Testosterone Function: An Explanation!
Frank P Russo - November 20, 2003.
Hi Jo, (at Nature):
The consensus has always been that the testosterone function has always been best expressed, in terms of the "Free Index", i.e., the total over the SHBH, times either 10,100, or 1000 ... according to one's preference. However, it is generally admitted that this does not, always well correlate to physiological function . Having an assay done, the result would only be proportional, if there is proportionality there, to begin with. However it is obvious to me immediately, that this is not so! For there appears to be, twice as many moles of SHBH, per mole of bound Testosterone! Hence the key, is to "standardize" everything according to one's rank in the Reference Range"! Eg, if one's total is 16.9 nmol/l (R=8.5-30.0), with a Rank of 39.07; whilst one's SHBH, (pronounced as that famous song from the 60's), is 29nmol/l (R=15-70), with a rank of 25.45; then the "Standardized Free Index" would be "1.535"! (My value). Now this is not to be confused, with the "bucket-chemisty" , of the "Normalized Androgen Ratio" which in 1981 was propelled all over the News, even to the UK! As a 'cure' for acne and baldness ... we were inundated with calls!
The real motivation, of the urolgists' conference, may have been to 'flush' Some-bodyelse's discoveries, into the open! (The ABC's NationWide's Butterworth, even came to me, and said "Do you have a discovery as well!?" >From my recollections, this test was ridiculous! "Bucket-Chemistry": just 'pool' everything and get a ratio ... and the obvious 'mean' of 1.00, meant 'zilch', for the range for males was 1.03-1.47 (ages 18-50yrs).
In this assay, my index of 1.535, would 'presumably' become itself times the mean NAR of 1.25, giving a result of 1.92 ... this is an astronomical value, as 95% of the 'normal' population would lie between 1.03 and 1.47! (And remember, my age is near the end of the Range, where it should be less pronounced!) But then again I'm not surprised, being the discoverer of 'arboreal-erotic-hypoxia', at seven years of age (~1960)! And seeing that one's IQ, (mine being 170 at 24 years of age, i.e. a P. of one in 645,000!), is somewhat dependant on adrenal testosterone, which presumably builds the brain in the uterus. The other assay, ('NAR'), from memory was very technician-sensitive, and may have often depended on knowing the 17-Oxo-Steroid Value, before one would generate the result!(?)
By the way, the reason why my "Standardized Free Testosterone Index", does reflect physiological function very well, is because it accounts for the Fact, that a considerable proportion of the Sex-Hormone-Binding-Globulin, i.e. the SHBH, is actually employed to carry 'other' hormone(s) as well! This is done by using one's ranks in the Reference Range. I mean, the old system may have been accurate, if it took about 2 SHBH molecules, to carry one Testosterone ... (a bit like two Globulins may carry one Fe++/(+++), in Haemoglobin!). I hope this is interesting to you ... remember - ONCE AGAIN - that Testosterone plays a major role in the development of the Brain, even in the Uterus!
Regards and Best Wishes,
Frank P Russo
PS - I hope you liked yesterday's work, on how a Glycosilated Hemoglobin-A1c, should be standardized to a mean Haemoglobin of 16gms%, (in males),... hence my value of 6.8 at my low Hb of 13.2, would become 5.6 : very normal! Not just anybody, could come-up with the lateral analogy of crumbing sausages on a production line! (I.e., if the Haemoglobins are coming though slowly, one would "crumb" a spurious high %! Whereas, if they are coming through fast, one would "glycosilate" a spurious low %, ... as for the mean sugar value for the period, this is the mean, hence not subject to such perceived, 'aberrant', oscillations.)
This page is copyright © Frank P Russo 1999-2003