Dht increases visceral fat in man??

PurpleHeart

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2019
Messages
181
thanks for confirming there are none
Confirming what ? that people on this forum love DHT for no reason, just look in the mirror and you got your proof, I will no longer waste my time with an illogical and dense person like you.
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
The dose is way to high, the excess was converted into metabolites is my guess, said metabolites are responsible for the fat gain, 3α-Androstanediol is a weak estrogen for example.
 

PurpleHeart

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2019
Messages
181
The dose is way to high, the excess was converted into metabolites is my guess, said metabolites are responsible for the fat gain, 3α-Androstanediol is a weak estrogen for example.
I also posted a study of DHT causing dyslipidemia and obesity in mice and it was dismissed by people here who seem to only accept studies and evidence if it supports their own beliefs but if you actually post a study that implies that they might be wrong everyone starts attacking you and proceeds to remind you how all scientists are idiots and part of a conspiracy and how ray peat and his followers know everything under the sun while at the same time no one provides any evidence of restoration achieved with ray peat principles.

There are studies that clearly show that DHT can be dangerous in higher levels, but people here completely disregard it or dismiss it as a bad study.

There is also a study where finasteride administration attenuated heart hypertrophy in mice by lowering DHT in heart tissue but if you post it here a shitstorm is very likely.

There is a study where Testosterone administration in males with low testosterone and high DHT significantly lowered DHT which probably means that DHT shouldn't be high when testosterone levels are at a healthy range but when I talked about it everyone ignored me.

There are countless studies of hyperandrogenism in women being a hallmark of metabolic disaster and no one cares to look at those, but one study was posted by haidut where lean women had slightly higher DHT which any reasonable person can assume is because of lower adipose tissue known to neutralize it and not the other way around, but people here twisted it to draw their own conclusion of DHT being great for women too.

Now about your claims there is actually a lot of studies that show that estrogen and increased aromatase can help lower visceral fat, so I don't know about that.

Healthy young males usually have a T/DHT ratio in favor of testosterone along with high shbg, but people seem to think that lowering shbg and increasing DHT will make them healthier while a high DHT/T ratio and low shbg is a hallmark of old age and metabolic dysfunction.

It's just sad that many people here started adopting cult like behavior and dogma when this forum was supposed to be the opposite of that.

If avoiding PUFA and taking aspirin with sugar and milk and coffee blah.. blah.. solved hair loss, obesity and every disease then all of us who followed ray peats ideas
for years would be super healthy, ripped, hairy, god tier males with wings made out of light and telekinesis, but this is obviously not the case.
 

Vinero

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
1,551
Age
32
Location
Netherlands
I also posted a study of DHT causing dyslipidemia and obesity in mice and it was dismissed by people here who seem to only accept studies and evidence if it supports their own beliefs but if you actually post a study that implies that they might be wrong everyone starts attacking you and proceeds to remind you how all scientists are idiots and part of a conspiracy and how ray peat and his followers know everything under the sun while at the same time no one provides any evidence of restoration achieved with ray peat principles.

There are studies that clearly show that DHT can be dangerous in higher levels, but people here completely disregard it or dismiss it as a bad study.

There is also a study where finasteride administration attenuated heart hypertrophy in mice by lowering DHT in heart tissue but if you post it here a shitstorm is very likely.

There is a study where Testosterone administration in males with low testosterone and high DHT significantly lowered DHT which probably means that DHT shouldn't be high when testosterone levels are at a healthy range but when I talked about it everyone ignored me.

There are countless studies of hyperandrogenism in women being a hallmark of metabolic disaster and no one cares to look at those, but one study was posted by haidut where lean women had slightly higher DHT which any reasonable person can assume is because of lower adipose tissue known to neutralize it and not the other way around, but people here twisted it to draw their own conclusion of DHT being great for women too.

Now about your claims there is actually a lot of studies that show that estrogen and increased aromatase can help lower visceral fat, so I don't know about that.

