Estrogen Blockers

[Guest guest]

Ken O'Neill asks:

My question to this group, then, concerns the chrysins, I3Cs, DIMs - are any

of them worth the dollars? does muira puama have benefits in freeing bound

test? who can be believed? is there science to be found somewhere?

Ken:

I work with a number of antiaging doctors and have an independent

laboratory. Most of the information that is promoted in this field is highly

extrapolated. For example, I wrote over two years ago why chrysin wouldn't

work (poor absorption, lack of enzyme specificity, uncertainty if it could

cross blood brain barrier). Various supplement companies have claimed to

address the absorption issue by combining chrysin with piperine and/or LPC.

This still doesn't address the issue of chrysin binding to other enzymes

(which you may not want it to do - depending of course on the enzyme). In my

interviews with Walle (major chrysin researcher who has published

data on humans and cells metabolizing chrysin) he claims it won't work.

Outside of Walle's lab, other researchers have shown that when chrysin is

ingested with prohormones you still get significant increases in estradiol

and estrone.

I wrote about the above most recently in the edited book Encyclopedia of

Sports Supplements. The book was given away for free at the Arnold Classic

and the NSCA Sport Specific Conference I am not sure where else it will be

available for free.

I don't think that trying to free up testosterone is a useful approach. You

get very little return for your efforts.

If you want general rules on who can be believed the best advice I can offer

is what my coach told me when I was a young weightlifter. I asked him " How

much protein I should eat? " He replied: " Find out for yourself. " At first I

thought he was a hard ass. However, I learned how to use Index Medicus,

General Science Citation Index, and other paper based indexes (computers

were not readily available then) to find out the studies being done. Today

this is much easier because you can access Medline or some other medical

database run the searches yourself and post questions on ST or other lists.

Regards,

Tom

Incledon, MS, RD, LD/LN, NSCA-CPT, CSCS

Human Performance Specialists, Inc.

619 NW 90th Terrace

Plantation, FL 33324

Next seminar on: May 4 - Los Altos

Find out details at: http://www.thomasincledon.com

[Guest guest]

As an offshoot of this discussion line, does anyone have a study/article(s)

on testostrone vs estrogen in female athletes?

I am speaking to the effects of estrogen on female performance, the effect

of " the pill " on estrogen and testostrone levels, etc. I am aware of the

bone density benefit attributed to the estrogen effect of the pill, but at

what cost in other phisiological areas? Drug Testing sets a TE ratio of 6 :

1 which I dont think the average woman would ever be in danger of reaching.

But how high can a female elevate her testostrone level? I know that it

hits a high in the morning and can be elevated through high intensity

training. But what are optimal levels both in training and more importantly

in competition?

And what is the optimal timing regarding recovery before competition, from

work to elevate the testostrone level prior to an event?

Dave Kerin

Middlebury VT

estrogen blockers

Rosemary Vernon writes:

>As far as the estrogen to testosterone ratio, you will need to get

>this under control to solve your problems. Arimidex is the best

>anti-aromatase, but it's expensive (We have sent off an order to

>Canada because you can save $80 on every order of 30 tablets.

Some time ago Rosemary referred me to what's probably the consumate online

article concerning testosterone replacement therapy, one available on The

Life Extension Foundation site. That article opened a can of worms that I'd

like to pass on in the hope of catalyzing discussion, perhaps even finding

some answers with substantive scientific basis. Testosterone replacement

therapy brings up the same issues younger athletes face when supplementing

with synthetif forms of test: aromatization to estrodiol, and an over

abundance of bound test (in relation to free test).

Life Extension Foundation prudently offers a variety of trt strategies,

differences based on the relative free and bound test levels, estrodiol

levels, PSAs, LH, perhaps other factors I don't remember at the moment.

For those with subnormal levels of test, test replacement therapies are

recommended - preferably natural test (the unpatentable variety), although

both depotest cypionate and propionate versions are also widely used.

For those doing such therapy, it's also recommended that estrogen levels be

watched. LEF foundation does not recommend arimindex except for extreme

cases not responding to its most highly valued choice: chrysin. But not

ordinary chrysin - instead chrysin augmented with piperine, an extract of

the Indic peppercorn plant. LEF reports that their 'studies' indicate great

success with chrysin/piperine as an anti-estrogen blocker; it's sold in

their Super Mira Forte blend, including muira puama, a traditional

'aphrodisian said to work by unbinding bound testosterone, rendering it

freed and liberated.

