Hegseth requires testosterone deficiency screening for service members over 30

Laodicean60 · Jul 17, 2026

Hans Blaster said:
I didn't say "YouTube is wrong". I think you might misunderstand how YouTube works. YouTube is full of user submitted content and unverified advertisements. People get their mind cooked watching YouTube's algorithm fed stream of health and nutrition grifters interspersed with related ads for exploitative ads for suplements and quack cures. These morons often sell the notion that every man would "perform" better (whatever that nebulous notion means) if they had "higher T" (even if their isn't actually low. (Basically, anyone would be better informed if they never watched any ad or health-related videos on YT. It's that bad.)

I didn't accuse you of being wrong. Discernment is the key, and yes, you are correct; there are a lot of people trying to sell you something. Most of the medical stuff I watch has to deal with lifestyle changes, and the disease is talked about through scientific papers.

Hans Blaster said:
Lower testosterone is primarily an issue for men who are aging out of being soldiers in the first place. Young men don't need more unless they have a real syndrome.

Yes, but you have to be able to explain why science is saying today's men have lower testosterone than the same-age man (me) in my 30s in 1990. LOL Since I accused the young of being beta l looked it up; I also was a beta compared to my father, and it must be diet and environmental factors for our convenience. When bottled water came out, I detested it.
Something I googled AI

Era	Approx. Average Total Testosterone	Trend vs. Previous Era
Late 1950s – 1960s	~650 – 800 ng/dL	Baseline (Highest Recorded)
Late 1980s – 1990s	~500 – 640 ng/dL	↓ ~15–20% Decline
2026	~350 – 450 ng/dL	↓ ~30–40% Total Decline (from 1960s)

This trajectory confirms that the drop is not merely a function of aging but a cohort effect, where each successive generation is born with a lower hormonal set point than the last.

Laodicean60 · Jul 17, 2026

ThatRobGuy said:
I'm curious as to the one on smoking patterns, because smoking rates have actually dropped significantly. In the "days of our parents and grandparents" (when the T levels were higher), seemed like everyone was ripping cigs.

I was in my 30s and caught a small bout of pneumonia, and that hurt. Then I went smokeless Skoal man; now I use nicotine patches. I was a dumb kid had to get sick to stop, even knowing the science.

ThatRobGuy said:
Perhaps they actually meant nicotine use? Because while not nearly as many people are puffing on the cancer sticks these days, the nicotine replacement products have been shooting up in terms of usage (there s lot of young people vaping, and now it seems like 1 out of every 4 guys I know are into those Zyn pouches or something similar, and seems like they have one in their upper lip 24/7)

Zyn lol I used that for about a month before I realized it had 15 pouches compared to the others with 20.

ThatRobGuy said:
steroid hormones

Informative.

ThatRobGuy said:
I remember when they put my uncle on those. His original cholesterol was pretty high (the recommend a total score is <200, he was around 350), when on the statins, it dropped it down to around a total score of 90 which is a crazy reduction. It seems like when they put people on those, they're not just targeting getting people back into the normal reference range, but rather, way way below it.

In my 30s, my cholesterol was high; I rarely saw it below 200. Now you can take a shot of a PCSK9 inhibitor, and it lasts for several months, but the cost is astronomical.

Larniavc · Jul 17, 2026

Say it aint so said:
Delete. Already posted

I thought gender affirming treatment was bad?

Belk · Jul 17, 2026

ThatRobGuy said:
That's where I mentioned that the dynamic exists, but just not to the strict binary that's observed in parts of the animal kingdom.

I'm assuming when you were referring to the pop psyche aspect, you were referring to the people who did the wolf studies in the 1970s, and tried to apply that to humans. (correct me if it was something else you were referring to?).

In the case of humans, it's some of the same concepts, just more on a hierarchy spectrum rather than the rigid order that a wolf pack would follow.

And over time we've also created multiple avenues of achieving "status" that aren't as purely anchored to physical capabilities as they once were.

But it's all still power dynamics in a sense (meaning, striving for "I'm above these other guys, in whatever it is I happen to do")

Back in the times of early man, "prestige" was probably linked to almost all purely physical stuff...whereas now, a person can attain that through things like being a really good lawyer who makes millions and drives a sports car. (even if their physical capabilities are lacking)

Yes, I was referring to the study, but also to the concept that the Alpha / Beta dynamic is a biological phenomenon. That humans computer for status and have multiple social structures around that is readily seen. That does not translate into built in genetic predisposition.