Healthy young males usually have a T/DHT ratio in favor of testosterone along with high shbg, but people seem to think that lowering shbg and increasing DHT will make them healthier while a high DHT/T ratio and low shbg is a hallmark of old age and metabolic dysfunction.

It's just sad that many people here started adopting cult like behavior and dogma when this forum was supposed to be the opposite of that.

If avoiding PUFA and taking aspirin with sugar and milk and coffee blah.. blah.. solved hair loss, obesity and every disease then all of us who followed ray peats ideas
for years would be super healthy, ripped, hairy, god tier males with wings made out of light and telekinesis, but this is obviously not the case.
Nice post. Question everything.
 
OP
GorillaHead

GorillaHead

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2018
Messages
2,372
Location
USA
Can we please not fight. Pwrsonally i dont agree with rei stuff. But seriously ignore each other.

do yall think its possible to add dht or somehow upregulate 5ar production locally with a topical to the penis without causing any suppression?
 

rr1

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2019
Messages
374
Can we please not fight. Pwrsonally i dont agree with rei stuff. But seriously ignore each other.

do yall think its possible to add dht or somehow upregulate 5ar production locally with a topical to the penis without causing any suppression?
Don't be so quick to dismiss rei's thoughts. It makes sense, its logical, and definitely something to think about.

DHT is increased in balding scalps for a reason, and lots of people that take finasteride say they experience a looser scalp. Rei put it in very simple terms, but Rob from PHH who has been studying hair loss full time for YEARS makes the claim that DHT raises in response to stress/chronic inflammation, and this DHT turns on TGF-β1 which leads to the scalp remodelling and facia tightness.

I think that even this explanation from Rob doesn't explain the whole process, but it's clear that DHT is there because of chronic inflammation, and the chronic inflammation is what needs to be lowered.
 
OP
GorillaHead

GorillaHead

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2018
Messages
2,372
Location
USA
Don't be so quick to dismiss rei's thoughts. It makes sense, its logical, and definitely something to think about.

DHT is increased in balding scalps for a reason, and lots of people that take finasteride say they experience a looser scalp. Rei put it in very simple terms, but Rob from PHH who has been studying hair loss full time for YEARS makes the claim that DHT raises in response to stress/chronic inflammation, and this DHT turns on TGF-β1 which leads to the scalp remodelling and facia tightness.

I think that even this explanation from Rob doesn't explain the whole process, but it's clear that DHT is there because of chronic inflammation, and the chronic inflammation is what needs to be lowered.
REI is overlooking empirical data. Almost always the body stretches and remodel to adapt to tension. The skull does it in disease like hydrocephalus. The skin does it when there is fat gain. Tendons and muscles stretch. Bones will thicken. If there is facia tightness . Its not gonna be tight for long. Because the body will stretch and remodel to the tension. This is what has been witness empirically. Using logic in the medical world is not always a great ides because so many things are illogical about the human body. Unless u beleive all biology was created with logic in mind. Everything is spontaneous years of evolution .
 

rr1

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2019
Messages
374
If there is facia tightness . Its not gonna be tight for long.
This is where we don't see eye to eye. From my reading, I believe that the fascia adapts to chronically tensed muscles (which most humans have these days). It remodels and locks this tension in place. It doesn't stretch and let off the tension like you say. Even when you relax the muscles, the fascia will remain tight. This is why massage and chiropractic work, stretching is very important, and fixing whatever that is causing you to have chronically tensed muscles, whether it be sitting on a chair at a computer too much, having metabolic problems, etc.)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'Everything is spontaneous years of evolution .' ? Please elaborate.
 
