The Estrogen Dilemma

[DrJMW]

First Problem with AAS and women is an increase in male characteristics as an undesirable side effect. The only way to control undesirable side effects is to keep the dosages of AAS reasonable and monitor for changes. Monitoring and adjusting is on-going. Some reasonable dosages (these have been garnered from studies)are 50-100mg IM weekly of either test or deca; 10-20mg Oxandrin daily; even 25mg every other day of Anadrol-50 has been used with minimal side effects. These meds can be used to achieve virtually any look (BB, fitness, model) by manipulating the diet and exercise regimen. I will also say these meds are not the best for fat loss.

Second problem women have are elevated levels of estrogen brought on by obesity (BF% exceeding the desired 10-12%) and/or taking birth control pills. There is an excellent antiestrogen for women called Evista, which selectively blocks estrogen in the breast tissue and adipose tissue, but allows estrogen to function in the heart and bone. Once the BF% is brought down into the 10-12% area and is maintained, then a decision needs to be made if maintenance will be required. Evista can be taken indefinitely, but alternative BC must be sought. Woman are fortunate that their estrogen levels decrease as they age, where men's estrogen levels increase. Research is starting to show that estrogen is not as important as testosterone levels in the aging female and male. If women's test levels are increased, their higher bodyfat levels will adequately convert enough estrogen as needed. Men, on the other hand, have to battle the high estrogen levels with clomid, arimidex or aromasin.

 

[DrJMW]

Bump

 

[OTCbooty]

I assume with all this self-bumping that you are interested in stirring up discussion on your topics...so will you discuss your opinion that BF greater than 10-12% is obese?

 

[DrJMW]

Research has found that 10-12% BF is ideal for women. They are able to retain their femininity, keep their test/estrogen conversion rate ideal, and overcome insulin resistence (diabetes, evelated cholesterol, etc). The problem is maintaining these levels without superior genetics. That is where prescription meds come in.

 

[Snow White]

Estrogen in Men

Dr J, you've piqued my interest here. I understand that estrogen hied in fat and obese women tend to have more estrogen than thier lower BF counterparts. Is this true in men?? Are the estro levels of obese men higher than their slender counterparts??

 

[thebabydoc]

Dr. J:

Could you please give me the name and number of women pregnant with BF of 10-12%? I'd like to find out where they're injecting their FSH. I'd also like to read the source for these studies you cite if you can get me a link.

thanks,

thebabydoc

 

[Sassy69]

Is Evista something I can go to my OBGYN & request?? When I mentioned nolva to him, he just said why don't you just go off the B/C? Hard to give a doc a good reason to prescribe you something when he didn't know it was used for that (e.g. bodybuilding...)

 

[thebabydoc]

No doc is gonna give you Evista if you're not menopausal or osteopenic.

Besides, there is no evidence that it would help you where you'd like. It is an SERM- Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulator and should not be expected do what some here are purporting.

 

[MS]

Hehehe thebabydoc I'm with you here. Still waiting to see references to this revolutionary new research that show 10-12% bodyfat is optimal for any female other than those competing in fitness comps. I will admit that severe calorie restirction in women (and men) can possibly lead to an increased lifespan, but to say this is optimal in any other respect is unsubstantiated IMHO. Of course MrJMW may have some hitherto unpublished research to support his theories.......

 

[DrJMW]

BodyOpus , ladies. After reading Dan Duchaine's book, I emailed him many times prior to his passing to discuss many points in BodyOpus. He was very adament about the 6% ideal BF in men and 10-12%BF in women for supra-health. Other research, as indicated at omen.com/adipos.html suggests that women should be in excellent shape prior to getting pregnancy and try to maintain their caloric intake and not gain tons of fat.

Ladies, I don't create information. I read it in many forums--books, WEBMD for doctors, medibolics.com, lef.org, PDR.net, Internet searches and even this board. I take this information and use it to enhance my client's lives. I suggest doing the research, too.

Evista is a drug of choice for preventing recurrent cancerous breast lesions by blocking estrogen in the breast tissue. It does allow estrogen to work in cardiac and bone tissue. It also happens to be an excellent estrogen blocker in adipose tissue..your OB/GYN probably doesn't know this, nor would they prescribe it for that purpose..an antiaging/life extensionist might.

Obese men and women tend to have higher estrogen levels because of the increased adiposity. Fat cells readily convert testoterone to estrogen..this is why obese men and women can benefit.

 

[thebabydoc]

So let me see if I get this right...

Your references are from a diet book?
And your data is from heretofor unpublished research at Baylor?
What did you say you were before you started writing prescriptions for a living?

Evista:

Use:
Known colloquially as the "designer estrogen", Raloxifene or Evista is an
alternative to estrogen for preventing bone loss in postmenopausal women.

How It Works:

Raloxifene or Evista is a selective estrogen receptor modulator meaning that it
affects some, but not all of the same receptors that estrogen does. In some
instances, it antagonises or blocks estrogen. It acts like estrogen to prevent bone loss and improve lipid profiles, but it has the potential to block some estrogen effects such as those that lead to breast cancer and uterine cancer.

