Progesterone babies are more intelligent

[Mauritio]

I was looking for this study for a long time. I found it here: -https://twitter.com/BradCohn/status/1688615871797743617

In this paper they looked at the efefct that progesterone had on the offpspring.

To make it short: progesterone babies are intellectually superior.

The effect was dose dependent, meaning: higher dose --> more intelligent baby.
In the second graph you can see that it was important that progesterone was given before the 16th week, after that it was a lot less effective.

You might wonder why in the first figure the education grades are worse. That was only in the high-dose group. The low dose was actually significantly better. And if progesterone was started before the 16th week (second figure), physical education grades were actually much better than control, so again it seems to be improtant to start progesterone supplementation before the 16th week of pregnancy.

It's noteworthy that the progesterone women produced these healthy babies despite beeing older and having more abortions than the control group.

On dosage:
"The progesterone had been administered to the mothers by intramuscular injections in dosages varying from 50 to 300 mg. daily for the relief of toxaemic symptoms."
This seems like a huge dose, but I suspect that the bioavailability of the progesterone they used back then was inferior, to Progest-E, because it wont be taken up by the lympahtic system in the same way. So by using progest-E you could get away with a much smaller dose.

So a low-to medium dose of progesterone seems to be a very smart idea for women, especially if they want to have a smart offspring Peat talked about that in an interview and he also said that progesterone babies had a higher IQ (I think he might have been referring to this paper).

 

[Mauritio]

Interestingly Ray said he was probably one of the first progesterone babies:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1310&v=3r-VBhB7VZY&feature=youtu.be

 

[Peatress]

Nice find.

 

[Mauritio]

This is seems to be a follow up on the orgiginal study and the babies seem to benefit from progesterone exposure even into adulthood.

"More progesterone children continued schooling after 16 years compared with controls; a higher proportion left school with 'O' level and 'A' level passes, the average number of passes per child was greater at both levels and more obtained a university place. The best academic results were in those whose mothers had received over 5 grams of prenatal progesterone, and for whom administration commenced before the sixteenth week and treatment lasted longer than eight weeks."

What makes the results even more remarkable is that the women receiving progsterone,were already at risk for preeclampsia meaning hypometabolic. so without the progesterone their results probably would have looked more like the toxaemic control group, so I think this is a more realistic control group. Makes one wonder how smart the students would have become, if the women werent even hypometabolic to begin with.


The percentage of children reaching University was 32% in the progesterone group and 6% in the control groups!
So if a pregnant woman takes progesterone her child is 5 times more likely to reach university level compared to if she doesnt supplement progesterone.

It also wasnt due to a regional effect since the areas unviserity percentage was around 6%. Again, progesterone increased the chances of children making it to uni by 5 times:
" The corresponding figures for 18-year-olds entering English universities in 1974 were 6.3 per cent for the Inner London Educational Authority (HMSO, 1975), and 6 per cent for the London Borough of Haringeyin which most of the children lived."

 

[Mauritio]

Here is an interestin letter from Dr. Katharina Dalton, the author of the two studies I posted.She seems to have been a strong proponent of progesterone, with many letters and studies published over the span of decades, correcting other doctors misconceptions about progesterone.
It's music to my ears, finally some common sense. And as other studies showed progestogens and estrogens do NOT have the intelligence promoting effectst that progesterone has.

"Intelligence and prenatal progesterone From Dr Katharina Dalton
86 Harley Street, London WIN IAE