Larniavc · Jul 17, 2026

Aryeh Jay said:
My concern is what kind of road kill was the testosterone harvested from.

Reddit has confidently informed me what Christians think people will do to road kill if they don’t follow Jesus.

Say it aint so · Jul 17, 2026

Larniavc said:
I thought gender affirming treatment was bad?

It's Pete Hegseth. The same guy who thinks women and people of color are advanced within the military with no merit (they do) then turns around and tries to advance a white male officer who has no merit.

Nithavela · Jul 17, 2026

RocksInMyHead said:
The wolf studies aren't bunk just because people use them to try to apply wolf behavior to human psychology. They're also bunk because the wolves that were being studied weren't actual packs - they were wolves in zoos and wildlife sanctuaries tossed together and forced to coexist. Not only are the behaviors documented in the study not really applicable to humans because humans are humans and wolves are wolves, but they're also not representative of natural wolf behavior either.

Is the Alpha Wolf Idea a Myth?

The idea that wolf packs are led by a merciless dictator, or alpha wolf, comes from old studies of captive wolves. In the wild, wolf packs are simply families

www.scientificamerican.com

If anything, one should look at apes like chimpanzees if one wants to have "natural" social models. But the appeal of being compared to wolves is higher.

Tropical Wilds · Jul 17, 2026

ThatRobGuy said:
Certainly you're not suggesting that

"I'm a male that's in my 30s-40s, and my testosterone levels are clinically low, so I need to see a doctor about getting supplemented so I can get my energy & sex drive back and improve my recovery time"

...should be considered as being part of the same conversation (or even remotely in the same realm) as...

"I'm a person who thinks that I was born in the wrong body and want to present as the opposite gender, so I want to take cross-sex hormones"

You're right. People who are transitioning have a need. People who just want to test people for the purposes of the military service is an unnecessary waste of time and money with no demonstrable need.

ThatRobGuy said:
As far as being pro/anti stem cell... there's not really a conflict there. While there are objections to fetal stem cell research (due to perceived links with abortion), in actual clinical use, the most common are adult (somatic) stem cells. These come from bone marrow and peripheral blood.

And in terms of the research aspect. Much of it uses iPSCs created by reprogramming adult cells (often skin cells) back into a stem-cell-like state. This technique won a nobel, in no small part, due to the fact that it sidestepped the need for embryonic or fetal sources, thereby opening up treatment/research options for people who otherwise had ideological objections to it. A large share of current research uses iPSCs.

Summarized: Most stem cell research today, and virtually all current stem cell treatment uses adult stem cells or iPSCs, neither of which involves fetal tissue.

So there's no conflict in a person being part of a "pro-life" administration, and being an advocate of stem cell treatments.

Blah, blah, blah. As is par for the course, it's all bad until it's something people want, then we can move the moral goalposts back as far as needed. Before the hard line was "everything we learned came at the cost of fetal stem cells so using innovations that come from that is unethical."

Now?

"Meh."

Tropical Wilds · Jul 17, 2026

ThatRobGuy said:
I think they diet angle is probably the most promising.

Obviously they've found links with obesity and T levels, but even that one is sort of a "chicken or the egg" situation where "are their T levels low because they're obese? or did they become obese because T levels were low". (unless the person has been tracking their T levels regularly for an extended period over time)

Either way, diet would address both if that was the case.

I'm curious as to the one on smoking patterns, because smoking rates have actually dropped significantly. In the "days of our parents and grandparents" (when the T levels were higher), seemed like everyone was ripping cigs.

Perhaps they actually meant nicotine use? Because while not nearly as many people are puffing on the cancer sticks these days, the nicotine replacement products have been shooting up in terms of usage (there s lot of young people vaping, and now it seems like 1 out of every 4 guys I know are into those Zyn pouches or something similar, and seems like they have one in their upper lip 24/7)

It mentioned medications, and that's one area I'm actually pretty curious about. When would people "guestimate" the huge uptick in statin drugs took place? Cholesterol is the precursor for most steroid hormones in the body, and some of those cholesterol meds drop cholesterol levels by massive amounts.

