5 ms·

Don't succumb to the reductionist fallacy. The body is complex, and more than the sum of its parts, including its hormones. It's entirely possible that the proc

Don't succumb to the reductionist fallacy. The body is complex, and more than the sum of its parts, including its hormones. It's entirely possible that the process that produces testosterone naturally also has other effects that mitigate the downside of testosterone.

delecti 12y ago
It's perfectly reasonable to assume that the healthy living things that drive up T result in a longer lifespan, but I also don't see any conflict in thinking that it would make you live even longer still if not for that higher T.
- pyre 12y ago
  True, but this: > If testosterone is the culprit for increased risk of coronary artery disease, prostate cancer and sleep apnea, then doing things that naturally increase testosterone will increase risk also. states that the result of higher T through natural processes is increased risk. It discounts the possibility that there is a net decreased risk due to the processes themselves decreasing risk to the point that it offsets the increased risk due to increased T.
  - ScottBurson 12y ago
    It also overlooks the fact that when you're taking hormone supplements, it's both tempting and very easy to increase your levels above what you would get through natural means.
  - delecti 12y ago
    That quote is from a comment, which was speculation. I'm not sure it has enough support to be used as counter-evidence to what I said.
kingmanaz 12y ago
>Don't succumb to the reductionist fallacy. The body is complex, and more than the sum of its parts The above needs to be repeated more often, particularly on HN. Tech culture is overdue for an epistemological yin to its empiricist yang.
- FreshlyMinted 12y ago
  >Tech culture is overdue for an epistemological yin to its empiricist yang. What a wonderful sentence. I grew glasses reading this.
  - scribu 12y ago
    Upvoted for the fun "growing glasses" phrase.
- pbowyer 12y ago
  Can you put the yin bit into layman's speak please? How does it differ to empiricist?
  - Perceval 12y ago
    Empiricism (especially in its behavioralist variety) is premised on the ability to collect data and draw inductive conclusions from the data. Epistemology is the study of how things can be known, what can be known, or what the limits to knowability are. How can we justify a belief based on a collection of observations? davak began with the assertion that testosterone is linked to a number of health problems. mironathetin notes that studies of the negative health implications of testosterone were often performed on professional athletes, who are going to have high baseline levels of testosterone naturally, and who have in all likelihood supplemented with large doses of testosterone at various points in their career/training. But, mironathetin notes that positive lifestyle changes can increase your body's natural production of testosterone without the need for supplementation. golemotron is skeptical that naturally increasing testosterone will lead to different health implications than the studies indicated. They posit that there is a direct relationship between testosterone levels and health risks. vannevar responds that because the body is a system, non-linear and feedback effects are much more likely to control the health effects of testosterone than a simple linear relationship between testosterone and health risk. kingmanaz agrees and calls golemotron's position reductionist, which means that golemotron implicitly believes that one can understand a phenomenon by understanding and measuring each of its component parts (empiricism). An epistemological critique of golemotron's position would begin with an assertion that the whole is different from the sum of the parts, because the parts interact with each other, producing non-linear effects. One must understand the gestalt, not just the parts. Induction straight from data will often miss things that holism might not. For an accessible critique of data and inductivism, you might pick up a copy of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's Fooled by Randomness. If you are interested in systemic non-linearity in political science, check out Robert Jervis's System Effects.
dsjoerg 12y ago
Are you referring to the reduction fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause)? I looked around for a "reductionist fallacy" but couldn't find anything. Or are you instead saying that the reductionist view is wrong, and you like to call things you disagree with fallacies.
- vannevar 12y ago
  The latter.
  - dsjoerg 12y ago
    I like your honesty and your brevity.
wavegeek 12y ago
Another factor often forgotten is that HRT very poorly mimics the natural testosterone fluctuations in the body. Testosterone fluctuates on a regular daily cycle, the reason for which is not known. Therefore it is not reproduced in treatment. The assumption is "we don't know why, so it mustn't be important". Also the typical cycle of quarterly shots of T undecanoate or other similar regimes produce unphysiological fluctations from one injection to the next of over 110%. The patient goes from very high levels of test (close to 1000ug/dl) to very marginal levels (around 350). Perhaps because of this, side effects from taking T supplements, such as hematocrit (excess red blood cell volume) are far greater with supplements than with those experiencing the same level of T from endogenous sources.
- loucal 12y ago
  In which country is quarterly undecanoate typical? I know the US FDA hasn't approved it and here the standard esther and frequency of injection are cypionate and once per week, as far as I can tell.

