MetabolicTrash
Member
Obviously it's more complicated than that to a degree, but I got to reading this old thread by @haidut on saturatedness or unsaturedness:
raypeatforum.com
Here is the study he referenced: Oestrogenic Action of Compounds of the Androsterone-Testosterone Series
Here's what struck me as interesting ... Testosterone is UNSATURATED? So testosterone is in some akin-like nature to PUFA; estrogen structures? Same as even Androsterone? So muscle building or "anabolism" can come down to how biochemical effects take place or develop throughout/within different confines of physiology?
It occurred to my limited brain ... Perhaps the guys or girls with a lot more muscle have more estrogenic-cell like effects in localized tissue? Since estrogen and GH can work together as Peat said, perhaps the recipe for "muscle" is simply estrogen, GH and some testosterone/anabolism in a multitude of overlapping form? Perhaps this is why Androsterone doesn't build muscle? Perhaps this is why DHT doesn't build any muscle really either? Most "muscle" on gear is from UNSATURATED compounds, or "estrogenic" ones? In this case, do naturally more muscular people POSSIBLY have or have had more of this same effect than someone naturally less muscular?
Funny how the "non-estrogenic" things also are the things that never harbor significant muscle growth. Most people who go on high T are said to "blow up" with "muscle." Is it because such a high concentration of an unsaturated compound in the body triggers partial, estrogen-induced satellite cell signaling, along with GH, downstream androgens (some of which are unsaturated too)? I know testosterone and similar compounds make people "blow up" while things like tren, DHT, etc. DO NOT.
At this point it would seem funny to consider male's often common, larger bound of muscle to be "androgenic" unless by "anabolic-androgenic" you mean estrogenic, correct?
Because if a "man" hormone has some corollaries with a "woman" hormone in its basest structure, clearly it's not a man vs. woman thing but an energetic one.
It seems the "anabolic" compounds might actually be largely "estrogenic" in some form? So maybe the most masculine men need more estrogen to be that way ... Funny how things work, eh? You can pound down all of the most saturated things, but maybe the recipe for "muscle" or "masculine phenotype" is at least partially mitigated by a fine degree of unsaturated cellular effects. So in light of that seeing "muscle" as "healthy" past a basic point seems a bit convoluted, no? Unless muscle is more coconut?
Studies show that estrogen can induce cell division or maybe more so EXPANSION ... Not sure, but others can chime in. Expansion would equal bigger cell-to-cell ratio thus bigger "muscle" if its effects on tissue reign as its unsaturated, coiled nature of poison does it? And while people will say the "male" hormones are "anabolic" the idea of "anabolism" might be wrongly understood, no? Of course outside the Peat lens this is how the "normies" will see it, but we should know better!
As people will see it as two sides of the same coin ... Anabolic = Manly, but driving forces of such break the boundaries of what people view as "masculine" or "feminine" hormones or forms thereof. Of course I know nothing about this ... I am just a man who shapes the standing room floor.
I know Peat has said he believes estrogen itself can trigger growth IN ALL CELLS ... So why do we default to seeing big mandibles, bones, muscles, height, etc. as primarily "androgenic" or "masculine" and thus shift the topic of discussion or understanding away from estrogen or GH or other compounds that can cause cell growth too?
Unsaturation = Estrogenic, Saturation = Androgenic
Most people on the forum have read Peat's articles on PUFA and its great synergism with the estrogenic hormones. Peat has written that saturated fats have effects opposite to those of PUFA and there are studies showing feeding saturated fat increases androgen synthesis. I have been researching...
Here is the study he referenced: Oestrogenic Action of Compounds of the Androsterone-Testosterone Series
Here's what struck me as interesting ... Testosterone is UNSATURATED? So testosterone is in some akin-like nature to PUFA; estrogen structures? Same as even Androsterone? So muscle building or "anabolism" can come down to how biochemical effects take place or develop throughout/within different confines of physiology?
It occurred to my limited brain ... Perhaps the guys or girls with a lot more muscle have more estrogenic-cell like effects in localized tissue? Since estrogen and GH can work together as Peat said, perhaps the recipe for "muscle" is simply estrogen, GH and some testosterone/anabolism in a multitude of overlapping form? Perhaps this is why Androsterone doesn't build muscle? Perhaps this is why DHT doesn't build any muscle really either? Most "muscle" on gear is from UNSATURATED compounds, or "estrogenic" ones? In this case, do naturally more muscular people POSSIBLY have or have had more of this same effect than someone naturally less muscular?
Funny how the "non-estrogenic" things also are the things that never harbor significant muscle growth. Most people who go on high T are said to "blow up" with "muscle." Is it because such a high concentration of an unsaturated compound in the body triggers partial, estrogen-induced satellite cell signaling, along with GH, downstream androgens (some of which are unsaturated too)? I know testosterone and similar compounds make people "blow up" while things like tren, DHT, etc. DO NOT.
At this point it would seem funny to consider male's often common, larger bound of muscle to be "androgenic" unless by "anabolic-androgenic" you mean estrogenic, correct?
Because if a "man" hormone has some corollaries with a "woman" hormone in its basest structure, clearly it's not a man vs. woman thing but an energetic one.It seems the "anabolic" compounds might actually be largely "estrogenic" in some form? So maybe the most masculine men need more estrogen to be that way ... Funny how things work, eh? You can pound down all of the most saturated things, but maybe the recipe for "muscle" or "masculine phenotype" is at least partially mitigated by a fine degree of unsaturated cellular effects. So in light of that seeing "muscle" as "healthy" past a basic point seems a bit convoluted, no? Unless muscle is more coconut?
Studies show that estrogen can induce cell division or maybe more so EXPANSION ... Not sure, but others can chime in. Expansion would equal bigger cell-to-cell ratio thus bigger "muscle" if its effects on tissue reign as its unsaturated, coiled nature of poison does it? And while people will say the "male" hormones are "anabolic" the idea of "anabolism" might be wrongly understood, no? Of course outside the Peat lens this is how the "normies" will see it, but we should know better!
As people will see it as two sides of the same coin ... Anabolic = Manly, but driving forces of such break the boundaries of what people view as "masculine" or "feminine" hormones or forms thereof. Of course I know nothing about this ... I am just a man who shapes the standing room floor.
I know Peat has said he believes estrogen itself can trigger growth IN ALL CELLS ... So why do we default to seeing big mandibles, bones, muscles, height, etc. as primarily "androgenic" or "masculine" and thus shift the topic of discussion or understanding away from estrogen or GH or other compounds that can cause cell growth too?
Last edited:
