Dangers of Excess Estrogen: A LEF Article

[steroid.com 1]

As some of you may know, I've been a long standing member of the Life Extension Foundation www.lef.org that's a wonderful advocate for the health and well being of all people. They've gone a long way to dispel a lot of medical hogwash and shed an incredibly bright light on new preventions of disease and alternative medical therapies...and much much more. I read thier monthly magazine cover to cover each and every month and I recommend the same to you guys.

I responded in another thread on the dangers of excessive estradiol in men. There's a wonderful article, all supported by research, published by LEF in 2008 on the dangers of having excessive E2 levels and what it can do to a man. It's an eye opening read and I recommend that you take a peak.

Remember, Estrogen is an "umbrella name" for about 30 different types of estrogen's found in the male and female body. The specific one that is of our utmost interest it Estradiol.

Enjoy: http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2008/...rogen%20levels

[Sgt. Hartman]

Nice. Great article.

Most of it was in regard to normal middle aged or healthy men but most of the risks they mentioned are equally applicable to those on-cycle or who cycle frequently, which just goes to show once again, how important it is to keep E under control on cycle.

[kelkel]

This last paragraph is an eye opener to me:

An overlooked reason so many human studies fail to show a relationship between estrogen levels and prostate cancer is the fact that men with the highest estrogen levels may have perished from heart attacks and strokes before prostate cancer had a chance to clinically manifest. Based on the vascular disease risks discussed at the beginning of this article, men who suffered from estrogen overload early in their life would be expected to die sooner and, therefore not live long enough to develop clinically diagnosed prostate cancer. From a statistical standpoint, this would falsely make it appear that higher estradiol levels in aging men do not result in greater incidences of prostate cancer, since many men with the highest estrogen levels would not be alive to even participate in the study.

[bass]

please sticky this thread. very important!

[HRTstudent]

Thank you for sharing! I love reading non-broscience practical stuff. Do you happen to know if there is an update?

Wow #1:

men with the highest blood levels of estradiol had a 2.2-fold greater risk of stroke compared with those whose estradiol levels were lower [...]

This study revealed that estradiol blood levels greater than 34.1 pg/mL resulted in this more than doubling of stroke incidence. Life Extension long ago warned men to keep their estradiol levels below 30 pg/mL

Another:

After multivariate adjustments, men with the greater estradiol concentration had a 1.78 times higher incidence of urinary tract symptoms. An even greater incidence of urinary tract symptoms occurred in men with the highest levels of a dihydrotestosterone metabolite, whereas blood testosterone level showed no effect on urinary tract symptoms. The doctors who conducted this study concluded by stating, “in this cross-sectional study representative of older US men, circulating AAG, a metabolite of dihydrotestosterone, and estradiol were associated with an increased risk of having lower urinary tract symptoms.”


Interesting tip!

It is not just excess estradiol that poses health risks. Specific estrogen metabolites may also initiate and promote hormone-related cancers. Daily consumption of cruciferous vegetables (broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, Brussels sprouts),54-59 along with isoflavone-rich soy foods 60-64 converts these dangerous estrogen metabolites (such as 16-alpha-hydroxyestrone) to safe ones (2-hydroxyestrone) that may protect against prostate cancer.

Eat more broccoli!


Beware!

men need estrogen to maintain bone density, cognitive function, and even to maintain the inner lining of the arterial wall (the endothelium)
...
We have recommended that ideal ranges for estradiol for most aging men are between 20 and 30 pg/mL of blood. Below 18 pg/mL increases osteoporosis risk, while levels greater than 30 pg/mL increase heart attack and stroke incidence.


How to high low estradiol:

[Lose belly fat]
...
"One of the most effective ways for men to reduce belly fat is to restore their free testosterone to youthful ranges. Nutrients that inhibit the aromatase enzyme can help boost testosterone levels by preventing its conversion (aromatization) into estradiol. "
...
For men with excess aromatase activity, this topically absorbed testosterone might convert into too much estradiol. If this happens, the use of very low-dose aromatase-inhibiting drugs (0.5 mg of Arimidex® twice a week) may be all that is needed to protect against estrogen overload. Some men don’t need these drugs and can use nutrient formulas that have aromatase-inhibiting properties.