I remember when they put my uncle on those. His original cholesterol was pretty high (the recommend a total score is <200, he was around 350), when on the statins, it dropped it down to around a total score of 90 which is a crazy reduction. It seems like when they put people on those, they're not just targeting getting people back into the normal reference range, but rather, way way below it.

Interesting. So when men get overweight, "it's my T levels" so I guess I need the medications that make me more sexual, thinner, and verile.

When women get overweight? She "let herself go," is lazy, or "you know its just simply a calories in, calories out ratio, right?" Give her a medication to lose weight and she's "cheating" or taking the "lazy way out."

And down the road further go those goalposts.

DaisyDay · Jul 17, 2026

ThatRobGuy said:
However, things like status and dominance are real in humans, just not as binary as they are in other mammalian species.

What does that mean? Particularly the second part. As far as I know, no one is disputing that status and dominance are real to a greater or lesser amount, but in what way are they binary?

ThatRobGuy · Jul 17, 2026

DaisyDay said:
What does that mean? Particularly the second part. As far as I know, no one is disputing that status and dominance are real to a greater or lesser amount, but in what way are they binary?

Binary as in "all or nothing" in terms of "alpha" status and what that status comes with.

For instance, there are certain mammalian (even some in the primate world) that have a clear cut alpha dynamic, where you're either the alpha male or you're not. That status comes with getting to eat first, pick your mates, etc...

And that status is only challenged once the dominant male is old and weak enough to be "removed from his throne".

Whereas in humans, it's not as much of an "all or nothing" style of hierarchy.

To use a corporate analogy...

In some mammalian species, they have a CEO and everyone else is an intern.

In humans, we have many more layers of middle management on our figurative "corporate ladder"

ThatRobGuy · Jul 17, 2026

Tropical Wilds said:
You're right. People who are transitioning have a need. People who just want to test people for the purposes of the military service is an unnecessary waste of time and money with no demonstrable need.

Evidently as long as it's a form of transition that jives with the progressive position on gender, right??

Hence the reason what you're characterizing the legitimate use of hormonal intervention that improves physical health outcomes by getting people into the normal reference range as "a waste of time and money", yet, characterizing the usage that often creates more physical health problems (as a result of pumping in levels that their body wasn't meant to handle) as a legitimate "need"

Tropical Wilds said:
Blah, blah, blah. As is par for the course, it's all bad until it's something people want, then we can move the moral goalposts back as far as needed. Before the hard line was "everything we learned came at the cost of fetal stem cells so using innovations that come from that is unethical."

Now?

"Meh."

No, nobody shifted the goalposts on this one.

I'm not even a pro-life person, but I can definitively say you're not portraying their position accurately.

The pro-life people objected to abortion, and byproducts of abortion, that was always their main gripe with stem cell usage in the past.

Now that there's are plentiful opportunities to acquire and use stem cells from sources that are in no way linked to abortion, it's not a conflict.

If a person who was a teetotaler objected to cough syrup because they previously had alcohol in it, and then they made a version of cough-syrup that was alcohol-free, them then saying "Oh, you made a version without alcohol, I can use it now" wouldn't be hypocritical.

Aryeh Jay · Wednesday at 7:25 AM

I, for one, am looking forward to my government supported and paid for gender reaffirming shots and care. This woke garbage has got to be defeated by testosterone fueled supermen.

DaisyDay · Wednesday at 7:43 AM

Aryeh Jay said:
I, for one, am looking forward to my government supported and paid for gender reaffirming shots and care. This woke garbage has got to be defeated by testosterone fueled supermen.

An army of Übermensch!

Hans Blaster · Wednesday at 6:02 PM

Laodicean60 said:
I didn't accuse you of being wrong. Discernment is the key, and yes, you are correct; there are a lot of people trying to sell you something. Most of the medical stuff I watch has to deal with lifestyle changes, and the disease is talked about through scientific papers.

Yes, but you have to be able to explain why science is saying today's men have lower testosterone than the same-age man (me) in my 30s in 1990. LOL Since I accused the young of being beta l looked it up; I also was a beta compared to my father, and it must be diet and environmental factors for our convenience.

