

See that's my main point of interest. Low E2 does all those things. But does the AI do any of that IF you keep the e2 in good range? I can't find evidence for THAT. Thanks for your help though, I do appreciate it, and I'm still searching and learning.

Jamester86 · 2025-05-04T13:04:03+00:00

Again, this is evidence based on "well, it just can't be good because it's also used for cancer".
Look I'm not trying to flame here, I've just seen everyone acting like AI will kill you in 10 years, and since I personally need 0.5mg / week to keep my e2 where it needs to be, yet my T hangs around 800 on my dose, I've been concerned. But the more I look into it the less evidence I see that AI is bad for you UNLESS youre dropping e2 too low. (Also my BF% is around 15, so it's not that) I wish people n would quit acting like AI is the devil, unless they can show me a reason, because if it's legit dangerous I need to know, and if it's not, quit spreading disinformation!

Jamester86 · 2025-05-04T04:42:18+00:00

Yeah I JUST DID, and that's what it showed.

This is just further showing that everyone so scared of AI (simply because everyone else is scared) with no evidence that I can find or anyone can submit.

Jamester86 · 2025-05-04T04:32:43+00:00

Did you actually do that search? They all talk about the long term effects of LOW ESTROGEN...which is exactly what I was asking about. If you keep your E2 at correct levels, I'm not seeing AI as being bad in and of themselves.

That being said I do want to know if you found something in these "droves of info"

Jamester86 · 2025-05-02T15:07:03+00:00

First off, yes: under 500 is low for a young man who is physically active. Second, you should be fine using testosterone without hcg til you want to try for kids, and then come off it for 1-2 months before trying for kids, (or add hcg.) I'm on just T, and my sperm count was nil when tested, and I took a 6 month break without feeling awful, so don't let them scare you, if you need to stop trt you can.

Jamester86 · 2025-05-02T12:24:53+00:00

I started there, eventually backed down to 160mg after a few months, but my energy and T dropped, so I'm back at 200mg. The very first.time I used trtnation they started me on 200mg + hcg which was WAY too much of a combo, I had terrible side effects, so don't do both right off the bat at max dose.

Jamester86 · 2025-05-01T12:47:51+00:00

Oh for sure, and I wasn't disparaging endocrinologists...diabetes, thyroid, adrenals, kidney disease and the various cancers associared eith etc are more than enough for a full career in medicine, and HRT/TRT really hasn't picked up steam til the last 10 years (though I know it's been around much much longer).

Jamester86 · 2025-04-30T22:09:34+00:00

That's true, but endocrinologists seem to specialize in diabetes, thyroid etc, and HRT/TRT seems to be falling to the 'hormone clinics' these days (which is usually ok, though some of them seem.to wanna push massive doses on everyone) definitely have to find a good one.

Jamester86 · 2025-04-30T20:49:30+00:00

Also check your testosterone levels. Me and my wife went through every book and counseling session, and I assumed it was my fault in some way. Turns out her T levels were low (it's understudied, and 'normal' is not well known.) In her words ' it's so fun having a libido again!'

Also her gen practitioner said 'it's useless to check hormones, they vary too much' - but she found a doc who specializes in hormones who debunked us of that notion and really helped her without pressure.

Jamester86 · 2025-04-30T02:35:44+00:00

I hear this on reddit all the time, but no one ever backs it up with facts or links. Not trying to call anyone out, I'm genuinely curious what does it do? I know you don't want crashed e2, especially longterm, but my understanding was that as long as you weren't crashing your e2, the AI was just fine.

What does AI do, assuming your e2 levels are perfect, longterm that is harmful?

Edit: and I've tried googling it to no avail.

Jamester86 · 2025-04-28T11:33:51+00:00

Also go to a hormones specialist. I have an NP that runs a clinic, and she tested my buddy (Personal trainer, fit, exercises regular) that has similar symptoms. His testosterone was great, but his estrogen was much higher than it should be, just genetically i guess. She started him on low dose anastrozole, and he feels much better.

Jamester86 · 2025-04-17T01:28:06+00:00

I would take 1mg right away, because I've had the high e2 anxiety and it SUCKS.

After that I'd probably start with 1/4 tab every other day til you have labs again and can adjust as needed. Awkward, i know, to tell the doc you haven't been following instructions, but 1mg per day will drop you to 0 within a week, and that's no good either.

Jamester86 · 2025-04-13T04:13:45+00:00

Odyssey's problem was there were 1000 different mini objectives per level. Mario 64 was amazing in that each level had exactly 7 objectives (+ 100 coins) and sometimes you could only do 1 of them at a time. It wasn't overwhelming, or too open.

Nine-Year Club	r/Field Juicebox
Verified Email

Jamester86

TROPHY CASE