New thought on estrogen control

[JimBob]

The recent estrogen-AI hot topic has found its way into bodybuilding. And, not just for the guys on a cycle. I enjoyed their discussion there. Learned a few things, too

new thoughts on estrogen control - Professional Muscle

 

[Vince Carter]

Same old same old...low E bad. What is low E? no one knows. Is high E good? No one knows. and how high is high? no one knows.

That's 4 pages of that thread right there.

 

[Gman86]

Same old same old...low E bad. What is low E? no one knows. Is high E good? No one knows. and how high is high? no one knows.

That's 4 pages of that thread right there.

Couldn’t of said it better myself. Perfect summarization of the past month or two of E2/ ai controversy right there.

 

[JimGainz]

I’ve seen a lot of recent posts by doctors claiming that you should not manage estradiol, and should let it seek it’s own level, and that there is no harm in estrogen for men – but rather benefits. This may be true, but if the goal of hormone replacement is to achieve the hormonal panel of a healthy 25-year-old male – I don’t believe there is any one in that population with E2 over 35 or so. Personally, I keep a low AI regiment and try to keep E2 no higher than upper 30s.

 

[Cataceous]

I'll reiterate my hypothesis that there's no single level of estradiol that's optimal for everything, even in a single individual. So one level might be optimal for body composition, another level better for sexual function, yet another level better for libido, etc. And what about emotional responsiveness? That was a side effect I really noticed with estradiol in the 50s pg/mL. It was interesting and novel for a while, but eventually I didn't like it so much. I can't imagine what that would be like with estradiol closer to 100. Yet supposedly guys are supplementing to achieve that?

And this may be nothing, but in this paper there is discussion of the possibility of different and even opposite effects of estradiol on vasculature between males and females. In the worst case, what if it's protective of women but harmful to men? It's speculative, but it would be good to know more.

The vast majority of evidence supporting estrogen’s vasculoprotective role has been generated in female models, and the conflicting cellular results from experiments where the sex of the donor is often unknown suggest the importance of independently investigating the male response before assuming similarity between males and females.

 

[Gman86]

I'll reiterate my hypothesis that there's no single level of estradiol that's optimal for everything, even in a single individual. So one level might be optimal for body composition, another level better for sexual function, yet another level better for libido, etc. And what about emotional responsiveness? That was a side effect I really noticed with estradiol in the 50s pg/mL. It was interesting and novel for a while, but eventually I didn't like it so much. I can't imagine what that would be like with estradiol closer to 100. Yet supposedly guys are supplementing to achieve that?

And this may be nothing, but in this paper there is discussion of the possibility of different and even opposite effects of estradiol on vasculature between males and females. In the worst case, what if it's protective of women but harmful to men? It's speculative, but it would be good to know more.

Evolutionary wise this just wouldn’t make sense. Evolution will only adjust and improve things in the human body if there is an evolutionary advantage to doing so. The human body is the product of millions of years of this tweaking and evolving process. What would be the evolutionary advantage to different estradiol levels having separate benefits, and a human not being able to get all the benefits at the same time?

 

[Cataceous]

Evolutionary wise this just wouldn’t make sense. Evolution will only adjust and improve things in the human body if there is an evolutionary advantage to doing so. The human body is the product of millions of years of this tweaking and evolving process. What would be the evolutionary advantage to different estradiol levels having separate benefits, and a human not being able to get all the benefits at the same time?

Try this analogy: I tell you to build a car, and ask you to optimize it for both gas mileage and safety. The problem is, it can't be done. If you optimize for gas mileage you're going to have one of those flimsy featherweight vehicles like they use in the solar-power competitions. If you optimize for safety then you're going to build a tank-like vehicle. The point is that there are engineering tradeoffs. And with more complex systems and more parameters the necessity for tradeoffs only increases. I'd argue that evolution is selecting for fault-tolerance and adaptability. The system must be able to function adequately with parameters, e.g. hormones, in reasonably wide ranges. If environmental factors—such as food sources, climate, activity levels, etc.—affect our internal parameters then we must still be able to function well enough to survive and reproduce.