OSMO offers a different approach, one using something called LPC with

chrysin. LPC is a lecithin derivative. They claim LCP permits smooth uptake

of chrysin through the gut, while the piperine pathway facilitates uptake by

percipitating an allergic reaction.

Not to be outdone, two other pathways are available - mostly, albeit not

exclusively, sold as a preventative to breast cancer.They are

diindolylmethane (DIM, although not an intentional metaphor in this usage)

and its precursor, Indole-3-carbinol. Both are said to be safe, both are

said to reduce estrogen. Arnold says I3C is highly succeptible to

breakdown due to acid in the gut; some manufacturers package both chemicals

along with betaine HCl to facilitate absorption. A paradox!

Some claim chrysin just doesn't work at all. For example, AST Sports Science

adamantly claims chrysin doesn't work; despite repeated requests for

justification to that position, AST seems unable to back up an apparent ad

homien. It should be added that neither chrysin nor any other anti-estrogen

is present in AST's repetroire of prohormones - and the issue of

anti-estrogens is simply not addressed. So, too, for most of the pact of

prohormone packagers.

Having surveyed what materials are available, I can only think of Francois

Rabelias' words in his Gargantua - in speaking of a particular person, it is

said that trying to get a straight answer out of him is like trying to

squeeze

blood from a stone.

My question to this group, then, concerns the chrysins, I3Cs, DIMs - are any

of them worth the dollars? does muira puama have benefits in freeing bound

test? who can be believed? is there science to be found somewhere?

ken o'neill

tucson, arizona

Modify or cancel your subscription here:

mygroups

Don't forget to sign all letters with full name and city of residence if you

wish them to be published!

[Guest guest]

As an offshoot of this discussion line, does anyone have a study/article(s)

on testostrone vs estrogen in female athletes?

I am speaking to the effects of estrogen on female performance, the effect

of " the pill " on estrogen and testostrone levels, etc. I am aware of the

bone density benefit attributed to the estrogen effect of the pill, but at

what cost in other phisiological areas? Drug Testing sets a TE ratio of 6 :

1 which I dont think the average woman would ever be in danger of reaching.

But how high can a female elevate her testostrone level? I know that it

hits a high in the morning and can be elevated through high intensity

training. But what are optimal levels both in training and more importantly

in competition?

And what is the optimal timing regarding recovery before competition, from

work to elevate the testostrone level prior to an event?

Dave Kerin

Middlebury VT

estrogen blockers

Rosemary Vernon writes:

>As far as the estrogen to testosterone ratio, you will need to get

>this under control to solve your problems. Arimidex is the best

>anti-aromatase, but it's expensive (We have sent off an order to

>Canada because you can save $80 on every order of 30 tablets.

Some time ago Rosemary referred me to what's probably the consumate online

article concerning testosterone replacement therapy, one available on The

Life Extension Foundation site. That article opened a can of worms that I'd

like to pass on in the hope of catalyzing discussion, perhaps even finding

some answers with substantive scientific basis. Testosterone replacement

therapy brings up the same issues younger athletes face when supplementing

with synthetif forms of test: aromatization to estrodiol, and an over

abundance of bound test (in relation to free test).

Life Extension Foundation prudently offers a variety of trt strategies,

differences based on the relative free and bound test levels, estrodiol

levels, PSAs, LH, perhaps other factors I don't remember at the moment.

For those with subnormal levels of test, test replacement therapies are

recommended - preferably natural test (the unpatentable variety), although

both depotest cypionate and propionate versions are also widely used.

For those doing such therapy, it's also recommended that estrogen levels be

watched. LEF foundation does not recommend arimindex except for extreme

cases not responding to its most highly valued choice: chrysin. But not

ordinary chrysin - instead chrysin augmented with piperine, an extract of

the Indic peppercorn plant. LEF reports that their 'studies' indicate great

success with chrysin/piperine as an anti-estrogen blocker; it's sold in

their Super Mira Forte blend, including muira puama, a traditional

'aphrodisian said to work by unbinding bound testosterone, rendering it

freed and liberated.