Sir, hank you for the opportunity to comment onthe letter from Dr Meyer-Bahlburg (NovemberJournal, p 878). His suggestion that my data maynot stand up to scientific scrutiny could turn out tobe a boomerang, for the true scientist does not confuse progesterone with progestogen.
Dr MeyerBahlburg either does not know, or fails to understand, the differences between natural progesterone and the unnatural, man-made progestogen medroxyprogesterone acetate (Provera), which has a formula unlike any naturally-circulating steroid.Johanssen (1971) has shown that the administration of medroxyprogesterone acetate lowers the level of circulating progesterone. Medroxyprogesterone acetate is metabolized by a route differentfrom that of natural progesterone, which is excreted in the urine and faeces as pregnanediol. Examination of the distribution of titrated pregnanediolin the pre-viable fetus shows that, after the liver,the brain and spinal cord are the areas of highest concentrations of pregnanediol (Cooke et al. 1967).Thus, regardless of his negative findings of the effect of ante natal medroxyprogesterone acetateon the intelligence of the offspring (Meyer-Bahlburg et al. 1977), this has no bearing on the effect of the natural progesterone on the offspring.In the opening paragraph of Dr Meyer-Bahlburg's letter, he expresses the fear that my'optimistic conclusions ... may stimulate unnecessary and possibly unwarranted hormone treatment during pregnancy' even though, in the fina lparagraph of my paper (June, p 397), I stated: 'It would seem that progesterone administered in early pregnancy is beneficial not only for the relief of pregnancy symptoms and the prophylaxis of pre-eclamptic toxaemia but also to enhance intelligence. It will not produce a race of geniuses but merely ensure full brain development'. Are the relief of pregnancy symptoms and the prophylaxis of pre-eclamptic toxaemia unwarranted and unnecessary hormonal treatments? However, I do agree with Dr Meyer-Bahlburgthat further studies are required and would reiterate the closing sentence in my paper: 'This is also seen as an example of clinical observation in generalpractice and demonstrates how the general practitioner can open the eyes of research workers inother disciplines, who can then probe deeper into the possibilities which have been offered to them'.No one has yet sought to probe deeper into the prophylaxis of pred eclamptic toxaemia with natural progesterone, nor into the effect of naturalprogesterone on the intelligence of the offspring.
Yours faithfully KATHARINA DALTON
4 October 1979

References:
Cooke I D, Wiqvist N & Diczfalusy E(1967) Acta endocrinologica 56, 43-55
Johansseo E D B(1971) Acta endocrinologica 68, 779Meyer-Bahlburg H F L, Grisanti G C & Ebrhardt A A(1977) Psychoneuroendocrinology 2, 383"

 

[Mauritio]

This study shows that prenatal estrogen and/or progestin exposure did NOT have the intelligence promoting effects that natural progesterone had. Estrogen treatment made the offspring more group dependant as well.

"Seventy-one offspring of mothers administered combinations of synthetic progestins and estrogen for the maintenance of at-risk pregnancy were evaluated for their performance on IQ and personality tests. Siblings born of untreated pregnancies acted as controls. Hormone-exposed subjects were partitioned into three treatment subgroups dependent on the ratio of progestin to estrogen administered to their mothers during pregnancy. No difference in IQ was obtained among the three treatment subgroups even when scores were adjusted for sibling score and prenatal and perinatal complications. "

- Prenatal exposure to synthetic progestins and estrogens: Effects on human development - Archives of Sexual Behavior

 

[Mauritio]

"Seventeen females and eight males exposed during gestation to synthetic progestins showed a significantly higher potential for physical aggression than their sex-matched unexposed siblings. Exposure to androgen-based compounds appeared to be most closely associated with aggressive responses. There were no differences in verbal aggression or IQ between exposed and unexposed siblings."

- Prenatal exposure to synthetic progestins increases potential for aggression in humans - PubMed

 

[Atman]

Have you looked at the paper from Lynch which allegedly refutes Dalton's findings? What's your opinion on it?

Sci-Hub | Prenatal progesterone II. Its role in the treatment of pre-eclamptic toxaemia and its effect on the offspring's intelligence: a reappraisal | 10.1016/0378-3782(78)90060-9

SUMMARY Dalton’s results concerning the beneficial effect of progesterone supplementation in preventing pre-eclamptic toxaemia [ 161 and in enhancing intellectual potential [17,18] were reappraised. We could find no evidence in the data that progesterone supplementation was any better at preventing preeclamptic toxaemia than treating the disorder symptomatically. Nor could we find any convincing evidence that excess progesterone enhances development at 1 yr of age, academic attainment at 9-10 yr of age, or success in school leaving examinations and improves the chances of continuing further full-time education after leaving school.

 

[Mauritio]

Have you looked at the paper from Lynch which allegedly refutes Dalton's findings? What's your opinion on it?

