Wooo's "Progesterone, The Master Hormone Myth"

[lollipop]

Cool thanks. I think the cycling need in women is self-evident, as to not disrupt the normal menstrual cycle. But I have not seen the rationale for cycling in postmenopausal women. Does he say why the 5 days off for them as well?
I am also interested if there is any information on cycling in men - specifically for pregnenolone, progesterone and DHEA. My own experiments show that it may be necessary and some human studied support that idea (at least for DHEA) but it would be nice to hear Peat say something about it.

Great questions. I honestly haven't researched it as I am not at that point. I just remembered reading about it and I had to go find out where as it was bugging me - lol. Maybe someone else knows? Maybe build up in tissue?

 

[whodathunkit]

Again, my *personal* experiences with progesterone...that is, not in a lab and not as a participant in a study...whether cycling it or not, transdermal, vaginal, or oral, large doses or small (I've tried it all ways)...have largely been negative. My repeated failures could be explained by previously unrecognized (that is, unrecognized before this thread) immunosuppressive effects. Others with more gravitas and brains than me, but who are as "agenda-free" as me (e.g., @Tarmander), have noted the same sorts of effects, upthread, but were largely ignored.

I have also heard negative stories from others on this board and countless others not on it. Immunsuppression effects of prog in some individuals could explain A LOT.

And knowing it could have an effect on the immune system may lead some people to take a second look at it with new approaches in mind...less progesterone, for instance, or different times of dosing or with different supplements. Dosage recommendations and success stories can be over-exuberant, and IMO/IME THAT is what leads people down the path of abandoning progesterone. It sure did me, for a long time. Great anecdotes from some people, fabulous research to back it up, but in me...yikes. And while I currently olerate progesterone better than I did in the past, I still recently had some big problems with it. I did some things wrong but was going off some good anecdotes here on the board. Learning about potential immunosuppression has helped me understand it better and is going to have a helpful effect on my progesterone experiments, going forward.

There really does seem to be a clear (and very disappointing coming from some parties, although unsurprising from others) inclination at this point to discourage anything other than bright, shiny, happy words about progesterone. But it's clear that for various reasons it doesn't do everyone the same amount of good. And it is not necessarily the fault of the user that it doesn't work...that is, any implication that the user somehow isn't doing it right, or their body chemistry is "wrong" because of PUFA or thyroid status or whatever, and they aren't trying hard enough to correct their bad biochemical profile, is not only incorrect but is in fact insulting. It's victim-blaming. Uncool.

Particularly I find the negativity directed towards @PakPik jawdropping. If anyone cares to read her posting history they'll find she's been a strong advocate for progesterone and has given a lot of sound advice to a lot of us who have had troubles with it in the past. She's the one that inspired me to actually try it again last year, in fact. Before her I had pretty much written it off as a no-go for me, no matter what good Peat had to say. I thought I was an outlier and it just wasn't for me. But thanks to her I tried it again and experienced some benefits, although they haven't been consistent and I haven't found the right usage pattern for me yet.

I hate it when forums devolve into this kind of pissing match. I hope it STOPS, although I suspect the people who were contributing substantially to the discussion on the immune suppression side have stopped posting and there's not much more to be argued. I hope not, but I probably will after this, too, even though I'm not one of the brighter lights on the tree. I most fervently hope the fact that PakPik's avatar is gone off her profile doesn't mean she's left.

So is there any practical way to know if it is "immune suppression" or "immune strength" that is causing a lack of cold symptoms? For example, if a person doesn't experience any cold symptoms (or other illnesses symptoms) for more than a year or two?

What happens with a lot of CFS patients (using them as example because I have personal experience with it and we often have compromised immune systems) is that as their metabolisms become increasingly compromised, they get sick a lot. Instead of being able to automatically fight off pathogens without exhibiting symptoms, as optimally healthy people usually are, as their immune "terrain" becomes more dysfunctional they "catch" a lot of things. They get sick. But at this stage the inflammatory/immune response is able to rally and they get symptoms of fighting it off: fever, various discharges, what have you. So they wind up being sick multiple times per year for a while, but they recover.

