Undiagnosed Symptoms Community
25k Members
Avatar universal

A small Testosterone Deficiency?


I am Male and 26 and i feel that i might be naturally a little low in Testosterone.

I have very little facial hair, and very little hair on the rest of my body. However i do have pubic hair and under arm hair and a v light covering on my arms and legs.

I am regularly quite moody and depressed, i am not very aggressive or assertive and i am usually quite low on energy even when i have eaten and slept plenty.

I am a v regular gym person, and i lift weight 4-5 days per week, however after many years of working v hard with good proper nutrition, i have made only v minimal progress in gaining muscle compared to other people with similar programs and nutrition.

I just get the impression that i might have a small deficiency in Testosterone.

Also, i had an undecended left testicle for the first seven years of my life and i currently have multiple testicular cysts.

Do you think it is worth me seeing a doctor?

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated,


1 Responses
1756321 tn?1547098925
You might be interested in an article entitled: Epic Saturated Fat Experiment - The Effects of 15 days of 100 Grams of Saturated Fat Per Day on Cholesterol Levels in a healthy adult male.

Here is a small excerpt...

"Most significantly, Testosterone increased ~70%, from 586-841 and triglycerides decreased 34%, dropping from 100 to 66. HDL also increased ~27%, from 60 to 76."


Also another excerpt from the Sept 1, 2014 article from the New York Times - A Call for a Low-Carb Diet That Embraces Fat...

"People who avoid carbohydrates and eat more fat, even saturated fat, lose more body fat and have fewer cardiovascular risks than people who follow the low-fat diet that health authorities have favored for decades, a major new study shows.

"By the end of the yearlong trial, people in the low-carbohydrate group had lost about eight pounds more on average than those in the low-fat group. They had significantly greater reductions in body fat than the low-fat group, and improvements in lean muscle mass — even though neither group changed their levels of physical activity.

While the low-fat group did lose weight, they appeared to lose more muscle than fat.

“They actually lost lean muscle mass, which is a bad thing,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “Your balance of lean mass versus fat mass is much more important than weight. And that’s a very important finding that shows why the low-carb, high-fat group did so metabolically well.”"

Top General Health Answerers
363281 tn?1518219421
Nelson, New Zealand
1756321 tn?1547098925
Queensland, Australia
19694731 tn?1482853437
Learn About Top Answerers
Didn't find the answer you were looking for?
Ask a question
Popular Resources
In this unique and fascinating report from Missouri Medicine, world-renowned expert Dr. Raymond Moody examines what really happens when we almost die.
Think a loved one may be experiencing hearing loss? Here are five warning signs to watch for.
When it comes to your health, timing is everything
We’ve got a crash course on metabolism basics.
Learn what you can do to avoid ski injury and other common winter sports injury.
Here are the pros and cons of the top fad diets and weight loss plans of the year.