I am saying that at $100 a week and a 3-hour, comprehensive physical which seems intent on treating any and all possible irregularities in the author's system, even if they may not result in significant physical effects, it's not that you seem cheap but that the author appears to value his health more than the average person - or rather, more than the average person can afford to. I read this article and it struck me that it seemed like a perfect example of a white, privileged, upper-class male problem. That does not mean it's not interesting or valid - I read the whole article, and I'm sure low T is something people of such a status think and worry about.

It struck me that the author was willing to put a very high price tag on his health. Low T isn't even a life threatening problem and he is spending $400 a month on it. I don't think you're cheap, tng, I think you have a kid and another on the way and that $400 a month is an awful lot of money to spend on anything. Would you rather up your libido and shift your body composition to be slightly more muscular, or put money in your kid's college fund?

Of course, health should be the most important thing. The author clearly cares a lot about longevity and a good life. But I don't think T will help him avoid ending up old, wrinkled, decrepit, and looking forward to his baseball game and shot of whiskey once a week, not in the long run. This article made me wonder, essentially, "At what price health?" How much money would I be willing to spend on what seems like relatively small problems and fixes? I don't see anyone making medicine that prevents women from going into menopause (or maybe I'm ignorant I honestly don't know, I know there's hormone therapy and stuff but I thought that basically alleviated some of the worse symptoms, as opposed to preventing or counteracting menopause).

If I had life-threatening cancer $100 a week for treatment would be no question. But a slightly-fatter belly and less energy? That seems like a steep price.