Thx J for your thoughts. There is a lot to consider there and a lot of good points. Of course, I realize we are all just sharing ideas and theories, because really, who the heck knows.
But I'm particularly taken by your thoughts about
how if inflow is restricted, for example by narrowed arteries( or damaged during surgery arteries?) that increasing the dose past a certain amount will not solve the problem, because the arteries are already as dilated as they can get at some lower dose, and it is not enough. Either not enough going in period or not enough to overcome the venous outflow/leak.
As for cardiac health, it's probably better than average for my age or at least as good. Probably. I just now took my BP @128/84(actually a bit high for me at home) with a 67P. Here is the funny thing about
that heart thing. At a "welcome to Medicare" checkup with my PCP a few months after my RRP, he was concerned because my Cholesterol had jumped up significantly in about
6 months. He leans a tbit towards the alternative/natural approaches for an MD, and wanted further tests before trying to talk me into statin drugs which I clearly did not want. First of all, I feel the whole cholesterol thing vs heart disease is at least debatable. So I'm going "come on Doc, my BP is lower than most, my pulse is slow and my triglycerides are lower than most(maybe about
75) and my sugar is 95. I have no family history of heart disease and have never had the 1st cardiac symptom, unless you count ED as a very early heart symptom(and some do). Most of all, I have frequent home made stress tests in the form of high intensity interval training and hiking off trail at a fast clip up steep hills with a pack. None of that has ever produced the 1st heart symptom. But he says he wants to quantify my risk with a calcium scan, because most other docs would already have me on statins. (no doubt about
that, most docs love those statins). I'm hesitant to have the scan because, like the PSA, I'm afraid it is going to find something and then they will want to treat it in who knows what way, when I know that despite that total cholesterol # in all other ways I am pretty low risk.
Well, in the end I break down and do as he asks, I get the test. A score of 1-10 would have meant I had < a 10% chance of coronary artery disease, a score of 100 means I have CAD, but only a mild hardening in the coronary arteries, and 100-400 means my risk for heart attack is moderate to high. So what was my score with my high(~220) total cholesterol? Zero. That's right, ZERO. Which means No evidence of plaque, which means "there is a less than 5 percent chance you have coronary artery disease (CAD). Your risk of a heart attack is very low.". But like he said, most docs would have had me on statins without any further testing.
Anyway, I realize I am being long winded, but I don't think there is a big chance that poor heart function is contributing to my problem, but I guess it is still possible. After all, I did have ED, and it is thought that is an early sign of CAD because those tiny arteries in the penis are the 1st to clog up.
But I also used to wonder about
how that worked, and it gets back to what you said about
how if the arteries are wide
open as much as physically possible, it might not help to give more dilation meds. Well, if I had ED because my penile arteries are closed due to blockage by plaque, then why did it help so much to increase nitric oxide(NO) and dilate the arteries? It seems to me that my problem was lack of NO more than it was blocked arteries. Because once I started that wonderful Cialis, more often than not I could have a very good result. (And when I didn't, I now know from you guys it was probably adrenalin) Not only were the bedtime results quite nice, but I would often wake up with morning wood like I had not had in many years. Occasionally, I would be vacuuming for my wife the next morning(after all, she did me right the night before!) and find myself with a strong erection while up and vacuuming! Holly Cow I don't think something like that happened since I was 16! Thoughts on that anyone? If my arteries are actually blocked, should I have had such good results?
J You say "Erections are a matter of Hydraulics!
(I made that last one up myself -- very proud).
So if you have plenty of Trimix, enough to ache, then either you are not getting enough FLOW IN .. or the Outflow is leaking out. darned if I know how you can tell which is the problem.".
yep, hydraulics!(You should indeed be proud!) And I have a heck of a lot of ache, so I don't think a missed shot is the problem. And almost enough erection almost everytime to get er done, I'm only lacking a small % as long as I don't lay down. ( I just need to go from maybe a 5 to a 6 or 7, and it would also be nice to lay down!) The more I think about
it, the more I think it is too much leak. Though a good question is why I have so much leak when I had no problems laying down before surgery. Do Y'all think these freaking erection/dilating nerves also somehow serve to constrict the veins, rather than only dilating arteries? Or did they damage something besides erection nerves while in there? Or some problem with rehab?
PDA linked to a very good thread from earlier this year. When looking over it, I see there are at least a couple of folks who had to use very high doses, almost a full ml, of Trimix in order to get anything useful and/or overcome the leak when laying down. Plus, things got better after a while and the VL ceased to be a big problem and required amounts decreased.
So I guess I am going to keep upping the dose slowly, I think my last was right at 0.4 ml. That and talk with my guys about
something stronger. I am very envious of thre success some of you have reported and I want to join your club. I am missing that Cialis fired activity I had right up to RRP!
Other ideas, anyone?
Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 10/3/2014 1:54:33 PM (GMT-6)