Hello guys, this is an interesting essay:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5731587/
Will it end as HRT for menopause women ? What do you think ?
Printable View
Hello guys, this is an interesting essay:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5731587/
Will it end as HRT for menopause women ? What do you think ?
To me the whole report can be dismissed after this one sentence below. How many actual studies do they need to see that show the positive effects of properly administered HRT protocols. The issue is with doctors who do not understand hormones venturing into a field they do not comprehend, therefore patients can suffer.
Meanwhile, testosterone therapy for middle-aged and older men has been broadly accepted, absent definitive evidence of its beneficial effects—and, more important, with incomplete examination of its risks.
I'm totally agree Kel. But what surprise me is the almost totally lack of informations about protocols administered in the most of studies; indeed is rare to see informations about TRT protocols administered - as timing, dosages, esters, etc. - in the groups of patients. They just report "testosterone therapy administration" for x years, stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelkel
This could bind to your statement related to doctors who do not understand hormones as well as TRT.
However, remains not well understood why HRT in menopause women increase CVD risks, being those risks when in pre-menopause, so with a good hormonal homeostasis, they are pretty reduced as this should have a protective role in CVD. Maybe in menopause, the physiology is reversed and HRT increase the CVD risks rather than lowering, almost is what seems to be reported in menopause women, in the follow-up years.
I only got to the third sentence before I blew chunks.
"...Age is the chief risk factor for the development of CVD...."
What a ridiculously transparent and deliberately prejudicial claim.
Everything is more likely to be fatal as age progresses. Broken bones. Oral surgery. Bathing. Having sex. Eating jellybeans. Everything.
On a sufficiently long timeline, everyone's odds of survival falls to zero. Old age is universally fatal. Or, conversely, if you live long enough, you'll eventually catch every disease known to man.
Hardly newsworthy.
I've downloaded the article and plan to read it in depth. There is obvious author bias in choice of language (e.g., "artificial alarm"). To properly evaluate the article, it will require a dissection of the citations they use. For example, they cite an article which (according to the author) links increasing fat levels to lower T. I have no doubt that the correlation is true, be we need to read the cited article more closely to understand how the study was conducted and whether lower T was an caused increasing obesity or an effect of increased obesity. The author implies that increasing obesity lowers T, which the data may or may not support. I have to read the article. Interestingly, the authors spend very little text discussion the quality of life issues surrounding TRT, just a token discussion of sexuality and then it is negated by a "lack of vitality" discussion. There is no discussion at all of the cognitive effects of TRT, and from my personal experience, vitality is intimately linked to cognitive well being.
I hope to find some time to dig deeper into this article and post a point by point response.
I see where all of them are on twitter and social media. I bet when they get to menopause they will be taking HRT.
Really that article didn’t say much of anything
Acute thoughts, mate. It seems hard to understand where issues might cause, if they come from HRT or a bad lifestyle; indeed HRT could be a double blade, if you don't draw near it a compatible lifestyle. I think the nucleus of these studies and the HRT negative impact, is given by ignoring all others factors HRT should be connected to be healthy and safe. Just my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Youthful55guy