The Masculinizing Effects Of Estrogen

[nullredvector]

Elevated levels of estradiol have anti-depressive effects (Moses-Kolko, 2009; Estrada-Camarena, 2010), presumably due to its serotonin (5-HT) enhancing property (e.g., Bethea et al., 2002)."

Whats that all about @haidut?

Is that a brief stimulation of cortisol by serotonin would create euphoria but then inevitably make depression worse in the long term?

 

[lvysaur]

Fetal Death in Mice Lacking 5a-Reductase Type 1 Caused by Estrogen Excess

The results suggest that in the deficient mice, a failure to 5a-reduce androgens leads to their conversion to estrogens, which in turn causes fetal death in midgestation. These findings indicate that the 5a-reduction of androgens in female animals plays a crucial role in guarding against estrogen toxicity during pregnancy.

Low thyroid and high estrogen, resulting from various things such as high PUFA, low nutrient diet, interfere with progesterone synthesis, and the adrenals compensate, producing androgens instead. Pregnenolone helps to lower adrenal androgens, progesterone can be used topically on some hairy areas. -- Ray Peat

In other words, high estrogen leads to combative high androgens in many people. Women with PCOS have high estrogen, as do balding men.

 

[haidut]

Elevated levels of estradiol have anti-depressive effects (Moses-Kolko, 2009; Estrada-Camarena, 2010), presumably due to its serotonin (5-HT) enhancing property (e.g., Bethea et al., 2002)."

Whats that all about @haidut?

Is that a brief stimulation of cortisol by serotonin would create euphoria but then inevitably make depression worse in the long term?

Aside from the confirmation that estrogen raises serotonin, whatever "beneficial" effects are seen are probably through the cholinergic mechanisms of estrogen, which tend to excite in the short run and fry your brain in the long. It is hard to distinguish between anti-depressiveness and mania in animals. I would have measured the cortisol levels but the scientists clearly did not think it is was prudent. Regardless of these effects, I would not touch anything that increases serotonin. Big Pharma is going crazy lately with inhibitors of serotonin synthesis as treatment for various fibrotic conditions and obesity, diabetes, etc. When asked about how can they promote opposing drugs like SSRI and serotonin inhibitors as both being beneficial, pharma executives declined to comment...

 

[paymanz]

i will not be surprised if it turn out that lot of big bodybuilders with huge muscles got their gains from estrogen effects!the bigger they are the puffier their muscle looks and even when their at lowest fat percentage!its like their muscles are filled with water.

 

[Drareg]

i will not be surprised if it turn out that lot of big bodybuilders with huge muscles got their gains from estrogen effects!the bigger they are the puffier their muscle looks and even when their at lowest fat percentage!its like their muscles are filled with water.

You have an interesting insight here.
Are you thinking when they stop the cycle? Do they stop the aromatase inhibitors at this point also?

 

[paymanz]

yeah if they use aromatase inhibitors my point maybe not correct!

but those types of gains i observed in myself even though i wasnt an stroid user.its more about the type of training , that makes edema,too.lactic acid play a role probably.

i think with aromatase inhibitors it is possible to have high tissue estrogen content,but not sure.otherwise what can be explanation for that puffy muscles a high level bodybuilder like ronnie coleman has?your correct they for sure use AIs..

maybe testosterone and dht in high amounts can cause this too?!

 

[snowboard111]

GH in high amount cause bubble gut... That's why they seems to have a belly with abs.
These guys are walking lab so how to really know all the things they take

 

[Drareg]

yeah if they use aromatase inhibitors my point maybe not correct!

but those types of gains i observed in myself even though i wasnt an stroid user.its more about the type of training , that makes edema,too.lactic acid play a role probably.

i think with aromatase inhibitors it is possible to have high tissue estrogen content,but not sure.otherwise what can be explanation for that puffy muscles a high level bodybuilder like ronnie coleman has?your correct they for sure use AIs..

maybe testosterone and dht in high amounts can cause this too?!