[bass]

this is getting better. I'm going to request Admin to make this thread sticky!

[NaeMo]

I wish my husband would read some of this stuff. He knows I'm the geek about these things and wants ME to learn about it, but then balks when I make a suggestion. Lots of good info. I'll just have to get more crucifers in him until I can convince him he might need T repla***ent.

[APIs]

I wish my husband would read some of this stuff. He knows I'm the geek about these things and wants ME to learn about it, but then balks when I make a suggestion. Lots of good info. I'll just have to get more crucifers in him until I can convince him he might need T repla***ent.

Welcome! What's his symptoms? You should start a new thread with this as a topic. A lot of guys here can help you with suggestions on how to approach him on the subject. We've all been there...

[kelkel]

^^^Great idea. Would be a well read thread API.

[muscleport]

Also the article reminds people to do hormone panel regularly, I think this is a very good suggestion and would like to follow.

[ecdysone]

With all due respect this article is completely off base.

Let me show why:

(1) Bone density (which is a critical factor as we age) was 3X lower (worse) in men with low E2 than men with high E2 (quoted in the article)

(2) Heart failure was 317% more likely with men with low E2 vs. 133% more likely with men with high E2 (referenced in the article)

(3) There are dozen of good studies showing that E2 is either unrelated to stroke or actually protects against stroke in men,

Testosterone May Reduce Risk Of Stroke In Men; Estrogen Levels Not Related To Stroke
DENVER, CO (American Academy of Neurology)
April 17, 2002
Estrogen as a Neuroprotectant in Stroke
Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism (2000) 20, 631–652

If you going to err, make it on the side of high E2, low E2 will kill you in every way possible.

A much better title would have been: "The Danger of Low Estradiol in Aging Men"

[steroid.com 1]

With all due respect this article is completely off base.

Let me show why:

(1) Bone density (which is a critical factor as we age) was 3X lower (worse) in men with low E2 than men with high E2 (quoted in the article)

(2) Heart failure was 317% more likely with men with low E2 vs. 133% more likely with men with high E2 (referenced in the article)

(3) There are dozen of good studies showing that E2 is either unrelated to stroke or actually protects against stroke in men,

Testosterone May Reduce Risk Of Stroke In Men; Estrogen Levels Not Related To Stroke
DENVER, CO (American Academy of Neurology)
April 17, 2002
Estrogen as a Neuroprotectant in Stroke
Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism (2000) 20, 631–652

If you going to err, make it on the side of high E2, low E2 will kill you in every way possible.

A much better title would have been: "The Danger of Low Estradiol in Aging Men"

God only knows I love how you are not afraid to challenge...it's great e and please don't stop.

One thing about LEF that I have always admired is that everything they publish, whether from a researcher, a physician, a clinician or just a journalist; everything is supported by research or other validated sources.

The article in question here has 87 footnoted published works that support thier statements...and you state "it's completely off base" and provide one, just one, published article that I don't even know creates a counter argument.

I honestly think some of what you stated earlier, especially metabolic rate syndrome, has merit; but that argument is chicken and egg. And I am sure, like most things, you can find research that debunks even the most well known and trusted therapies (think about vitamin supplements).

What I've learned about LEF is that when they publish something you can bet your house on it that it's been vetted, validated and backed up by trusted research by some of the top professionals in the industry...in other words, they just don't throw shit out there...they can back it up and support it.

There are 1000's of Docs who follow LEF and practice much of what they preach.

Who really knows right...?

[bass]

With all due respect this article is completely off base.

Let me show why:

(1) Bone density (which is a critical factor as we age) was 3X lower (worse) in men with low E2 than men with high E2 (quoted in the article)

(2) Heart failure was 317% more likely with men with low E2 vs. 133% more likely with men with high E2 (referenced in the article)

(3) There are dozen of good studies showing that E2 is either unrelated to stroke or actually protects against stroke in men,

Testosterone May Reduce Risk Of Stroke In Men; Estrogen Levels Not Related To Stroke
DENVER, CO (American Academy of Neurology)
April 17, 2002
Estrogen as a Neuroprotectant in Stroke
Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism (2000) 20, 631–652

If you going to err, make it on the side of high E2, low E2 will kill you in every way possible.

