What did @kmartfit actually say?
His core claim is that testosterone gel not only failed to raise his levels, it actually made them worse, dropping his total testosterone from 219 ng/dL to 50 ng/dL after three weeks. He says injections fixed everything within a week, and frames gel as broadly insufficient for men with "true" low testosterone. He ends with a referral pitch for a telemedicine TRT clinic.
That's two separate arguments bundled together: a clinical one about gel absorption, and a commercial one about which clinic to use. They deserve to be evaluated separately, because one has real science behind it and the other is just an ad.
Does the science back this up?
Partially. Transdermal testosterone gel does have a documented absorption problem in a meaningful subset of users, but a drop to 50 ng/dL is an outlier result, not a typical outcome. That number is unusually low and raises questions about application technique, skin condition, or testing timing.
Transdermal delivery relies on passive absorption through the skin, and absorption rates vary considerably between individuals. A 2011 study by Bhasin et al. in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism confirmed that transdermal testosterone achieves target levels (400-700 ng/dL) in roughly 60-70% of users, meaning a real non-responder population exists. However, the mechanism he describes, gel suppressing endogenous production without replacing it adequately, is clinically accurate. Exogenous testosterone signals the hypothalamic-pituitary axis to reduce LH and FSH, suppressing natural production regardless of delivery method. If the gel doesn't absorb adequately, you get suppression without replacement. That's a real phenomenon. His framing of it is mostly correct, even if the 50 ng/dL figure is extreme enough to warrant skepticism about whether the test was drawn correctly.
What did they get wrong (or right)?
He got the mechanism right but overgeneralized the conclusion. Saying gel "is not gonna be enough" as a blanket statement misrepresents the evidence. Gel works well for many patients. The real issue is monitoring, not the delivery method itself.
What he got right: the HPG axis suppression argument is sound. If exogenous testosterone is absorbed poorly or inconsistently, the body still reads the signal to stop producing its own testosterone. Ramasamy et al. (2014, Translational Andrology and Urology) documented this suppression pattern in non-responders to topical formulations.
What he got wrong: "injections immediately started feeling better" within one week is almost certainly placebo response. Testosterone cypionate has a half-life of approximately 8 days, and meaningful serum level changes take at least 2-3 weeks to stabilize. Khera et al. (2014, Journal of Sexual Medicine) noted that symptomatic improvement in hypogonadal men typically lags behind serum normalization by weeks, not days. Feeling better in a week is real to him, but attributing it to the testosterone is premature.
The clinic referral embedded in a health claims video is also worth flagging. It's a financial relationship dressed as personal testimony.
What should you actually know?
If you're on gel and feel worse, the right move is a blood draw with proper timing, not an immediate switch. Gel levels should be tested 2-6 hours after application for an accurate read. A test drawn at the wrong time of day can produce a falsely low result that looks like treatment failure.
That said, non-response to transdermal testosterone is real and well-documented. Options beyond gel include intramuscular injections (cypionate, enanthate), subcutaneous injections, nasal gel (Natesto), and pellets. Each has a different absorption profile, dosing frequency, and side effect pattern. Injections do produce more stable, predictable serum levels in most patients, but they also create peaks and troughs that some men find symptomatic. Subcutaneous injections at lower, more frequent doses can smooth those peaks considerably, per a 2017 pharmacokinetic analysis by Olsson et al. in Andrology.
No delivery method is universally superior. The best method is the one you absorb, tolerate, and actually use consistently, guided by follow-up labs every 3-6 months. A TikTok creator's personal outcome is not a clinical protocol.
Should you trust the clinic recommendation?
Treat it as what it is: an affiliate referral embedded in a personal anecdote. That doesn't mean the clinic is bad, but "services all 50 states via telemedicine" and "ships medication to your door" are marketing statements, not quality indicators. If you're evaluating a TRT provider, ask whether they test LH, FSH, estradiol, and hematocrit at baseline. A provider who only checks total testosterone before prescribing is cutting corners. FormBlends' clinical intake covers the full panel because suppressing your HPG axis without understanding your baseline is how you end up like this creator did at week three, only without anyone catching it.