I'm guessing they don't bother with DHT because of the hair effect propaganda? In saying that they use testosterone with aromatase inhibitor ,the hope is to convert it to DHT?
If this is the case, they use so much testosterone it's entirely plausible it's being stored somewhere so not all is instantly converted so when aromatase inhibitors stop testosterone comes out of storage and may well go down the estrogen pathway causing said issues.
Some of the more successful users are rumoured to use T3 year round ,low does of 25 micro g.

It would be fascinating for someone prePeat to give an example of a cycle log and then their new log after studying Peat.

 

[haidut]

i will not be surprised if it turn out that lot of big bodybuilders with huge muscles got their gains from estrogen effects!the bigger they are the puffier their muscle looks and even when their at lowest fat percentage!its like their muscles are filled with water.

You are more right than you think! Estrogenic phytosteroids from things like Tribulus and Horny Goat Weed have been shown to have potent anabolic action but it is precisely through this estrogenic mechamism and the resulting water retention that this muscle "growth" occurs. Initially, everybody thought that these chemicals were raising testosterone but when all the studies failed to find change the use just contiues as it seemed to "just work". Only recently have scientists realized that the whole idea of anabolism has to be taken with a grain of salt and that estrogen is just as anabolic as testosterone albeit through a different mechanism. Testosterone stimulates muscle growth through improved protein utilization and activation of mTOR, among many other pathways. Estrogen can trigger an equal or even greater muscle growth through water uptake, which triggers cell division and growth. If you look at bodybuilders closely, you will see that most of them have varicose veins. While taking aromatizable steroids plays a role, the estrogenicity of strenuous workout and the elevated GH from too much protein and carb cutting are the real reason. The cortisol peaks reached during training also play a role.
Here some things to consider on water retention and anabolism:
Effect of hydration state on resistance exercise-induced endocrine markers of anabolism, catabolism, and metabolism. - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.eje-online.org/content/145/4/445.full.pdf

 

[Drareg]

You are more right than you think! Estrogenic phytosteroids from things like Tribulus and Horny Goat Weed have been shown to have potent anabolic action but it is precisely through this estrogenic mechamism and the resulting water retention that this muscle "growth" occurs. Initially, everybody thought that these chemicals were raising testosterone but when all the studies failed to find change the use just contiues as it seemed to "just work". Only recently have scientists realized that the whole idea of anabolism has to be taken with a grain of salt and that estrogen is just as anabolic as testosterone albeit through a different mechanism. Testosterone stimulates muscle growth through improved protein utilization and activation of mTOR, among many other pathways. Estrogen can trigger an equal or even greater muscle growth through water uptake, which triggers cell division and growth. If you look at bodybuilders closely, you will see that most of them have varicose veins. While taking aromatizable steroids plays a role, the estrogenicity of strenuous workout and the elevated GH from too much protein and carb cutting are the real reason. The cortisol peaks reached during training also play a role.
Here some things to consider on water retention and anabolism:
Effect of hydration state on resistance exercise-induced endocrine markers of anabolism, catabolism, and metabolism. - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.eje-online.org/content/145/4/445.full.pdf

Sounds like a car crash scenario down the line, pop culture has gone nuts for what is called fitness and nutrition,it should be named self harm and poisoning. Naive Steroid use is rampant.
The way a 9-5 type persona is training 5-6 nights per week is going to do some damage in their 20's that even finding Peats ideas in their late 30's will not be enough to reverse damage done possibly.

I'm guessing the chronic diseases/mystery ailments are going to arrive much sooner for those born after 1980.

 

[haidut]

Sounds like a car crash scenario down the line, pop culture has gone nuts for what is called fitness and nutrition,it should be named self harm and poisoning. Naive Steroid use is rampant.
The way a 9-5 type persona is training 5-6 nights per week is going to do some damage in their 20's that even finding Peats ideas in their late 30's will not be enough to reverse damage done possibly.

I'm guessing the chronic diseases/mystery ailments are going to arrive much sooner for those born after 1980.