Side Effects:

Being and estrogen-like substance, Raloxifene or Evista has estrogen-like side
effects, for example nausea, vomiting, changes in cycles. However, in general,
it is well tolerated.

Cautions for People:

Because Raloxifene or Evista does have estrogen-like effects, it must be used
with caution by women who could not normally use estrogen, for example
those with breast cancer or uterine cancer. However, as more is understood
about the drug's antagonist effects, it may be a suitable alternative to estrogen
for these women.

Drug Interactions:

Raloxifene or Evista with its estrogen-like effects can affect blood clotting and thus must be used with care in combination with other drugs that affect blood
clotting, for example the warfarin anticoagulants.

Further Reading:

J Bone Min Res 1996;11:835
Obstet Gynocol Surv 1996;51:45

And from the makers of Evista:

http://www.evista.com/about_patient_info.html

-Lowers cholesterol. EVISTA lowers total cholesterol by about 7% and LDL
("bad") cholesterol by about 11%. It does not change HDL ("good")
cholesterol.

-No increased risk of breast cancer. In clinical studies, women taking EVISTA
had no increased risk of breast cancer or uterine cancer.

"Evista is a drug of choice for preventing recurrent cancerous breast lesions by blocking
estrogen in the breast tissue."

WRONG. It was thought that Tamoxifen might be such a drug but this ain't panning out so well, either.

"It also happens to be an excellent estrogen blocker in adipose tissue..your OB/GYN probably doesn't know this, nor would they prescribe it for that purpose..an antiaging/life extensionist might."

You idiot. Drugs have side effects, and although you might use AS because the "benefits" to BB's are clear and the risks well-understood, you would NOT use a new drug like Evista for an off-label use like you are suggesting. Furthermore, the doses needed to achieve effects on estrogen receptors in the human body are extremely small, just enough to prevent osteoporosis, and no studies have been done on humans to figure out the effects of higher doses which would be required to even begin achieving the effect you are speculating even exists.

It would be far more reasonable to use birth control pills, as these significantly increase the circulating levels of Sex Hormone Binding Globulin (SHBG), thereby tying up free testosterone and estrogen from binding elsewhere in the body.

By the way, whose password are you using to get on WEBMD for doctors?

 

[DrJMW]

babydoc.....

I have read all of the info, babydoc, PRIOR to posting...the key word is "can." Sure, every drug has side effects..sometimes...and not in everyone. That's why constant monitoring is necessary.

It is naive of you to think I use one "diet book" and "unpublished" research as my only means of information. Second, I have communicated with Dan Duchaine a great deal before he passed away. If you are not aware of his reputation in BB circles, perhaps you need to do some research. The "unpublished" research is not unpublished. It was released in an issue of Science magazine and reported in the Houston Chronicle.

I had been a practicing dentist for over 14 years (retired now because of a back injury) and 28 years of personal fitness experience. So, I have a solid background in the medical sciences and pharmacology. All of my CE has been in endocrinology the past two years. Because I am a doctor, I am entitled access to WEBMD.

So, you can agree to disagree or you can just say that I'm wrong and you are right. It doesn't matter to me. I guess all of the anti-aging/life extensionist docs are all wrong too..

so, babydoc are you are real doc, BTW?

 

[thebabydoc]

Re: babydoc.....

It is naive of you to think I use one "diet book" and "unpublished" research as my only means of information. Second, I have communicated with Dan Duchaine a great deal before he passed away. If you are not aware of his reputation in BB circles, perhaps you need to do some research. The "unpublished" research is not unpublished. It was released in an issue of Science magazine and reported in the Houston Chronicle.

Whatever was I thinking... Houston Chronicle, Science magazine!!! Well trump me!
Let me go to the store to get the latest issues of Popular Mechanics and Ladies Home Journal so I can adequately respond to your posts.

Do you really think that CME is a substitute for knowledge? Never has "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" been more true; CME activities usually have major sponsors who have paid the presenters to talk about various "types" of medicines which they conveniently produce or are releasing a "new" variation of (read adding an extra amine group to an existing medication).
Evista is a great example. I went to one of those...Nice dinner though <<<BUURRRP!!>>>

so, babydoc are you are real doc, BTW?

No, I'm an english professor who teaches grammar to infants.

 

[Imnotdutch]

Science is actually a pretty respectible place to publish. However, having said that, it publishes few rigorous articles. Most of the work seen there is written as a magazine article.....not much in the way of data and methods is shown. I think it is meant to be more speculative and thought provoking than anything......they certainly like to be optimistic about the repercussions of the published work. Of course it is possible that DrJMW refers to one of the more rigorous articles.....

I would like him/her to post the reference so I can look it up.....I'm interested to see this article.