However, over time, as health/metabolism deteriorates, they become unable to mount an immune response and they stop exhibiting symptoms to infection. It seems like they're not getting flus or colds any more when in fact they're just becoming more unhealthy. They just never heal completely but their functioning is so low their bodies can't exhibit the usual symptoms to common transient viral infections.

So ironically, symptoms of being optimally healthy and being severely immune-compromised can be the same in some respects.

I've actually experienced this phenomenon myself. And I'm now sure that immune dysfunction plays a part in my problems with progesterone. IMO forewarned is forearmed and this knowledge will help me going forward. It's already given me a clue that I need to pay some more targeted attention to my immune system, that I'm not as "done" with that area of my health as I thought I was.

Of course, some people will say that talking about immune suppressive effects will unfairly scare people off progesterone. And this may be the case. But NOT talking about them may leave others confused and in the dark and bewildered and possibly despondent about why such a beneficial substance repeatedly doesn't work for them.

And I'd say to the people who think it's "wrong" to discuss progesterone in these terms or to put "labels" like immune suppressive on it: according to all the arguments I've read in this thread, it's not at all incorrect to talk about it in these terms. It's just more information about a complex topic. Who are YOU to think you should have control over what people do with information that should be at their disposal?

If they're smart enough they'll find their way through it. And if they're not that smart, semantics and labels probably aren't going to make much difference.

Either way, it's not up to you to be gatekeeper of labels like immunosuppression, any more than it's up to the scribblepad lady to be the gatekeeper against labeling progesterone as unequivocally good.

 

[HDD]

I'm post menopausal and I do not cycle or worry about taking a break from supplementing progesterone. I've never had any bad effects except initially I had a headache which was due to the increase in metabolism.

POSTMENOPAUSAL: Some women continue the cyclic use of progesterone ater menopause, because the pituitary gland and brain may continue to cycle long after menstruation has stopped, and progesterone is an important regulator of pituitary and brain function. The cycling pituitary affects the adrenal glands and other organs, and progesterone tends to protect against the unopposed actions of prolactin, cortisol, and adrenal androgenic hormones. Progesterone's effects on the pituitary apparently contribute to its protective effect against osteoporosis, hypertension, hirsutism, etc. But some women prefer to use progesterone without interruption after the menopause, for its protective antistress effects. Slender people usually find that two or three drops are enough, but this amount may be repeated once or twice as needed to relieve symptoms. Adequate protein in the diet and good thyroid function help the body to produce its own progesterone; even if the ovaries have been removed, the adrenal glands and brain continue to produce progesterone.
Progesterone Summaries - Progesterone Deceptions - Progesterone Supplementation - Dosage of Progesterone

 

[Drareg]

Now this thread is all about balance and context,the alarmist initial posts are over and we will now understand that getting hit by a car will cause an "immune response" ,however getting hit very hard by a car could be an "immunosuppressant".

Any sign of those emails from Peat,the guy who wrote a book on progesterone............

 

[Giraffe]

The statistics and possible mechanics for increased infection were already laid out in my previous post -- Wooo's "Progesterone, The Master Hormone Myth"

I will link the paper again -- Pregnancy and pregnancy-associated hormones alter immune responses and disease pathogenesis

This is another paper showing the same observations, with a clear and significant increase in infection risk, with clearly measured immune system shifts -- Pregnancy and Infection

These papers argue on base of the premise that inflammation is necessary to fight off certain infections. Whether or not inflammation is necessary for healing was briefly discussed earlier in this thread. Among the most vulnerable seem to be pregnant women in their third trimester. I think that alone the reduced lung capacity could explain a lot.

 

[tara]

But I have not seen the rationale for cycling in postmenopausal women.

I think there is also another reason for cycling that I heard Peat refer to in one of the Herb Drs Precautionary Principles interviews - something like:
If you supplement with high levels of progesterone, the liver adapts by becoming more efficient at removing it. So after a while the supplement has less effect.
If you stop supplementing for a while, you restore your sensitivity to it, and can benefit from the supplement again. I think he said 2 weeks off would do it. Not sure if 5 days off is enough, but maybe it would be? I'm guessing, but maybe maybe it is less of an issue with small doses than large?