Well, it's already happened and it started in the late 1970s. The age-specific mortality risk from all-cause has increased for all age groups under 70 years.
I would not surprised if we reach a point where a person in their 40s has higher risk of dying than a person in their 80s. It has been suggested recently by some people trying to get life insurance. Some people in their 40s and 50s got quotes that were about twice higher than their parents' who are in their 80s. It made the news in Florida, which may be due to the fact that (no offense) the lifestyle of middle aged people in Florida is probably a lot riskier than older folks'. But it still telling of how every generation after the WW II has become more fragile on average. You'd be amazed at how many statisticians are employed at places like NBER and DoL to hide that fact. But the much simpler explanation of lacking economic growth (especially Western World) is just this - progressively sicker and dumber population cannot generate real growth.

 

[allblues]

Well, it's already happened and it started in the late 1970s. The age-specific mortality risk from all-cause has increased for all age groups under 70 years.
I would not surprised if we reach a point where a person in their 40s has higher risk of dying than a person in their 80s. It has been suggested recently by some people trying to get life insurance. Some people in their 40s and 50s got quotes that were about twice higher than their parents' who are in their 80s. It made the news in Florida, which may be due to the fact that (no offense) the lifestyle of middle aged people in Florida is probably a lot riskier than older folks'. But it still telling of how every generation after the WW II has become more fragile on average. You'd be amazed at how many statisticians are employed at places like NBER and DoL to hide that fact. But the much simpler explanation of lacking economic growth (especially Western World) is just this - progressively sicker and dumber population cannot generate real growth.

Man, you just struck a chord with me. I've been thinking about changing energetic status of people with the changing food/nutritional environment these past 80 or more (especially last 40?) years. The people being the subunits of what might be thought of as the greater structure that we collectively make up, the society/culture.
And how, as the energetic status/stability of the people change, how that in turn changes society.
We really need a new field of science here.. Nutritional sociology?

 

[paymanz]

now you talk about wider context than estrogen masculinizing effect and bodybulding stuff... what cause that higher all cause mortality risk in younger population? pufa-estrogen?

 

[lvysaur]

I'm guessing the chronic diseases/mystery ailments are going to arrive much sooner for those born after 1980.

They're already going bald before 25 and reaching puberty before 10, so it's already happened.

 

[Drareg]

Well, it's already happened and it started in the late 1970s. The age-specific mortality risk from all-cause has increased for all age groups under 70 years.
I would not surprised if we reach a point where a person in their 40s has higher risk of dying than a person in their 80s. It has been suggested recently by some people trying to get life insurance. Some people in their 40s and 50s got quotes that were about twice higher than their parents' who are in their 80s. It made the news in Florida, which may be due to the fact that (no offense) the lifestyle of middle aged people in Florida is probably a lot riskier than older folks'. But it still telling of how every generation after the WW II has become more fragile on average. You'd be amazed at how many statisticians are employed at places like NBER and DoL to hide that fact. But the much simpler explanation of lacking economic growth (especially Western World) is just this - progressively sicker and dumber population cannot generate real growth.

It's well known amongst many in sociology and politics, they won't change because they are immune to change,lack of energy. It will collapse and then change will begin from the carange,this is the norm.

The shame is its possible up to the next 20 years to start the change and make a difference, beyond this point and we will have people with Alzheimer's out on the streets because the medical establishment will be overrun ,or they will be tranquilized with potent incoherent pharmaceuticals and left in rundown homes,the latter being the most profitable option therefore the most likely scenario.

 

[Drareg]

They're already going bald before 25 and reaching puberty before 10, so it's already happened.

Many people getting grey hair very young on top of that, many females with grey hair at this age.
This could be hair products possibly but they used some terrible substances for hairstyling in the past.

 

[lvysaur]

Man, you just struck a chord with me. I've been thinking about changing energetic status of people with the changing food/nutritional environment these past 80 or more (especially last 40?) years. The people being the subunits of what might be thought of as the greater structure that we collectively make up, the society/culture.
And how, as the energetic status/stability of the people change, how that in turn changes society.
We really need a new field of science here.. Nutritional sociology?

It'll never catch on, because nutrition doesn't affect behavior (sarcasm)

I think societies may have a consciousness of their own, which individuals that make up the society cannot perceive. However, I think that in this context, a society only exists if it is made up of individuals that seek to better the society, sometimes at their own expense.