The point, as I recall it from last week, was that the "low T" and "more T" as a cure, is deeply embedded in the supplement/grift space online.

Laodicean60 said:
When bottled water came out, I detested it.

Why spend money on drinking water. That is silly.

Laodicean60 said:
Something I googled AI

Era Approx. Average Total Testosterone Trend vs. Previous Era
Late 1950s – 1960s ~650 – 800 ng/dL Baseline (Highest Recorded)
Late 1980s – 1990s ~500 – 640 ng/dL ↓ ~15–20% Decline
2026 ~350 – 450 ng/dL ↓ ~30–40% Total Decline (from 1960s)

This trajectory confirms that the drop is not merely a function of aging but a cohort effect, where each successive generation is born with a lower hormonal set point than the last.

AI is not a source.

7thKeeper · Wednesday at 11:54 PM

Aryeh Jay said:
I, for one, am looking forward to my government supported and paid for gender reaffirming shots and care. This woke garbage has got to be defeated by testosterone fueled supermen.

I disagree. People dare to claim that Hegseth isn't woke? What more evidence is needed than this? Such a progressive person. Affirming genders like this.

DaisyDay · Thursday at 8:19 AM

7thKeeper said:
I disagree. People dare to claim that Hegseth isn't woke? What more evidence is needed than this? Such a progressive person. Affirming genders like this.

I don't see him advocating testing and HRT for the lady warfighters.

ThatRobGuy · Thursday at 8:35 AM

Hans Blaster said:
The point, as I recall it from last week, was that the "low T" and "more T" as a cure, is deeply embedded in the supplement/grift space online.

Why spend money on drinking water. That is silly.

AI is not a source.

I provided sources for it back in this post in this thread

Hegseth requires testosterone deficiency screening for service members over 30

Delete. Already posted

www.christianforums.com

As far as certain ailments being targeted the supplement grift space, that doesn't negate the validity of the problem...as the alternative med/supplement space tries to get its fangs into virtually health situation out there that's "trending"

If you consider recent history
Viagra comes out (treating a legitimate problem) - no fewer than 10 different supplements start claiming to be able to do the same thing without a prescription
Propecia comes out - no fewer than 100 different supplements out there implying that they can treat hair loss just as a well as the actual drug can

More recently, I've seen a slew of supplements claiming to be "nature's GLP-1"

ThatRobGuy · Thursday at 8:45 AM

DaisyDay said:
I don't see him advocating testing and HRT for the lady warfighters.

There still aren't many women in combat roles (despite the ban being lifted for 10 years)

Per TheHill:
By 2019, more than 600 female Sailors and Marines were serving in combat arms units previously restricted to men, while more than 650 women held Army combat roles

When you consider that the total of combat personnel is what, around a half million? We're talking a very tiny percentage.

Plus, I'm not sure there's a parallel issue happening (in terms of age-independent hormone level shifts) on the ladies' side of the fence that's happening on the mens' side.

Hans Blaster · Thursday at 9:12 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
As far as certain ailments being targeted the supplement grift space, that doesn't negate the validity of the problem...as the alternative med/supplement space tries to get its fangs into virtually health situation out there that's "trending"

A quick search just showed me that there are a whole collection of "low-T" clinics in my area. Oh boy. They look line the new "chronic pain" clinics of today. If you have a problem with a hormone, see an endocrinologist.

ThatRobGuy said:
If you consider recent history
Viagra comes out (treating a legitimate problem) - no fewer than 10 different supplements start claiming to be able to do the same thing without a prescription
Propecia comes out - no fewer than 100 different supplements out there implying that they can treat hair loss just as a well as the actual drug can

Where is the testing? The safety studies?

ThatRobGuy said:
More recently, I've seen a slew of supplements claiming to be "nature's GLP-1"

Where do these con men think GLP-1 came from (hint: it was nature, gila monsters).

Hegseth requires testosterone deficiency screening for service members over 30

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Perfect in every way.

Senior Member

Perfect in every way.

Well-Known Member

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

Queen of Cups

Queen of Cups

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Stuck on a ship.

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Your turn, Atlanta!

Venture life, Burn your Dread

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Your turn, Atlanta!

Similar threads