OP
GorillaHead

GorillaHead

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2018
Messages
2,372
Location
USA
This is where we don't see eye to eye. From my reading, I believe that the fascia adapts to chronically tensed muscles (which most humans have these days). It remodels and locks this tension in place. It doesn't stretch and let off the tension like you say. Even when you relax the muscles, the fascia will remain tight. This is why massage and chiropractic work, stretching is very important, and fixing whatever that is causing you to have chronically tensed muscles, whether it be sitting on a chair at a computer too much, having metabolic problems, etc.)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'Everything is spontaneous years of evolution .' ? Please elaborate.
What i mean is the biological mechanism of the human body are influenced by superior mutations not logic. If the human body was designed by a human thinking of things logically would make sense but its not.
 

PurpleHeart

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2019
Messages
181
Can we please not fight. Pwrsonally i dont agree with rei stuff. But seriously ignore each other.

do yall think its possible to add dht or somehow upregulate 5ar production locally with a topical to the penis without causing any suppression?
I think that we don't know enough about it, that's the most honest answer in my opinion since not only the cascade of hormone supplementation is pretty complex but the route of administration seems to produce different effects.

Why do you even want to upregulate 5-ar in penis tissue ?
 
OP
GorillaHead

GorillaHead

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2018
Messages
2,372
Location
USA
I think that we don't know enough about it, that's the most honest answer in my opinion since not only the cascade of hormone supplementation is pretty complex but the route of administration seems to produce different effects.

Why do you even want to upregulate 5-ar in penis tissue ?
Counter any side effects from using .1% dutasteride topical on my head. It wont fully absorb due to its molecular mass but still j want to find a way to protect the testicals
 

PurpleHeart

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2019
Messages
181
Nice post. Question everything.
Thanks, I strongly believe we all should question everything, ray peat is not right about everything, this is what research is about, if you only cherry pick the results that
fit your personal views that's not real research.

For example the fact that estrogen has been shown to reduce visceral fat and testosterone which can aromatase can do the same, but DHT that can't aromatase can't,
seems to indicate that maybe it's estrogen that decreases visceral fat after all, I am not saying it is I am saying that this is a logical conclusion that one shouldn't completely dismiss because of bias, instead it should be investigated further to get a better picture, estrogen can't be useless after all.

People here bash cortisol all day but without cortisol you would be paralyzed and soon after dead, there are people with 5-ar deficiency that can live a relatively normal life, but no one ever survived a severe cortisol deficiency without medical intervention, the same goes for estrogen, without estrogen you would grow tall non stop until you wouldn't even be able to walk, everything has its part to play, you can't just claim some hormones are good and others are bad.
 

Vinero

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
1,551
Age
32
Location
Netherlands
Thanks, I strongly believe we all should question everything, ray peat is not right about everything, this is what research is about, if you only cherry pick the results that
fit your personal views that's not real research.

For example the fact that estrogen has been shown to reduce visceral fat and testosterone which can aromatase can do the same, but DHT that can't aromatase can't,
seems to indicate that maybe it's estrogen that decreases visceral fat after all, I am not saying it is I am saying that this is a logical conclusion that one shouldn't completely dismiss because of bias, instead it should be investigated further to get a better picture, estrogen can't be useless after all.

People here bash cortisol all day but without cortisol you would be paralyzed and soon after dead, there are people with 5-ar deficiency that can live a relatively normal life, but no one ever survived a severe cortisol deficiency without medical intervention, the same goes for estrogen, without estrogen you would grow tall non stop until you wouldn't even be able to walk, everything has its part to play, you can't just claim some hormones are good and others are bad.
Not only should we question if Ray is right about hormones like estrogen and DHT, but we should go one step further and ask if hormones actually matter at all?
There are people who have improved their health, reversed their disease and they didn't take any hormones at all and focussed on other things like minerals and foods.
If hormones would matter that much we could all just take thyroid and progesterone and get superhuman health. That is clearly not the case for most people here. Taking hormones just masks symptoms for a while, doesn't treat the underlying disease/imbalance.
I personally reversed my eczema, asthma and dry eyes and that happened after I quit taking any hormones like progesterone, pregnenolone, DHEA and just simplified my diet and cut out most supplements.
 