Sci-Hub | Prenatal progesterone II. Its role in the treatment of pre-eclamptic toxaemia and its effect on the offspring's intelligence: a reappraisal | 10.1016/0378-3782(78)90060-9

SUMMARY Dalton’s results concerning the beneficial effect of progesterone supplementation in preventing pre-eclamptic toxaemia [ 161 and in enhancing intellectual potential [17,18] were reappraised. We could find no evidence in the data that progesterone supplementation was any better at preventing preeclamptic toxaemia than treating the disorder symptomatically. Nor could we find any convincing evidence that excess progesterone enhances development at 1 yr of age, academic attainment at 9-10 yr of age, or success in school leaving examinations and improves the chances of continuing further full-time education after leaving school.

I have looked at their first paper with the same topic. And statistical shenanigans like the paragraph below are above my paygrade, so I have no idea. But thanks for sharing.
I hope somebody else can chime in.


"Because of the small number of subjects, unequal cell sizes and the non-gaussian distribution of some of the data, non-parametric analyses were considered more appropriate than parametric analyses. Individual group comparisonswere made with a 2-tailed Mann-Whitney U-test, and where the P group datawas dichotomized on the basis of progesterone dosage, duration and time ofadministration and compared to the controls, a Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance was used to test for a treatment effect [22]. Where the chisquared (x2 ) test was used Yates’ correction was applied."

 

[Diogo]

So, would Progesterone intake have to be, necessarily, oral or could it simply be applied on the temples?

 

[Peatress]

Marian Diamond's work with rats clearly showed that increased exposure to estrogen during pregnancy reduced the size of the cerebral cortex and the animals' ability to learn, while progesterone increased the brain size and intelligence. Zamenhof's studies suggested that these hormones probably have their effects largely through their actions on glucose, though they also affect the availability of oxygen in the same way, and have a variety of direct effects on brain cells that would operate toward the same end. Ray Peat

 

[Mauritio]

So, would Progesterone intake have to be, necessarily, oral or could it simply be applied on the temples?

No IIRC dalton argued for intramuscular injection especially in the gluteal muscle ,since it supposedly can serve as a reservoir for progesterone, and will lead to a more sustained release of it into the bloodstream, because it contains so much fat.
Another study used intra-vaginal progesterone. I think Progest-E would be the best sicne it is taken up by the lymphatic system.
Not sure about temples, but it probably would maximize brain progesterone...

 

[Mauritio]

Prenatal Progestins might lead to autism.
While progestins can activate the progesterone receptor which is good, they lead to lower levels of progesterone in the blood. Progesterone can be converted to allopregnanolone, while most progestins cant be converted into that. And low levels of allo have been linked to autism.

Prenatal Progestin Exposure Is Associated With Autism Spectrum Disorders

We have previously reported that prenatal progestin exposure induces autism-like behavior in offspring through ERβ (estrogen receptor β) suppression in the brain, indicating that progestin may induce autism spectrum disorders (ASD). In ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Diogo]

No IIRC dalton argued for intramuscular injection especially in the gluteal muscle ,since it supposedly can serve as a reservoir for progesterone, and will lead to a more sustained release of it into the bloodstream, because it contains so much fat.
Another study used intra-vaginal progesterone. I think Progest-E would be the best sicne it is taken up by the lymphatic system.
Not sure about temples, but it probably would maximize brain progesterone...

Marvellous, thanks!

 

[Wolf]

I have looked at their first paper with the same topic. And statistical shenanigans like the paragraph below are above my paygrade, so I have no idea. But thanks for sharing.
I hope somebody else can chime in.


"Because of the small number of subjects, unequal cell sizes and the non-gaussian distribution of some of the data, non-parametric analyses were considered more appropriate than parametric analyses. Individual group comparisonswere made with a 2-tailed Mann-Whitney U-test, and where the P group datawas dichotomized on the basis of progesterone dosage, duration and time ofadministration and compared to the controls, a Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance was used to test for a treatment effect [22]. Where the chisquared (x2 ) test was used Yates’ correction was applied."

If they took the time to perform a large amount of statistical hand waving to refute it then it’s more likely than not worth the effort. Hell, even a 5-10% chance of your child being drastically smarter than their peers and healthier is worth the effort for 9 months.