 

[haidut]

I think there is also another reason for cycling that I heard Peat refer to in one of the Herb Drs Precautionary Principles interviews - something like:
If you supplement with high levels of progesterone, the liver adapts by becoming more efficient at removing it. So after a while the supplement has less effect.
If you stop supplementing for a while, you restore your sensitivity to it, and can benefit from the supplement again. I think he said 2 weeks off would do it. Not sure if 5 days off is enough, but maybe it would be? I'm guessing, but maybe maybe it is less of an issue with small doses than large?

This explains why virtually all steroids should be cycled, for both men and women. It would explain why people get weaker results from Pansterone, andorsterone, etc after the 2nd week. In his last few emails to people Peat has been recommending taking steroids like pregnenolone once a week, which may also serve the purpose of maintaining the sensitivity without cycling. Actually it is a type of cycling (1 on, 6 off) but with higher doses on the on day.

 

[Giraffe]

you have no idea the level of depth and curiosity included in the email to peat - we had quite an enjoyable back and forth that came from genuine enquiry. when i said on here his reply was predicatble, this in no way implies negativity.

.....

Can we see?

 

[Ella]

The following is from Mary Shomon interview.
An Interview With Dr. Raymond Peat: A Renowned Nutritional Counselor Offers His Thoughts About Thyroid Disease / Thyroid Disease Information Source - Articles/FAQs

The blood tests can be useful to demonstrate to physicians what the problem is, but I don't think they are necessary. There is evidence that having 50 or 100 times as much progesterone as estrogen is desirable, but I don't advocate "progesterone replacement therapy" in the way it's often understood. Progesterone can instantly activate the thyroid and the ovaries, so it shouldn't be necessary to keep using it month after month. If progesterone is used consistently, it can postpone menopause for many years.

Cholesterol is converted to pregnenolone and progesterone by the ovaries, the adrenals, and the brain, if there is enough thyroid hormone and vitamin A, and if there are no interfering factors, such as too much carotene or unsaturated fatty acids. Progesterone deficiency is an indicator that something is wrong, and using a supplement of progesterone without investigating the nature of the problem isn't a good approach. The normal time to use a progesterone supplement is during the "latter half" of the cycle, the two weeks from ovulation until menstruation. If it is being used to treat epilepsy, cancer, emphysema, migraine or arthritis, or something else so serious that menstrual regularity isn't a concern, then it can be used at any time. If progesterone is used consistently, it can postpone menopause for many years.

 

[Waffler]

This explains why virtually all steroids should be cycled, for both men and women. It would explain why people get weaker results from Pansterone, andorsterone, etc after the 2nd week. In his last few emails to people Peat has been recommending taking steroids like pregnenolone once a week, which may also serve the purpose of maintaining the sensitivity without cycling. Actually it is a type of cycling (1 on, 6 off) but with higher doses on the on day.

Is preg + DHEA something that you can take once a week or do you risk conversion with high dose DHEA?

 

[InChristAlone]

The following is from Mary Shomon interview.
An Interview With Dr. Raymond Peat: A Renowned Nutritional Counselor Offers His Thoughts About Thyroid Disease / Thyroid Disease Information Source - Articles/FAQs

The blood tests can be useful to demonstrate to physicians what the problem is, but I don't think they are necessary. There is evidence that having 50 or 100 times as much progesterone as estrogen is desirable, but I don't advocate "progesterone replacement therapy" in the way it's often understood. Progesterone can instantly activate the thyroid and the ovaries, so it shouldn't be necessary to keep using it month after month. If progesterone is used consistently, it can postpone menopause for many years.

Cholesterol is converted to pregnenolone and progesterone by the ovaries, the adrenals, and the brain, if there is enough thyroid hormone and vitamin A, and if there are no interfering factors, such as too much carotene or unsaturated fatty acids. Progesterone deficiency is an indicator that something is wrong, and using a supplement of progesterone without investigating the nature of the problem isn't a good approach. The normal time to use a progesterone supplement is during the "latter half" of the cycle, the two weeks from ovulation until menstruation. If it is being used to treat epilepsy, cancer, emphysema, migraine or arthritis, or something else so serious that menstrual regularity isn't a concern, then it can be used at any time. If progesterone is used consistently, it can postpone menopause for many years.