I'd say it's almost self-evident that no one level of testosterone is optimal for everything. If I want maximum muscle strength I'd have testosterone into the thousands of ng/dL. But the potentially unpleasant side-effects represent those pesky tradeoffs

 

[Gman86]

Try this analogy: I tell you to build a car, and ask you to optimize it for both gas mileage and safety. The problem is, it can't be done. If you optimize for gas mileage you're going to have one of those flimsy featherweight vehicles like they use in the solar-power competitions. If you optimize for safety then you're going to build a tank-like vehicle. The point is that there are engineering tradeoffs. And with more complex systems and more parameters the necessity for tradeoffs only increases. I'd argue that evolution is selecting for fault-tolerance and adaptability. The system must be able to function adequately with parameters, e.g. hormones, in reasonably wide ranges. If environmental factors—such as food sources, climate, activity levels, etc.—affect our internal parameters then we must still be able to function well enough to survive and reproduce.

I'd say it's almost self-evident that no one level of testosterone is optimal for everything. If I want maximum muscle strength I'd have testosterone into the thousands of ng/dL. But the potentially unpleasant side-effects represent those pesky tradeoffs

You’re definitely right, in regards to there being trade offs with things. Just look at longevity, for example. Calorie restriction is a widely known way to increase life span. However, having lean muscle mass is extremely beneficial to many biologic functions. Lean muscle mass requires you to either stay at calorie maintenance, or if you want to build more muscle mass, it requires a calorie surplus, which obviously conflicts with calorie restriction. So you’re definitely spot on, in that regard.

The thing is though, your body has a ton of different hormones to control different things. It’s not like estrogen controls everything. So it still doesn’t make sense that evolution would make us choose what benefits we want from one specific hormone. It can just manipulate many different hormones to keep everything working properly, and maximizing the benefits of all hormones. It still just wouldn’t make sense for evolution to cause the human body to receive benefits from a certain hormone at times, and lose benefits from it at the same time. It would make much more sense for there to be a range where the body receives the maximum benefit from that hormone, in respect to everything that specific hormone is responsible for.

Your comparison with testosterone doesn’t really apply either. Yes, excess testosterone will consequently lead to more muscle mass/ strength gains, but that’s talking about supraphysiological levels. We’re talking about estrogen within the normal/ healthy range. If estrogen, or any other hormone for that matter, was in a healthy range, there should be no trade offs. Trade offs only come when there is conflicting goals, or if a hormone is out of balance.

 

[Cataceous]

... It’s not like estrogen controls everything. ...

Estradiol doesn't control everything, but it influences a lot more things than I ever would have guessed, including vasculature, sexual function, libido, the prostate, bone density, etc. I do not believe all of these systems are so finely-tuned that one estradiol concentration is best for all. This applies even within physiological levels, where, for example, a guy might find 20 pg/mL good for sexual function but 30 pg/mL better for bone health.

Evolution operates through an inherently random process based on mutations. These mutations range from very helpful to very harmful. The most harmful mutations are weeded out right away, but less harmful ones can persist, even if not indefinitely. So we see all this genetic variation, and you can't say that particular mutations are optimal, but the differences are good for avoiding a total collapse of the population. Thus the pressures of evolution are not directed to optimizing the health of individuals, but towards survival of the species.

 

[Gman86]

Estradiol doesn't control everything, but it influences a lot more things than I ever would have guessed, including vasculature, sexual function, libido, the prostate, bone density, etc. I do not believe all of these systems are so finely-tuned that one estradiol concentration is best for all. This applies even within physiological levels, where, for example, a guy might find 20 pg/mL good for sexual function but 30 pg/mL better for bone health.

Evolution operates through an inherently random process based on mutations. These mutations range very helpful to very harmful. The most harmful mutations are weeded out right away, but less harmful ones can persist, even if not indefinitely. So we see all this genetic variation, and you can't say that particular mutations are optimal, but the differences are good for avoiding a total collapse of the population. Thus the pressures of evolution are not directed to optimizing the health of individuals, but towards survival of the species.

I like where your heads at. Very interesting observations

 

[Cataceous]

I like where your heads at. Very interesting observations

Thanks—I've enjoyed reading your posts even before my recent sign-up with ExcelMale.

 

[Gman86]

Thanks—I've enjoyed reading your posts even before my recent sign-up with ExcelMale.

Appreciate that. Your posts were very well thought out and written, I enjoyed reading yours as well. The only reason I gave such a quick response to that last one is cuz I was leaving work. But you definitely have some great points, and your theory could absolutely have some validity. Your arguments are just too strong for me to be confident that evolution couldn’t work against itself. I just hope in the future we end up figuring out whether your theory is correct. It’s an extremely interesting hypothesis, imo. Thanks for the stimulating discussion