OSMO offers a different approach, one using something called LPC with

chrysin. LPC is a lecithin derivative. They claim LCP permits smooth uptake

of chrysin through the gut, while the piperine pathway facilitates uptake by

percipitating an allergic reaction.

Not to be outdone, two other pathways are available - mostly, albeit not

exclusively, sold as a preventative to breast cancer.They are

diindolylmethane (DIM, although not an intentional metaphor in this usage)

and its precursor, Indole-3-carbinol. Both are said to be safe, both are

said to reduce estrogen. Arnold says I3C is highly succeptible to

breakdown due to acid in the gut; some manufacturers package both chemicals

along with betaine HCl to facilitate absorption. A paradox!

Some claim chrysin just doesn't work at all. For example, AST Sports Science

adamantly claims chrysin doesn't work; despite repeated requests for

justification to that position, AST seems unable to back up an apparent ad

homien. It should be added that neither chrysin nor any other anti-estrogen

is present in AST's repetroire of prohormones - and the issue of

anti-estrogens is simply not addressed. So, too, for most of the pact of

prohormone packagers.

Having surveyed what materials are available, I can only think of Francois

Rabelias' words in his Gargantua - in speaking of a particular person, it is

said that trying to get a straight answer out of him is like trying to

squeeze

blood from a stone.

My question to this group, then, concerns the chrysins, I3Cs, DIMs - are any

of them worth the dollars? does muira puama have benefits in freeing bound

test? who can be believed? is there science to be found somewhere?

ken o'neill

tucson, arizona

Modify or cancel your subscription here:

mygroups

Don't forget to sign all letters with full name and city of residence if you

wish them to be published!

[Guest guest]

The Life Extension Foundation HRT Protocols

http://www.lef.org/protocols/prtcl-133.shtml (for women) and

http://www.lef.org/protocols/prtcl-130.shtml (for men)

....are excellent for explaining the problems and warning against some

questionable mainstream medical practices (especially for women).

Beyond that, you have to remember that they tend to give alternative

therapy suggestions first. They also sell supplements, although

they usually don't hype them in the same manner as what you see in

bodybuilding magazines. In fact, LEF has either admitted that some

don't work (shark cartilage) or recalled others (the new Brite

Eyes, which is being reformulated).

[i trust that they mention that shark cartilage *can* work in a different

way - in that anyone suffering from cardiac disease should not take it

because it apparently enhances coagulation of the blood (which can be

useful in some conditions). Mel Siff]

The thing with an anti-aromatase is you have to have something that

really works. Arimidex is by far and away the best one, although

there is another on the market called Femara. It works differently;

my husband didn't like it as well, but he is only one person. Both

of these must be obtained from a doctor, the same as testosterone.

What works for any particular individual is going to depend on their

age, hormone levels, and their ability to produce exogenous

testosterone, then not convert it to estradiol (which, under normal

circumstances, is age dependent).

I wouldn't say it hurts to give other things a try besides the

testosterone/Arimidex stack . You don't know if you don't try.

Arimidex is expensive (at $110 for 30 tabs from Canada which is $80

less than Costco) and testosterone has become very problematic over

the past few weeks. AndroGel is not sold out of Canada and Costco

is charging about $160 for a 30 day supply, although a lot of

insurance companies will pay for part of the AndroGel cost and maybe

even for Arimidex. So depending on your situation, you might want

to try something less costly.

As far as how much of something else to buy, consider that if you

are prescribed either testosterone cypionate or enthanate, it takes

effect within 24-36 hours, then reaches a half life in about 7 days,

tapering off to becoming ineffective in about 14 days. Arimidex

begins to work immediately, although I don't know how long it takes

to actually bring the estradiol blood levels down. However, one

could probably safely say that you should definitely know the

difference within 30 days. So if you purchase a 30 day supply of

something else, you should know the difference within that time. If

you don't, then whatever it was doesn't work for you and you either

need to try something else or go visit a doctor. In Jim's case the

only thing that works is the testosterone/Arimidex stack, but he is

already 61 years old.

[One important fact that needs to be pointed out is that any exogenous

hormones or prohormones can increase the risk of cancer, cardiac

disease and other serious dysfunction in some people and that there is

no way to predict who may be one of the few unlucky individuals. This

is a sad fact associated with the nonlinear behaviour of biological

systems. This is one reason why you need to have regular, thorough

medical check-ups if you are taking *any* hormones. Far too many

people are casually taking hormones and prohormones for cosmetic

or anti-ageing effects which may not be at all warranted at their

specific ages. Moreover, those who report stunning success may well

be those who respond excellently to the placebo effect (and as much as

a third of the population is reputed to be like that). Mel Siff]

Rosemary Wedderburn-Vernon

Marina del Rey, CA

IronRoses@...

http://home.earthlink.net/~dogbiscuit

[Guest guest]

Mel Siff wrote:

> One important fact that needs to be pointed out is that any exogenous

> hormones or prohormones can increase the risk of cancer, cardiac

> disease and other serious dysfunction in some people and that there is

> no way to predict who may be one of the few unlucky individuals. This

> is a sad fact associated with the nonlinear behaviour of biological

> systems. This is one reason why you need to have regular, thorough

> medical check-ups if you are taking *any* hormones. Far too many

> people are casually taking hormones and prohormones for cosmetic

> or anti-ageing effects which may not be at all warranted at their

> specific ages.

Extremely well said! Unfortunately many individuals who decry the use

of one type of hormone therapy enthusiastically support other forms of

hormone therapy. Low hormone levels in one sex is not a good reason

for hormone therapy and in the other sex, it is an absolute necessity.

Harvey Maron, M.D.

Steamboat Springs, CO

[Guest guest]

Rosemary Wedderburn refers us to The Life Extension Foundation HRT Protocols

http://www.lef.org/protocols/prtcl-133.shtml (for women) and

http://www.lef.org/protocols/prtcl-130.shtml (for men)

In general, those protocols offer a lot of useful information; however, they

also promote chrysin combined with piperine, which just happens to be part

of a product LEF seems to be the sole packager of - suggesting subtle

marketing, a vested interest, perhaps conflict of interest between accurate

dissemination of scientific information versus psuedo-science used as a

vehicle of making less than truthful claims to hawk a product.

OSMO (www.osmo.net) also packages a version of chrysin, this time compounded

with LPC. Here's what OSMO wrote to me about their product:

PLPC - Plasmologen Lysophosphatidal Choline (LPC) is a Lecithin derivative

that is considered G.R.A.S in the U.S. that was lobbied for approval by the

Lecithin manufacturers for the baking industry.

Your liver synthesizes Lecithin from constituents or molecules in your diet.

Every processed food has less than 1% Lecithin added for functionality and

performance. LPC is an enzymatically hydrolyzed (pre-digested) Lecithin.

Your intestines will hydrolyze dietary lecithin into LPC. Lecithin is a

Phospho-lipid. The cell matrix (wall) of all cells in the body is a

phospho-lipid matrix. Without enough Lecithin in the diet or nutrients in

the body to produce Lecithin, the cell wall will incorporate cholesterol as

part of its matrix. This cholesterol makes the cell more rigid or less

fluid. The more rigid the cell wall is, the easier it is for virus or bacteria

to penetrate. Lecithin is a membrane fluidizer as in the cell wall membrane.

PLPC is a far greater membrane fluidizer.

[Lecithin is a well-known emulsifier - what is this guru-speak which

refers to it as a " membrane fluidizer " ? It does not change a membrane into

a fluid. Cholesterol does not increase " rigidity " - whence do they obtain that

information? Anyway, cholesterol is naturally a part of the cell wall, many

nerve sheaths and other systems of the body - why are they implying that it is

some sort of biological enemy? Moreover, cholesterol is not the sole or most

significant player in governing the passage of viruses or bacteria through the

cell membrane. All of this may sound very scientific, but how much of it is

more than sheer jounalistic use of impressive jargon? Mel Siff]

LPC works vis-à-vis temporary displacement of Calcium Ions of the cells in

the G.I. Tract. This leads to a temporary increase in porosity leading to

greater uptake of nutrients. This temporary displacement of Ions is reversed

by the reuptake of Calcium Ions -a natural process, not an allergic reaction

which is the way bioperene works.