DrJMW......I think that the reason Babydoc asked about your title is because the title of doctor carries some weight. However, if you acquired the title by studying a subject that isn't directly related to the topics of these boards it is misleading. It then looks like you are wearing that title as a status symbol. The very manner in which you introduced yourself to this board.....as an expert/guru.....entitles everybody to question your credentials. People would be stupid to just accept what you say because you call yourself doctor. Whilst I'm here, I know of several people on this board who are either medical doctors, or have Ph.D's in very relevant topics.......most of them choose not to shout about it. I personally will question anybody who has to announce their qualifications because it means their opinions arent doing the talking. So just dont be suprised that Babydoc (who has been here a while and always posts good stuff) questions you regarding your credentials.

 

[MS]

The fact that Duchainne was well respected in BB circles does NOT make his advice always correct. Isn't this the same man who once recommended macaroni and cheese postworkout because it had a high GI!?? I would love to see the references that have actually looked at the response of estrogen receptor subtypes in female adipose tissue during Evista or Tamoxifen treatment. Pretty please. I would also love to see where the demographic and hormonal data came from to support the statement that 10-12% bodyfat is optimal for women (other than longevity issues).

Aside from that, even Deca at 50mg per week results in deepening of the voice and increased facial hair in the majority of postmenopausal women who take it for 6 months. Maybe (probably) it's different for premenopausal women, but to say that women should consider taking this much as a maintenance dose while maintaining low bodyfat levels(=low natural estrogen levels) is not responsible medicine. Unless we're working for the unisex look!

Where I come from we don't bestow the title Dr on a dentist unless they've done a PhD in dentistry. That was not meant as a personal attack, just an interesting observation of how different cultures perceive the value of different skills. Keep up the study DrJMW. The truth cannot (as you know) always be found in peer reviewed science publications. That's why people like Duchainne are so admired. But we all need to be aware that advice based on speculation and anecdote (I tried it and it worked for me), even when well thought out biochemically, may still be wrong.

One thing I think we can all agree on.....excess estrogen is NOT good for anyone, and obesity often leads to excess estrogen. Perhaps the definition of obese is what we need to work on?

 

[keiko]

Years ago, I had the great good fortune to meet and interview Dan. He was very knowledgeable abut BB, but more than fairly out of touch with the real world. Like wacked out six ways to Christmas. I'd no more take his advice for non-competition weights, BF%, hormones etc. than I'd save myself and drink my own urine.

Dr. BMwhateverr-- you're claiming to be a dentist, not a ob-gyn. Sell it someplace else. Anyone can be anything in cyperspace, and I'm not so sure this forum will benefit from your posts.

 

[Ulter]

MS,
Did Dan actually write that? Your posts are as sharp as ever.

 

[MS]

The silly thing is that a box of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese really does have a high GI (higher than 100) by some measures. Unfortunately we now know this is because that particular combo of macronutrients significantly decreases insulin sensitivity. In other words it raises blood sugar AND insulin levels, but the glucose is blocked from entering the muscle cells. So all you get is hyperglycemia and hyperinsulemia and you muscles more or less starve. Of course this is true for many foods. You should be wary of any foods with a GI significantly higher than glucose. Especially if they're complex foods (ie not simple sugars or glucose polymers).

 

[DrJMW]

Shame we are not able to keep an open mind; that's OK. We are all entitled to our opinions. Obviously, I have very little to contribute here since there are so many experts. Maybe, I should just stick to reading and not typing.

 

[Imnotdutch]

Well I didn't have you down as the sensitive type......

With regards to the open mind business......all you are being asked to do is supply credentials and a reference. Where does an open mind come into it??

At the end of the day if you insist that you are an expert on something, particularly on the internet where it is very easy to make up a false persona, people will start paying attention.....thats life. If you cant/wont back up what you say about yourself what do you expect people to think?? The people here aren't stupid (far from it) and are more than capable of drawing simple conclusions......

Shame we are not able to keep an open mind; that's OK. We are all entitled to our opinions. Obviously, I have very little to contribute here since there are so many experts. Maybe, I should just stick to reading and not typing.

 

[thebabydoc]

hmmmm....... now where did I put that noose?

 

[MS]

I have no interest in internet credentials. They are meaningless. I am only interested in information content. I am keeping an open mind as much as is possible given my 'credentials'. I apologize I had not picked up on the fact that we were talking about opinions here, rather than peer-reviewed or other type of science. In that case I will rephrase my point of view: I am of the OPINION that there is no scientific data showing that 10-12%bf is ideal/optimal for women except when it comes to longevity. I am of the OPINION that there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that raloxifene selectively blocks estrogen mediated adipose deposition in female gluteo-femoral regions. I am of the OPINION that giving test to postmenopausal women with very low %bf will NOT result in optimum conversion of test to estrogen due to a lack of aromatase activity.

I am not an 'expert', and I respect your input as much as anyone elses as long as you make it clear that it is an opinion, and don't try to sell it as the gospel. This is not the same as saying your wrong, merely that you cannot back up your opinions with science and as such we need to take your advice with a huge grain of salt. This is true in much of bodybuilding since many of the applications of pharmaceuticals in this sport are untested in rigorous clinical trials. Caveat emptor......