Cells and tissues in an organism work together nearly seamlessly for a greater good, and the individual cells that do the good probably aren't consciously aware of the effects of their actions. Their good nature is physiological, not mental and reasoned out.

Many people getting grey hair very young on top of that, many females with grey hair at this age.

I've seen girls younger than me with less hair.

 

[haidut]

Man, you just struck a chord with me. I've been thinking about changing energetic status of people with the changing food/nutritional environment these past 80 or more (especially last 40?) years. The people being the subunits of what might be thought of as the greater structure that we collectively make up, the society/culture.
And how, as the energetic status/stability of the people change, how that in turn changes society.
We really need a new field of science here.. Nutritional sociology?

That's what Peat said - nutrition should be as important and respected scientific discipline as astrophysics, quantum physics, computational finance, etc. Once we realize that food and environment truly make us who we are, there can be no more important endeavors than optimizing both. However, there is no financial/social impetus in either I am afraid. The pro-intelligence effects of LSD are quite well known and were first confirmed by the military. It was the military who actively campaigned against it and produced some of the most shocking (and probably fake) case studies on it to convince society that it is a dangerous drug. But, as one general said when asked about the relative harmlessness of LSD even in the military's studies, the country "needs soldiers, not Einsteins. Einsteins won't charge the hill when I tell them to".

 

[Lilac]

I was watching a circa 1979 movie and was struck by the thick, lustrous hair on the kids in the film. I had been doing a little amateur study looking for good hair on the streets recently. The movie focused me even more. On the crowded city streets today, I didn't spot one impressive head of hair. Even women with long hair today have stringy, not-abundant hair.

 

[postman]

"... In the presence of high levels of progesterone, testosterone-actions are impaired, because progesterone has a high affinity for the enzyme 5α-reductase, which is responsible for the conversion of testosterone into the physiologically more active dihydrotestosterone (Wright et al., 1983). If progesterone levels are reduced, more testosterone can be converted to dihydrotestosterone. Thus, any hormonal contraceptives, irrespective of the progestin component, may facilitate testosterone actions on the brain, thereby masculinizing brain structure, function and behavior.

This is silly reasoning. All this could suggest is that progesterone is more antagonistic to testosterone or DHT than estrogen is, not that estrogen itself increases DHT. The reasonable thing to do if you want to increase testosterone and DHT would then be to lower progesterone, not raise estrogen just because it lowers progesterone. You would want both low if you want higher testosterone, both those hormones are antagonistic to testosterone, in most cases.

Alternatively, it has been argued that some masculinizing effects are promoted by estrogen receptors after testosterone has been locally converted to estrogen via the enzyme aromatase (Roselli, 2007). Consequently, estrogenic actions of ethinylestradiol may contribute to possible masculinizing effects of hormonal contraceptives on the brain."

What roselli study are they referring to? And what masculinizing effects are they talking about exactly?

"...Possible physiological mechanisms underlying both positive and negative mood swings in oral contraceptive users are manifold and at the moment speculative. Elevated levels of estradiol have anti-depressive effects (Moses-Kolko, 2009; Estrada-Camarena, 2010), presumably due to its serotonin (5-HT) enhancing property (e.g., Bethea et al., 2002)."

How is this relevant to anything?

Hormonal contraceptives masculinize brain activation patterns in the absence of behavioral changes in two numerical tasks. - PubMed - NCBI

"...Our findings suggest that OC-users resemble follicular women in their behavioral performance, but show male-like brain activation patterns during both tasks. Analysis of brain-behavior relationships suggests that OC-users differ from naturally cycling women in the way they recruit their neural resources to deal with challenges of the tasks. We conclude that OCs, which are used by 100 million women worldwide, may have profound effects on cognition that have not been recognized so far."

All of this is extremely reductionistic, abstract, and flies in the face of tons of contradictory evidence. It's nonsensical to call estrogen a male hormone. Maybe 10% of its effect is masculinizng, but the vast majority of its effect is feminizing.