rei

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
1,607
REI is overlooking empirical data. Almost always the body stretches and remodel to adapt to tension. The skull does it in disease like hydrocephalus. The skin does it when there is fat gain. Tendons and muscles stretch. Bones will thicken. If there is facia tightness . Its not gonna be tight for long. Because the body will stretch and remodel to the tension. This is what has been witness empirically. Using logic in the medical world is not always a great ides because so many things are illogical about the human body. Unless u beleive all biology was created with logic in mind. Everything is spontaneous years of evolution .
except when you get stretch marks instead of normally adapted skin. Or balding instead of keep the hair. Or bones break instead of thicken in response to stress.

Optimally it would work like you say, but almost no-one is in good metabolic balance. The very fact you have postural problem in the first place is a testament to things not working normally, and the effects you see are numerous.

Even if it is not recognized today, it will be. I can with confidence say that 90% of the population has easily recognizable chronic postural damage, that you can see walking by them on the street. And this means 90% are more or less chronically sick.

Just look up a video from the early days of film, and compare it to today. Back then people walked upright and seemed to float through the street. Nowadays a vast majority waddle forward.
 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
What yall make of this study. This is very interesting. Seems to me optimal profile is high T medium to Low DHT


This is a meta-study/review, so a step below even observational studies in reliability. Intervention studies with both men and women show that DHT administration lowers fat mass, and at least in women, specifically lowered abdominal mass. The dose used in women from the second link below was the same as the one used in men in the first link - i.e. 70mg daily, of which about 7mg is presumed absorbed. So, that makes it a massive dose for the women, and thus shows the true effects of DHT on visceral fat mass, while being under-dosed in the male study, which probably explains why it reduced overall fat mass in those men, but not specifically visceral fat (but did not increase it either).
"...During treatment, DHT decreased skinfold thickness, weight gain, and fat mass but had no effects on waist to hip ratio or lean mass (Fig. 4). The effects of DHT treatment on body composition persisted at 1 month after cessation of treatment. There was no significant differences in findings using either baseline testosterone or testosterone + DHT as covariate."
"...Abdominal fat (37.3911.2 to 35.199.7%), gluteo-femoral fat (46.396.6 to 45.497.7%), total body fat (38.297.9 to 36.198.6%) and BMI (24.894.3 to 23.793.8) were also found to have decreased significantly in this group. No significant reduction in body weight (kg) and body fat (%) could be measured in the placebo group. No influence on lipid parameters was found although total testosterone increased significantly in group A (0.2990.24 to 0.7290.17 ng/ml). Conclusions: Topically applied androgen (DHT) is capable of reducing abdominal fat accumulations as well as total body weight in postmenopausal women with unexplained weight gain. In contrast to systemic androgen application, topical administration has no effect on the lipid profile. Gluteal fat, however, is less effectively influenced by androgens."
 

PurpleHeart

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2019
Messages
181
Not only should we question if Ray is right about hormones like estrogen and DHT, but we should go one step further and ask if hormones actually matter at all?
There are people who have improved their health, reversed their disease and they didn't take any hormones at all and focussed on other things like minerals and foods.
If hormones would matter that much we could all just take thyroid and progesterone and get superhuman health. That is clearly not the case for most people here. Taking hormones just masks symptoms for a while, doesn't treat the underlying disease/imbalance.
I personally reversed my eczema, asthma and dry eyes and that happened after I quit taking any hormones like progesterone, pregnenolone, DHEA and just simplified my diet and cut out most supplements.
Exactly, You can't just claim that thyroid and progesterone will fix everything and that it's lack of those things that causes all problems under the sun, when supplementing those things does absolutely nothing in most cases.

Personally the only thing that I kept from here is to avoid seed oils and excessive PUFA consumption, everything else that I tried changed absolutely nothing,
with the exception of taurine which was the only supplement that actually made a small difference on how I felt.

To be absolutely honest there are people who eat nuts , seeds and peanut butter/tahini all day and still look much better than the advocates of Ray peat.

