Just wanted to know why people with a higher BF% are at a higher risk of gyno?
Printable View
Just wanted to know why people with a higher BF% are at a higher risk of gyno?
because estro loves fat and fat loves estro
and 15% is highest...many should be lower then that before you start to cycle if its a "bulk" because you will probably gain a few % if your bulking..
There not, unless you can show me a study that says otherwise???
I also read that BF has nothing to do with gyno and that it's genetics, I know that having more fat means more estrogen which could mean more aromatase, but dosent mean more sides, I depends who the individuals body deals with test/estrogen imbalance .Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt
I have often wondered about this because if most people waited until they were at 15% BF most people would not ever be able to cycle.
There's ur side rite there, higher BF% = greater chance / likelihood of aromatasation (gyno) If ur overweight, there IS a greater chance of gyno. I cant remember where I saws it but I'll c if I can dig up a study on it Matt.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadlyD
I'd be very interested in reading it mate, Magic posted something somewhere that shows higher bf doesn't equal higher estrogen related sides...Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bear 79
Isn't it incredible how such things take root? This thread doesn’t even approach truth, but look at all the co-signers, of whom not surprisingly no one can EVER remember, much less cite where they allegedly read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt
Gyno is caused by a hormonal imbalance - your body’s inability to ADEQUATELY balance Test and Estro. This is caused by natural (puberty, menopause, andropause), unnatural (exogenous hormonal increases, e.g. gear, surgery, disease, meds, faulty glandualar activity, certain autoimmune disorders, genetic and developmental disorders, radiation treatment or exposure, chronic illness, chronic kidney problems or failure, cirrhosis, stress, alcoholism, etc., etc.), and idiopathic (unknown or as yet undetermined) reasons. Some body’s handle these changes well (never get it) other’s poorly (almost always get it), and still others somewhere in the middle (get it once or twice often depending on the compounds used and their reactions to them). It has NOTHING to do with your body fat…thin guys get it just as often as big ones!
Have you ever seen a Biggest Loser Competitor with gyno? According to this thread there should be at least a couple per season. Conversely pre-pubescent little kids with virtually no body fat have gotten gyno from things as simple as using tea tree and/or lavender (both potential hormonal changers) shampoos and lotions - New England Journal of Medicine - http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa064725
As for the fat to estro ratio in males, I’ve never specifically studied that, but would love to see before and after test:estro data on men who either gained or loss great amounts of bf. My suspicion is that fat is simply fat and not SIGNIFICANTLY (.05 or greater) estro related, if anyone has this data or is inclined enough to search for it please share. I suspect this theory stems from the actual truth that estrogen-based female bodies have greater bf. A truth that doesn’t, and therefore shouldn’t be automatically correlated to testosterone-based males with high bf. Such an extrapolation of data would be ludicrous! This would be tantamount to saying that women with low bf necessarily have greater test levels.
FAT IS NOT 'EQUAL' TO ESTRO; ESTRO IS NOT 'EQUAL' TO FAT!
(but there may be some relationship)
Surely you wouldn’t equate test levels to lots of muscle?! Right? More “yes”; lots “no”. How many times have we counseled guys who thought they could just inject steroids and get huge? Countless! How big was Lance Armstrong or Floyd Landis?
CORRELATION (RELATIONSHIP) IS NOT 'EQUAL' TO CAUSATION (CAUSE AND EFFECT)!
Imo- this just means there diet and cardio are not in check along with dedication. Yes its hard to be under 15%80 but not for those that want it bad enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by NOSUPERMODEL
the estro/higher bf theory has been bandied around here quite alot, i guess ive been 'broscienced' :(
It's hard for some, easy for others. Obesity that isn't medically related, is merely the reaping of earlier sown bad habits. Replace the habits with good ones, and you change your body.Quote:
Originally Posted by gearbox
It's the latest trend in a long line of excuses.Quote:
Originally Posted by dec11
The previous one was a poorly functioning thyroid gland.
Like Dec11 said "dedication", not excuses.
I agree. I hope bear can find the study on estro and sides....
And after reading your post magic. Wouldn't ppl with high bf have to run a different rate of ai because the amount of estro already in their body. (Cause there man boobs from being over weight does not consist of a hormonal balance imo)
from Magic:
I suspect this theory stems from the actual truth that estrogen-based female bodies have greater bf. A truth that doesn’t, and therefore shouldn’t be automatically correlated to testosterone -based males with high bf. Such an extrapolation of data would be ludicrous! This would be tantamount to saying that women with low bf necessarily have greater test levels.
interesting.