delecti 12y ago

It's perfectly reasonable to assume that the healthy living things that drive up T result in a longer lifespan, but I also don't see any conflict in thinking that it would make you live even longer still if not for that higher T.

pyre 12y ago
True, but this: > If testosterone is the culprit for increased risk of coronary artery disease, prostate cancer and sleep apnea, then doing things that naturally increase testosterone will increase risk also. states that the result of higher T through natural processes is increased risk. It discounts the possibility that there is a net decreased risk due to the processes themselves decreasing risk to the point that it offsets the increased risk due to increased T.
- ScottBurson 12y ago
  It also overlooks the fact that when you're taking hormone supplements, it's both tempting and very easy to increase your levels above what you would get through natural means.
- delecti 12y ago
  That quote is from a comment, which was speculation. I'm not sure it has enough support to be used as counter-evidence to what I said.

kingmanaz 12y ago

>Don't succumb to the reductionist fallacy. The body is complex, and more than the sum of its parts The above needs to be repeated more often, particularly on HN. Tech culture is overdue for an epistemological yin to its empiricist yang.

FreshlyMinted 12y ago
>Tech culture is overdue for an epistemological yin to its empiricist yang. What a wonderful sentence. I grew glasses reading this.
- scribu 12y ago
  Upvoted for the fun "growing glasses" phrase.
pbowyer 12y ago
Can you put the yin bit into layman's speak please? How does it differ to empiricist?
- Perceval 12y ago
  Empiricism (especially in its behavioralist variety) is premised on the ability to collect data and draw inductive conclusions from the data. Epistemology is the study of how things can be known, what can be known, or what the limits to knowability are. How can we justify a belief based on a collection of observations? davak began with the assertion that testosterone is linked to a number of health problems. mironathetin notes that studies of the negative health implications of testosterone were often performed on professional athletes, who are going to have high baseline levels of testosterone naturally, and who have in all likelihood supplemented with large doses of testosterone at various points in their career/training. But, mironathetin notes that positive lifestyle changes can increase your body's natural production of testosterone without the need for supplementation. golemotron is skeptical that naturally increasing testosterone will lead to different health implications than the studies indicated. They posit that there is a direct relationship between testosterone levels and health risks. vannevar responds that because the body is a system, non-linear and feedback effects are much more likely to control the health effects of testosterone than a simple linear relationship between testosterone and health risk. kingmanaz agrees and calls golemotron's position reductionist, which means that golemotron implicitly believes that one can understand a phenomenon by understanding and measuring each of its component parts (empiricism). An epistemological critique of golemotron's position would begin with an assertion that the whole is different from the sum of the parts, because the parts interact with each other, producing non-linear effects. One must understand the gestalt, not just the parts. Induction straight from data will often miss things that holism might not. For an accessible critique of data and inductivism, you might pick up a copy of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's Fooled by Randomness. If you are interested in systemic non-linearity in political science, check out Robert Jervis's System Effects.

dsjoerg 12y ago

Are you referring to the reduction fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause)? I looked around for a "reductionist fallacy" but couldn't find anything. Or are you instead saying that the reductionist view is wrong, and you like to call things you disagree with fallacies.

vannevar 12y ago
The latter.
- dsjoerg 12y ago
  I like your honesty and your brevity.

wavegeek 12y ago

Another factor often forgotten is that HRT very poorly mimics the natural testosterone fluctuations in the body. Testosterone fluctuates on a regular daily cycle, the reason for which is not known. Therefore it is not reproduced in treatment. The assumption is "we don't know why, so it mustn't be important". Also the typical cycle of quarterly shots of T undecanoate or other similar regimes produce unphysiological fluctations from one injection to the next of over 110%. The patient goes from very high levels of test (close to 1000ug/dl) to very marginal levels (around 350). Perhaps because of this, side effects from taking T supplements, such as hematocrit (excess red blood cell volume) are far greater with supplements than with those experiencing the same level of T from endogenous sources.

loucal 12y ago
In which country is quarterly undecanoate typical? I know the US FDA hasn't approved it and here the standard esther and frequency of injection are cypionate and once per week, as far as I can tell.