I mean if Danny roddy which is one of the most loyal followers of Peat's ideas looks emancipated and sicker than the average joe after years of Ray peat dieting, then what is it that anyone here hopes to achieve with this ideas?

There is obviously more to it.
 
Last edited:

Apple

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
1,262
except when you get stretch marks instead of normally adapted skin. Or balding instead of keep the hair. Or bones break instead of thicken in response to stress.

Optimally it would work like you say, but almost no-one is in good metabolic balance. The very fact you have postural problem in the first place is a testament to things not working normally, and the effects you see are numerous.

Even if it is not recognized today, it will be. I can with confidence say that 90% of the population has easily recognizable chronic postural damage, that you can see walking by them on the street. And this means 90% are more or less chronically sick.

Just look up a video from the early days of film, and compare it to today. Back then people walked upright and seemed to float through the street. Nowadays a vast majority waddle forward.
So what is the reason behind chronic postural damage in your opinion ?
 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
@Hans @Drareg - see my previous post (2-3 posts up) for more info. The forum is not allowing me to edit my post so I can tag you in it. There is also this one, also interventionm study in humans (males) that also showed decreased fat mass AND increased muscle mass.
"...In DXA analysis, lean mass was increased and fat mass was decreased each by 1.0 to 1.5 kg with DHT but not placebo treatment (Appendix Figure 2). We observed similar body composition changes using bioimpedance analysis and derived from skin-fold thickness (data not shown). Muscle strength measured by hand grip dynamometry was increased by DHT for both dominant (P 0.064) and nondominant (P 0.032) hands (Table). No significant change was found in abdominal or hip girth or midarm or midthigh circumference (data not shown)."
 

Hans

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
5,856
This is a meta-study/review, so a step below even observational studies in reliability. Intervention studies with both men and women show that DHT administration lowers fat mass, and at least in women, specifically lowered abdominal mass. The dose used in women from the second link below was the same as the one used in men in the first link - i.e. 70mg daily, of which about 7mg is presumed absorbed. So, that makes it a massive dose for the women, and thus shows the true effects of DHT on visceral fat mass, while being under-dosed in the male study, which probably explains why it reduced overall fat mass in those men, but not specifically visceral fat (but did not increase it either).
"...During treatment, DHT decreased skinfold thickness, weight gain, and fat mass but had no effects on waist to hip ratio or lean mass (Fig. 4). The effects of DHT treatment on body composition persisted at 1 month after cessation of treatment. There was no significant differences in findings using either baseline testosterone or testosterone + DHT as covariate."
"...Abdominal fat (37.3911.2 to 35.199.7%), gluteo-femoral fat (46.396.6 to 45.497.7%), total body fat (38.297.9 to 36.198.6%) and BMI (24.894.3 to 23.793.8) were also found to have decreased significantly in this group. No significant reduction in body weight (kg) and body fat (%) could be measured in the placebo group. No influence on lipid parameters was found although total testosterone increased significantly in group A (0.2990.24 to 0.7290.17 ng/ml). Conclusions: Topically applied androgen (DHT) is capable of reducing abdominal fat accumulations as well as total body weight in postmenopausal women with unexplained weight gain. In contrast to systemic androgen application, topical administration has no effect on the lipid profile. Gluteal fat, however, is less effectively influenced by androgens."
Yes, there are a few studies showing DHT to help reduce fat mass in men, but few actually looked at visceral fat. Those I linked did and they checked with CT, which is considered to be the gold standard measure. Since I posted the only study looking at visceral fat (that I could find/or other papers linked), I think it's questionable and further research is needed. No mechanism of DHT could cause that either, since it promotes fat loss elsewhere as well and improves insulin sensitivity as I mentioned.

The reason I didn't mention the female studies with DHT was because there might be gender differences.

Regardless, there is an inverse correlation between visceral fat and DHT in humans. Most of the other research showing that it causes an increase in visceral fat is in animals.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom