Didn't want to screw up the other thread
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/flex/n11113?snl=1
Hormones are like calcium, too much is dangerous, and not enough can lead to physical decline. This is a topic that has been tainted by the steroid controversy, but I think that smart hormone replacement will see a resurgence in the next decade. It is something I've researched quite a bit and I think I will do eventually. The benefits outweigh the risks for most healthy people as they age.
>hormone replacement will see a resurgence
Based on the commercial landscape, I thought that was already in full swing.
It could be. In the 80s it was really a thing on the female side, but then there was a study that showed that there was an increased risk of breast cancer and it quickly went out of favor. I see a lot of hype on TRT, but it still seems (to me) to be on the fringe with most regular doctors still shunning the idea.
"The testosterone is either inhibiting the process of mentally checking your work or increasing the intuitive feeling that, 'I'm definitely right.'"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/25/men-blame-hormones-testosterone-trouble-aggression-decision-making
Just was listening to some interesting stuff from various sources on test
- testosterone does not inherently increase aggression. It inherently increases whatever traits are valued for getting to the top of the hierarchy that you are in, and that tends to accentuate aggression. The researcher was saying he wanted to do an experiment of putting a monastery of Buddhist monks on T and seeing if they would start competing to out-compassion each other.
- testosterone doesn't make muscles grow, it increases your ability to recover, which means you can work out harder. Which means that if you are not working out hard enough currently to max your body's recovery abilities, testosterone is not going to help you pack on muscle (but it might have all the other bad effects).
I suspect that hormone therapy will be part of extending active life, but I think right now there's still a lot we don't know about how hormones work and interact.
Hormone-altering therapy via Propecia (baldness, BPH) is already pretty common in men, too. The med community just sidesteps talking about the side effects --which are onerous and also fairly common.
QuoteBPH is common in aging men. About half of all men between the ages of 51 and 60 have BPH. Up to 90% of men over age 80 have BPH.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/finasteride-oral-route/description/drg-20063819
http://www.rxlist.com/propecia-side-effects-drug-center.htm
Propecia blocks testosterone to dihydrotestosterone conversion. I understand taking it for prostatic hyperplasia, but I would take baldness over those side effects.
>Which means that if you are not working out hard enough currently to max your body's recovery abilities, testosterone is not going to help you pack on muscle
Apparently this is a bit of a myth. Probably to make people feel better about having a bio-chemical advantage.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101
(take a look at Fig 1)
Those who were given testosterone but didn't exercise made more gains than the group in the study that didn't get testosterone but did exercised. These were very large dosages though, 600mg/week, or about three times the *upper end* of what would be considered a replacement dose.
>Propecia: I understand taking it for prostatic hyperplasia, but I would take baldness over those side effects.
Generic propecia is in the bucketload of drugs they give during kidney transplant recovery for the same reasons it is used for BPH --increased flow. Maybe it helps with the hair loss that's a side effect of the immunosuppressants, too. I knew of the side effects and asked that it be dropped, which they did without comment.
That is an amazing, and slightly crazy study. I'm surprised it passed the ethical review board. I'd love to see it repeated over a longer time period and with a larger group, but I think that is out of the question.
QuoteThose who were given testosterone but didn't exercise made more gains than the group in the study that didn't get testosterone but did exercised
Actually, the former gained more mass and the latter gained more strength, which is also super interesting and makes sense. Fascinating.
>I'm surprised it passed the ethical review board
I'm glad it was done. Interestingly, this was just testosterone and not any of the designer steroids that enhance anabolism even more. I see a lot of perpetuating myths that people just aren't working hard enough when the board is stacked. There is a lot of money involved.
Even getting my normal range TRT has been a great advantage for me. It isn't just on the muscle building side, but when I lean out I have the advantage of staying in a normal range even when in a caloric deficit which helps preserve muscle.
I've gotta say that the pro bodybuilders who were definitely juicing were also working really really hard.
I suspect it's one of those things where you can get so far with just T and you can get so far with just hard work, but the guys who are really big are doing both.
Also, I've read that pretty much every super ripped male fitness model you see is taking some form of anabolic hormone and also wildly dehydrating for photo shoots. They're not necessarily particularly fit or particularly healthy.
Yeah, I agree with all that. Even the armature and local level bodybuilders I've known from the gym work very hard.
Side:
I've only known one pro level bodybuilder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Tinerino), he was a friend of a cousin of mine and I ended up giving him and his wife a ride to SFO from Sausalito when I was a teen. We talked about training the entire drive.
Now THAT's a pro bodybuilder. Too bad you didn't talk about other things too..
QuoteAfter becoming involved in a life of crime, running one of the biggest escort services in California, he became an international evangelis
The guys at my gym were not nearly at that level, though one did "best abs" at Mr Universe.
As a young man I was really into weight lifting. I knew about his past and I also knew it would probably be better to not talk about it, I didn't know him that well.
Ah, I was thinking that you met him before all that came out. I was forgetting that your high school years came a fair bit after mine.
>> Now THAT's a pro bodybuilder
I look at that and think, "Ick!"
HRT has really taken off in the news and health community imo.
Recently a good friend of mine who works on spinal surgery went out with a couple of very well known docs in the field and they both recommended my buddy - who is 45 - to strongly consider doing HRT or at least a shot of test every 6 weeks. Increased strength, sleep, libido, clarity and concentration was some of the top arguments. They both did it, they both offered to write him a prescription on the spot.
>Ick
I get that. One thing to keep in mind is that bodybuilders don't look like that 99.99% of the time. That look is extremely hard to achieve and ins't sustainable for more than a short period of time.
>HRT
I think public and medical view of HTR is swinging in the more favorable direction in recent years. A lot of the cancer links have been overblown* **. If I were to guess I bet it swings in the other direction in the next 10 years, because that always seems to be the case with this stuff.
*: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24684569/
**: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5415400/
>>I look at that and think, "Ick!"
I absolutely understand that too. It is not a body that I would ever aspire to since not only do I not care for the aesthetic, it is totally maladapted to the activities that I aspire to do well.
I was thinking of his competition record. No matter how you feel about the look and the steroid use, you're looking at one of the top performers ever. It's like if we were talking about musicians and I was saying I had known some pro musicians and littleman said he had only ever known one, and it turned out that my pros were all wedding bands and the one he had met was, say, Gerry Garcia (if he had met Arnold, I would have picked John Lennon).
I admire anyone who has the ability and drive to be among the absolute best in the world, even if they are best at a thing that I don't aspire to in the least.
>> I bet it swings in the other direction
Agreed. The studies that showed it to be dangerous were almost all poorly done based on my much more limited reading. And more and more the health benefits are coming to light. I am among the youngest Boomers and I know that if Boomers dislike anything, it's getting old before, at or after their time.
Also, I think the risks of taking anabolic steroids for someone in their teens or twenties are just crazy unless they have a true medical problem, but as people move into middle age they both have lower T naturally and a shorter time horizon for long-term problems so it makes more and more sense.
Personally, my issues with it are simply practical
- I never go to the doctor and am generally lazy and a procrastinator on all things medical. I should go more than I do. It's partly laziness, partly living so far away from services and, to be honest, probably partly deep-seated issues that a therapist would help me with (to be clear, I don't think I have said deep-seated issues, but I bet everyone with deep-seated issues that keeps them from going to the doctor says the same thing).
- I feel like it's a bit of a one-way street. This is not based on research and I might be totally wrong, but it seems like once you start it is hard to stop. Again, to be clear, that's not a totally rational reason as one can say the same thing about air, water and food. Once you start with those, it's hard to stop.
So I'm not saying those are good reasons, logical reasons, or rational reasons. I'm just saying they are my reasons, subject to change later today if the whim moves me.