Is 39 ng/dL too low for a pregnenolone blood test result? 34 year old male

[tastyfood]

I decided to test pregnenolone to get a good sense before I hop back on to supplementing it. The result seems very low? The range from Labcorp is <151. Checking online I've seen the lower range being 33 ng/DL.

The other tests I got, in case they help understand my pregnenolone result were:

Total cholesterol: 190 mg/DL
Vitamin A: 50 ug/DL (range is 18.9-57.3)
Androstenedione: 116 ng/DL (range is 27-152)
17-OH Progesterone: 260 ng/DL (range is 27-199)
Total testosterone: 528

Thank you!

 

[Androsclerosis]

I think pregnenolone is low because you transform it rapidly into progesterone, which can be a good thing.
Cholesterol on the other hand is high. Do you supplement progesterone? If yes, then you might still have a metabolic issue because cholesterol should be way lower.
How do you feel mentally? And how are your energy levels?

 

[tastyfood]

I think pregnenolone is low because you transform it rapidly into progesterone, which can be a good thing.
Cholesterol on the other hand is high. Do you supplement progesterone? If yes, then you might still have a metabolic issue because cholesterol should be way lower.
How do you feel mentally? And how are your energy levels?

Thanks for the comment. I feel good mentally and physically. Good energy levels.

I am aiming for 180 as total cholesterol so I'm not that far from it.

Having lower levels of circulating pregnonlone in the blood due to higher conversion to progesterone is an interesting point to explore.

I supplement with a few drops of Progest-E almost every night. Orally.

 

[Hans]

I decided to test pregnenolone to get a good sense before I hop back on to supplementing it. The result seems very low? The range from Labcorp is <151. Checking online I've seen the lower range being 33 ng/DL.

The other tests I got, in case they help understand my pregnenolone result were:

Total cholesterol: 190 mg/DL
Vitamin A: 50 ug/DL (range is 18.9-57.3)
Androstenedione: 116 ng/DL (range is 27-152)
17-OH Progesterone: 260 ng/DL (range is 27-199)
Total testosterone: 528

Thank you!

Did you also test progesterone, estrone and estradiol?
Your cholesterol is not high. How old are you?
All your other precursor steroids are in good range. Little bit low conversation to T though imo. Might need more zinc and magnesium to boost that conversion.

 

[tastyfood]

Did you also test progesterone, estrone and estradiol?
Your cholesterol is not high. How old are you?
All your other precursor steroids are in good range. Little bit low conversation to T though imo. Might need more zinc and magnesium to boost that conversion.

I didn't test any of those this time, but estradiol was 15 a month ago.

I'm 34 as the thread title indicates.

What do you think of the pregnenolone result, isn't that too low? Wouldn't it be preferable to have higher levels of circulating preg to support more conversion to the downstream steroids? Is the low result a sign that supplementation wouldn't hurt?


Also, this study from Haidut made me think: Hypogonadism in older males due to low OXPHOS – To Extract Knowledge from Matter

Testosterone and its precursors decreased in the testicular tissue of old men. However, progesterone and 17α-hydroxyprogesterone increased in relation to testosterone in the testicular tissue and in the spermatic vein of old men. It is assumed that these age-dependent changes are caused by an impaired oxygen supply of the ageing testes.

Is this what you mean with little bit low conversion to T? That my 17-OH Progesterone is too high in relation to T?

Thank you!

 

[Hans]

I didn't test any of those this time, but estradiol was 15 a month ago.

I'm 34 as the thread title indicates.

What do you think of the pregnenolone result, isn't that too low? Wouldn't it be preferable to have higher levels of circulating preg to support more conversion to the downstream steroids? Is the low result a sign that supplementation wouldn't hurt?


Also, this study from Haidut made me think: Hypogonadism in older males due to low OXPHOS – To Extract Knowledge from Matter

Testosterone and its precursors decreased in the testicular tissue of old men. However, progesterone and 17α-hydroxyprogesterone increased in relation to testosterone in the testicular tissue and in the spermatic vein of old men. It is assumed that these age-dependent changes are caused by an impaired oxygen supply of the ageing testes.

Is this what you mean with little bit low conversion to T? That my 17-OH Progesterone is too high in relation to T?

Thank you!

Yes for sure, overall energetics are reduced. That's why magnesium and zinc can help. Magnesium is extremely important for ATP production and is a cofactor for converting androstenedione to T. Zinc as well.
You can supplement preg if you like, but it will not necessarily create more T, since it seems to me that preg is not the rate-limited factor here. Rather the conversion of A4 to T.

 

[Phosphor]

My more enlightened physician friend says that targeting a total cholesterol number is a mistake; what you want is the RATIO of LDL and HDL to be in a certain range. My cholesterol is near 300 but the ratio is fine, and I was told it is not necessary to do anything about it, which I wouldn't anyway so just as well. Cholesterol is NOT a cause of heart disease; it is a SYMPTOM and correcting the SYMPTOM does not correct the CAUSE, which is, in my understanding, damage from ingesting omega 6 oils. There is much more out there about this, feel free to go do your own research.

As far as "treating" the symptom of cholesterol, also go research the difference between relative risk and absolute risk. Drug companies across the board will present a lowering of relative risk AS IF it were a lowering of absolute risk. So as a made-up example, a drug lowers your risk of "X" from 3% to 2%. So from near-zero to near-zero, but the relative risk reduction is 33%!!! In addition, there may actually be negative side effects that have a worse risk than the initial condition, but you are not told that. You will be told only about the relative risk reduction of the drug that does nearly nothing and may actually harm you. Yet millions of people are on drugs believing that taking them dramatically lowers their absolute risk.

 

[xborg]

As far as "treating" the symptom of cholesterol, also go research the difference between relative risk and absolute risk. Drug companies across the board will present a lowering of relative risk AS IF it were a lowering of absolute risk. So as a made-up example, a drug lowers your risk of "X" from 3% to 2%. So from near-zero to near-zero, but the relative risk reduction is 33%!!! In addition, there may actually be negative side effects that have a worse risk than the initial condition, but you are not told that. You will be told only about the relative risk reduction of the drug that does nearly nothing and may actually harm you. Yet millions of people are on drugs believing that taking them dramatically lowers their absolute risk.

Yes, the sophistry of relative risk of a favorite tool of pharma to peddle everything, most recently the covid gene-warps by transforming an absolute risk reduction of <1% into a relative one of 95%.