I personally would rather use progesterone as anti-stress hormones rather than go on thyroid replacement as Peat has recommended I do.

 

[haidut]

Is preg + DHEA something that you can take once a week or do you risk conversion with high dose DHEA?

I would not take a single higher dose due to the DHEA. But maybe a lower dose like 5mg/5mg daily instead of the same dose x 3 daily would be less likely to trigger the desensitization.

 

[acrylic]

This explains why virtually all steroids should be cycled, for both men and women. It would explain why people get weaker results from Pansterone, andorsterone, etc after the 2nd week. In his last few emails to people Peat has been recommending taking steroids like pregnenolone once a week, which may also serve the purpose of maintaining the sensitivity without cycling. Actually it is a type of cycling (1 on, 6 off) but with higher doses on the on day.

Interesting. So it's not due to down-regulation but due to insensitivity?

 

[Such_Saturation]

.....

+2

 

[haidut]

Interesting. So it's not due to down-regulation but due to insensitivity?

Probably no downregulation from lower doses pregnenolone/DHEA but more downstream steroids like DHT or androsterone would have that effect.

 

[tara]

+2

+3

Here's good too:
Ray Peat Email Advice Depository

 

[papaya]

This explains why virtually all steroids should be cycled, for both men and women. It would explain why people get weaker results from Pansterone, andorsterone, etc after the 2nd week. In his last few emails to people Peat has been recommending taking steroids like pregnenolone once a week, which may also serve the purpose of maintaining the sensitivity without cycling. Actually it is a type of cycling (1 on, 6 off) but with higher doses on the on day.

do you think maybe we should also be cycling thyroid?

 

[haidut]

do you think maybe we should also be cycling thyroid?

If a T4 is present in the thyroid you are taking, possibly yes, as it is really hard to nail a dose which neither builds up too much T4 in tissues nor leaves you hypothyroid. From that point of view, dosing T3 is probably simpler. You use small doses, they get used up and then you use more when needed. No need to calculate build up and half lives that span 2 weeks.

 

[aguilaroja]

place holder

 

[whodathunkit]

Can we see?

+2

+3

I think it's pretty clear that those who were presenting a view other than the happy, shiny, relatively healthy male pure-Peat view on progesterone have gone from this thread. I don't blame them...I would have gone, too. So even calls for "+300" to show an email exchange between Hitoshi and Peat are most likely going to go unanswered.

And by "relatively healthy male pure-Peat view" I mean that the way Ray theorizes things should work don't usually seem to, except in relatively healthy people, particularly relatively healthy males. People with complex problems really, really REALLY have to work at it to make Peat's theories work for them...if they ever work. I say this as one who has been reading and trying Peat for almost 10 years, and who still believes in his ideas even if I am utterly disgusted by the needlessly hysterical negative turn this thread took when the discussion began (and which is the reason we'll probably never see Hitoshi's email exchange with Peat).

It's a shame because exploring the reasons that things don't work for a majority of people exactly the way Peat theorizes they should is a good thing. It may scare off some people, but it's going to help others find their way. Dogmatic Peat followers shouting people into silence who don't toe the pure Peat line is one of the reasons people tend to dismiss Ray and his ideas. It's not just that Peat goes against the mainstream...it's the behavior of some of his devotees. Seen it on several different forums, and I used to hold that view, so I know.

Everything I've ever read by Ray leads me to believe he's about tolerance and letting people find their own way. That's what I saw this thread as being about...showing a valid reason why things might not work ideally for some people. Instead it turned into an ugly shouting match that I think drove some good posters away. Shame, shame, shame.

Just sayin' to present an alternative view as to why we may never get an answer to the +1's, +2's, and +3's who are calling to see the email exchange between Hitoshi and Peat. As veteran of many internet forums, I'm sure many will see Hitoshi's lack of response as proof that it doesn't exist. But my suspicion is that Hitoshi probably decided life's too short to engage here any longer.

This will probably get moderated but I'm posting anyway because IMO some people need to consider this. If they don't, it will just keep happening.

Peace out.