A much better title would have been: "The Danger of Low Estradiol in Aging Men"

ECD, have you read the stickies HRT Part 1 and 2? lots of great information there regarding Estrogen. its amazing that 2 out of 3 threads talking about HRT are all about Estrogen and it's effects on the body.

[muscleport]

With all due respect this article is completely off base.

Let me show why:

(1) Bone density (which is a critical factor as we age) was 3X lower (worse) in men with low E2 than men with high E2 (quoted in the article)

(2) Heart failure was 317% more likely with men with low E2 vs. 133% more likely with men with high E2 (referenced in the article)

(3) There are dozen of good studies showing that E2 is either unrelated to stroke or actually protects against stroke in men,

Testosterone May Reduce Risk Of Stroke In Men; Estrogen Levels Not Related To Stroke
DENVER, CO (American Academy of Neurology)
April 17, 2002
Estrogen as a Neuroprotectant in Stroke
Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism (2000) 20, 631–652

If you going to err, make it on the side of high E2, low E2 will kill you in every way possible.

A much better title would have been: "The Danger of Low Estradiol in Aging Men"

Evidence based challenge is always needed, great job !

[steroid.com 1]

Evidence based challenge is always needed, great job !

Explain.

[ecdysone]

GD,

I could go though the article and group the refs that support everything I said. If fact, LEF used most of the root references that others commonly use.

And, in fairness, you're correct that one could easily find a counter-study proving the opposite, but that was not my intent.

I'll need to look around, but IIRC, LEF updated this article with one entitled something like "balance is necessary in estrogen levels in men..."

Probably because every source who cited this article did the same. LEF engaged in a little editorial sensationalism IMO.

The reality is that low levels of E2 are much more deadly from an epidemiological viewpoint, however for us guys who are going out of their way to produce E2, we need to be very diligent regarding high E2.

As a final word, I would also say that guys like us are, to a great extent, are not governed by epidemiological studies since there are none where supplemental test was used (at least I don't think so).

[steroid.com 1]

GD,

I could go though the article and group the refs that support everything I said. If fact, LEF used most of the root references that others commonly use.

And, in fairness, you're correct that one could easily find a counter-study proving the opposite, but that was not my intent.

I'll need to look around, but IIRC, LEF updated this article with one entitled something like "balance is necessary in estrogen levels in men..."

Probably because every source who cited this article did the same. LEF engaged in a little editorial sensationalism IMO.

The reality is that low levels of E2 are much more deadly from an epidemiological viewpoint, however for us guys who are going out of their way to produce E2, we need to be very diligent regarding high E2.

As a final word, I would also say that guys like us are, to a great extent, are not governed by epidemiological studies since there are none where supplemental test was used (at least I don't think so).

Nicely stated as always my educated friend

I agree, low E2 is significantly more dangerous than higher.

And what is "high"???...I am not sure anyone really knows.

But that being said, just about every leading Physician who publish their ideal range it's always in the 20's pg/ml...I will go with that for now.

[flatscat]

But you are experiencing better results as far as you can feel, by backing off your adex dose gd. What will you do if it comes in higher than 30 and you continue to get positive results?

U r gonna have sum splaining to do Lucy.

[Times Roman]

God only knows I love how you are not afraid to challenge...it's great e and please don't stop.

One thing about LEF that I have always admired is that everything they publish, whether from a researcher, a physician, a clinician or just a journalist; everything is supported by research or other validated sources.

The article in question here has 87 footnoted published works that support thier statements...and you state "it's completely off base" and provide one, just one, published article that I don't even know creates a counter argument.

I honestly think some of what you stated earlier, especially metabolic rate syndrome, has merit; but that argument is chicken and egg. And I am sure, like most things, you can find research that debunks even the most well known and trusted therapies (think about vitamin supplements).

What I've learned about LEF is that when they publish something you can bet your house on it that it's been vetted, validated and backed up by trusted research by some of the top professionals in the industry...in other words, they just don't throw shit out there...they can back it up and support it.

There are 1000's of Docs who follow LEF and practice much of what they preach.

Who really knows right...?

I agree 100%. There are ALWAYS going to contradicting studies/data. One key is the recency of the study/data.
If the shit is confusing to the docs that are concentrating on these issues, then no doubt we will be confused as well.