[Cell membranes and gut happen to have different porosities to different

substances,

not simply calcium. Once again, we are being provided with an isolationist

analysis much like the same sort of simplistic muscle isolation tests used by

many therapists. The real picture is vastly more complex. Mel Siff]

Just yesterday Incledon wrote to this very forum about chrysin, in

response to my question:

<I work with a number of antiaging doctors and have an independent

laboratory. Most of the information that is promoted in this field is highly

extrapolated. For example, I wrote over two years ago why chrysin wouldn't

work (poor absorption, lack of enzyme specificity, uncertainty if it could

cross blood brain barrier). Various supplement companies have claimed to

address the absorption issue by combining chrysin with piperine and/or LPC.

This still doesn't address the issue of chrysin binding to other enzymes

(which you may not want it to do - depending of course on the enzyme). In my

interviews with Walle (major chrysin researcher who has published

data on humans and cells metabolizing chrysin) he claims it won't work.

Outside of Walle's lab, other researchers have shown that when chrysin is

ingested with prohormones you still get significant increases in estradiol

and estrone.>

Tom's work certainly contradicts LFE's undocumented claims.

With respect to the I3C versus DIM controversy - one in which both are held

out as powerful anti-estrogens, Dr. Zalig claims I3C doesn't work, while LEF

claims Dr Zalig is all wet. Interestingly enough, both offer a 'scientific'

finding to support products which they hold vested interest in. To date,

I've found no independent third party reporting on the matter.

Incleon's advice was good - essentially that 'ya gotta do your

homework'. In a field beset by questionable application of even more

questionable " scientific " reporting - a charade, to say the least, of

science - one begins to comprehend the nutrional supplement industry's

disdain for any sort of regulation, much more so its inability to become

self-regulating. Is it all snake oil, the latest iteration of Hoffman's

Hi-Proteen and the make-believe land of the " Weider Research Clinic " ? Seems

so.

I must say, however, my confidence in the Life Extension Foundation has

been profoundly eroded in this past week. Caveat lector.

Ken O'Neill

Tucson, Arizona

[Guest guest]

Mel Siff wrote: " I trust that [Life Extension Foundation]

mention[ed] that shark cartilage *can* work in a different way - in

that anyone suffering from cardiac disease should not take it

because it apparently enhances coagulation of the blood (which can

be useful in some conditions) " in response to my statement: " In

fact, LEF has . . . admitted that some [supplements] don't work

(shark cartilage) . . . "

**** To my knowledge LEF still sells shark cartiledge because they

have customers who want it. I've not heard about it having

contraindications with blood thinning drugs before, but since I

don't use them, it's not something that I would be concerned about

unless I was researching an article I was going to write. What LEF

said was that although they had really hoped that shark cartilage

would help with angiogenesis (as a book that was the rage some time

ago promised), they found that it did not. They had an entire

article about it in one of their print issues to this effect. I

find that quite responsible because they could have kept quiet and

made more money.

As far as supplemental testosterone and cancer risk, it's there. It

is not something that should, or probably would, be given to a male

with a high PSA or maybe even a family history of reproductive

system cancers. Jim gets a PSA once or twice a year to monitor the

situation.

As far as prohormones, they are most definitely contraindicated for

anyone who has had any problems with reproductive tract cancers,

including breast cancer. If this sort of disease runs in your

family, you would do well to have appropriate blood tests and

mamograms (women) if you're going to use them. I've been told by a

doctor that prohormones are very good for women, but not for men

because they increase estradiol. In menopausal and post-menopausal

women, they often encourage the body to produce it's own natural

estrogen. However, we're not talking mega-dosing and you do have to

watch for side effects, the most common being oily skin and breaking

out. That is enough of a warning so that you can cut the dose back

or cease using the product.

OTH, I agree that anyone using these things is taking a chance,

tested or not. It's a personal decision and one that should be made

after thoroughly researching the subject, EVEN if your doctor

recommends it.

Rosemary Wedderburn-Vernon

Marina del Rey, CA

IronRoses@...

http://home.earthlink.net/~dogbiscuit

[Guest guest]

Hi Folks

I hope all is well with you guys. A very quick question for you. There are a

lot of " natural " products out there which are given as blocking estrogen or at

least working in a very similar way to Arimidex. For example: Sustain Alpha;

Reversitol; Arom X and so forth. The question is, are they any good or just a

waste of money. A lot of the read-ups seem to suggest they are more of a throw

back from the conventional - all of them claim not to have the " nasty side

effects " of various mainstream drugs (I so wish I had a pound for every time I

have heard that).

Thanks for your time

Ade