Sorry, I cant find the exact study / article rite now, I'll keep lookin. But 4 now lets break this down in2 a simpler form. 1st, we all agree that fat cells, produce the aromatase enzyme rite? 2nd, we all agree that this helps convert testosterone into estrogen, which in turn, changes the hormone balance, & we all kno, this imbalance is wut causes Gyno, rite? OK, so then we can safely & accurately say, higher BF% = greater risk of Estrogen related side effects (Gyno).
Fat gain and obesity occur over time and your body is MASTERFUL at balancing internal changes!
Like I said the number of gyno victims isn't lopsidedly sloped in favor of fat guys, nor is it exponentially increased for the obese and morbidly obese as your theory posits.
If it were, there would be waaaay more obese gyno victims all over the place like dinosaur bones, and conversely virtually no lean male gyno cases...both of which are untrue.
"...the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe."
- Morpheus
Everyone have a safe and Happy Holiday.
You just can't argue with logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by magic32
I know about 30 amateur bbers all with bf below 10% almost year round (guys that get on stage) and i can confidently say most have suffered some form of gyno whilst at low bf....
Im a bit of a doubting Tom and most of the time if someone tells me something i need to see it first hand before i believe, magic is one of the few people who i'd listen to and would never doubt what he says for a second.. If he says it you can bet its right....
x2Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt
possibly coincidence that some ppl with more bf also are prone to gyno on here and the fact tht 90% of gyno fears on here are false. i myself, in more inexperienced cycles had very sore nips with lumps forming over 7wks, i still havent got gyno....
so 15% if the highest you should be if your going to cycle? and whats the most effective way to test bodyfat?
post pic here and the guys will tell you..I personally think its better then some scale or hand grip..I know best way is going to docs and getting tested in water (true test)..there are some very good ppl out there with the calipers though..
Would that also be true for TRT not to go on it with a high BF%?
I wouldn't worry bout that. TRT is intended 2 bring ur low T up 2 "normal" levels, so there's no "excessive" Test. 2 worry bout turning 2 Estrogen. That's my take on it anyway........ But there r many others here with mor TRT experience / knowledge than me.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdavevegas
no, not whatsoever. im on trt and gyno prone but dont get sore nips until i go above 300mgsQuote:
Originally Posted by bigdavevegas
correctQuote:
Originally Posted by The Bear 79
a buddy of mine ran a cycle against my advice, he was very overweight.he got very jacked while on cycle.no gyno what so ever.then after cycle turned to crap.fatter than before.its the discipline part is why we say higher bf% no cycle.because if you cant control your eating before cycle ,,, goodluck while on......Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt
Its fair to say then if your a higher BF% but your diet and training is in check and you maintain it and have a good PCT then you shoukd be able to maintain your gains and keep the fat from returning?Quote:
Originally Posted by cro
Again, I would NOT cycle with excessive BF. Fat loss can b accomplished & maintained through proper diet & training dedication.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadlyD
I think what Deadly is asking is: I AM going to cycle at a higher BF, will I be able to maintain gains if diet/routine is spot on?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bear 79
I'd say go for it, If you are set on Jagging. I'd do it. I'm sure other members will disagree
Im not saying that im gojng to cycle now, hopefully soon tho! My training IS spot on now and has been for the last 18 months, and i have made some serious changes to my diet over the last 3 weeks and yes, i have noticed a huge difference with the diet change!!! I plan on keeping it this way! Fat is down, muscle and strength is up and i feel awesome i plan on hopefully cycleing in frebruary! So any help and info is great! ThanksQuote:
Originally Posted by MacLean
You're obviously going in the right direction then. Well done, keep it up broQuote:
Originally Posted by DeadlyD
Also, I'll be cycling in January with a higher BF than i'd have liked, I have a thread that I'll update every day on cycleQuote:
Originally Posted by DeadlyD
Thanks bro, any other advise from you or anybody else would be great.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacLean
What does your cycle look like MacLean? if your after the same goals as me id love to follow your thread! Send me the link!Quote:
Originally Posted by MacLean
i move heavy things!