But yes, i do put a lot of trust with LEF. They are careful with what they publish.

[JohnnyVegas]

One thing is for sure: the fact that low E2 is dangerous doesn't make high E2 NOT dangerous.

Better to agree that we shouldn't have either.

Great thread.

[steroid.com 1]

But you are experiencing better results as far as you can feel, by backing off your adex dose gd. What will you do if it comes in higher than 30 and you continue to get positive results?

U r gonna have sum splaining to do Lucy.

Killing me flats...LOL

Having backed down to .5 mg of AI per week the past month I feel no difference whatsoever...which is the good news.

But remember, I split my injections twice a week and mix in SubQ as well...all in the attempts to better control E2.

If I am in the mid to lower 30's on my next pull I am sticking with the protocol and not adding in any more AI.

My only concern is that when E2 levels rise it's converting my Free T and that I don't want.

[flatscat]

Lol i am trying...

Don't don't make me have to figure out how to copy and paste your stated new found better erection quality et al since you lowered your dose...

Peace out

Flats

[steroid.com 1]

Lol i am trying...

Don't don't make me have to figure out how to copy and paste your stated new found better erection quality et al since you lowered your dose...

Peace out

Flats

It true though man...and I'm certaintly not complaining.

Funny how E2 levels can mess with your junk eh!

[flatscat]

So which one is it? you feel notice no difference or you do?

btw. i believe you if you do.

[steroid.com 1]

So which one is it? you feel notice no difference or you do?

btw. i believe you if you do.

I wouldn't say I "feel any better" Flats; but I don't feel any worse and see NO higher E2 related symptoms since the reduction.

I have noticed a stronger erection which is somewhat common when E2 levels have been suppressed for a while and come back to a higher ideal levels.

I used to notice 24 hours after taking the AI my erection quality was not as strong...another 24 hours later and better...48 hours later back to normal. This was my clue to possibly being in the low 20's was not right for me. I had a sneaking suspicion that I may have been dipping into the teens when the AI peaked and the erection quality was the barometer if you will.

Since cutting the dosage in half I don't see those problems anymore...again, not unusual if low E2 and move to a higher level.

With my injection protocol the way it is .5 mg AI on 120 mg of Test Cyp per week should be enough. I don't get any of the peak and valley that can cause higher aromatization activity with one injection per week.

Next pull will tell the truth but so far so good and I ain't complaining.

[ecdysone]

GD,

As regards what's a good range...hard to exactly know. IF one was not supplementing test then I would tend to agree with the studies, i.e., something <35.

But, and this is where I trouble with all the anecdotal reports, I would say one can go considerably higher... maybe 60s or more if you are dosing with significant amounts of test. Even pushing to mild gyno while not cosmetically pleasing, has few other side effects. [ok for some it does!!]

I'm a little little like JV, if I use my normal amount of test each week, then 1.5 mg Adex puts me into the 9-12 range. So I backed off to nada. So far so good, but will get labs soon.

Getting back to the article, my only beef is with the title and I agree with JV and others: balance is definitely the key, and to each his own!

AND, I love a spirited conversation...you know me, just hate accepting the status quo

[steroid.com 1]

[QUOTE=ecdysone;5***063]GD,

As regards what's a good range...hard to exactly know. IF one was not supplementing test then I would tend to agree with the studies, i.e., something <35.

But, and this is where I trouble with all the anecdotal reports, I would say one can go considerably higher... maybe 60s or more if you are dosing with significant amounts of test. Even pushing to mild gyno while not cosmetically pleasing, has few other side effects. [ok for some it does!!]

I'm a little little like JV, if I use my normal amount of test each week, then 1.5 mg Adex puts me into the 9-12 range. So I backed off to nada. So far so good, but will get labs soon.

Getting back to the article, my only beef is with the title and I agree with JV and others: balance is definitely the key, and to each his own!

AND, I love a spirited conversation...you know me, just hate accepting the status quo [/QUOTE]

I know...it's why you are such a great asset to the board man.

[keep fightin]

great thread! love the evolution of our knowledge on how to take care of ourselves. Felt horrible on .5mg adex x2ew and and 60mg T x2ew SQ after about 3 weeks, stopped the adex 5 days ago and am feeling better, subjective, need to do bw more often..