Paper: Male PCOS, Low SHBG & their genetic components

I do not see how you draw conclusions on the failure of TRT, particularly if one has a normal T. Why would one expect something to "happen" if the level is normal. I can see the link between the Metabolic Syndrome, which is not a disorder, and certain biochemical findings.


Azziz R. Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Is a Family Affair. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008;93(5):1579-81. [For References, Continue Reading Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Is a Family Affair ]

In this issue of the Journal, Dr. Sir-Petermann and her colleagues (1) report an interesting cross-sectional study of 80 sons of patients with the polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), 20 identified in infancy, 31 in childhood, and 29 in adulthood. Using a control population of 56 sons of healthy women, these investigators concluded that the sons of PCOS patients demonstrated early-onset overweightness, observable even in infancy, with the expected hyperinsulinemia and hypercholesterolemia. Furthermore, adult sons were significantly more hyperinsulinemic and insulin resistant than predicted by body mass index (BMI), suggesting that these offspring demonstrate a further defect in insulin action above and beyond that determined by their degree of obesity. This important study clearly demonstrates the heritable aspects of both overweightness and insulin resistance in PCOS and points to the early manifestations of the disorder, namely weight gain, even in infancy and even in the male progeny of PCOS patients.

Significant in this study is the finding of early-onset obesity, evident as early as infancy. Others have previously observed that the development of obesity in adolescence is associated with the self-reported PCOS symptoms in adulthood (2). However, the role of obesity in the development of PCOS remains unclear. In a cross-sectional analysis of 675 unselected women seeking a preemployment health evaluation, we observed a modest, and nonsignificant, increase in the prevalence of PCOS, from 9% to 12%, with increasing BMI (3). In agreement, although the prevalence of obesity varies greatly across the world, various studies of the prevalence of PCOS in different countries with significantly different background rates of obesity yielded similar rates for the prevalence of PCOS (6.5–9%) (3,4,5,6). These data suggest that higher rates of obesity in a population are associated with only modest effects on the overall risk of PCOS.

Data on the role of environmental factors, such as nutrition habits, in the development of PCOS are scant. We observed, in analyzing the features of PCOS over a 15-yr period of time, that the mean BMI and the proportion of individuals with obesity increased in parallel with the change in obesity prevalence in the surrounding general population (3), suggesting that the degree of obesity in PCOS, in part, mirrors that of the proximate population. Alternatively, the rate of obesity among women with PCOS, like that observed in their sons by Sir-Petermann, is generally higher than the prevailing populational rate (2,3,4,5,6). In addition, few differences have been observed in eating habits between women with PCOS and their healthy counterparts. For example, we were unable to detect significant differences in the consumption of total energy, macronutrients, micronutrients, and high-glycemic-index foods between PCOS and race-, age-, and BMI-matched healthy controls (7). Likewise, Carmina et al. (8) were unable to detect differences in total calorie intake and dietary constituents between PCOS women in Italy and the United States, except for a higher saturated fat in U.S. women, despite the significantly higher BMI of U.S. patients. These results suggest that although environmental factors, such as eating habits, may determine the degree of obesity in PCOS, the higher rate of obesity in PCOS relative to that of the surrounding population and the early development of obesity observed in women with PCOS (or, as in this study, in the sons of women with PCOS) may be due more to inherited than to environmental factors.

The overall higher prevalence of obesity in PCOS, despite the absence of significant differences in dietary intake and regardless of the overall prevalence of obesity in the surrounding population, and the early onset of the overweightness, suggests the importance of genetic factors. However, to date, only a few obesity-related genes, such as PPAR?, leptin, leptin receptor, and adiponectin have been examined in PCOS (9). Increased efforts should be made to thoroughly examine those genes modulating the development of obesity and fat mass in humans, including genes encoding for factors regulating food and energy intake and satiety (e.g. neuropeptide Y, ghrelin, cholecystokinin, peptide YY), genes encoding for factors regulating energy expenditure (e.g. members of the ?-adrenoceptor gene family and uncoupling proteins), and genes encoding for factors implicated in adipogenesis [e.g. the fat mass and obesity-associated (FTO) gene] (10,11).

Nonetheless, the study of PCOS genetics is not without its challenges. PCOS should be considered a common, complex genetic disorder, as are other conditions such as type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), schizophrenia, and asthma. Such common diseases, including PCOS, appear to have a complex, multifactorial etiology, in which multiple predisposing genes, not just one gene, interact with environmental factors to produce disease. A major challenge to gene-finding efforts in complex diseases is that each gene typically contributes modestly to disease risk. For example, most of the recently discovered genes for type 2 DM affect risk by only 25–35% (12), necessitating large sample sizes for adequate power to discover the genes. PCOS genetics is also faced with other hurdles unique to the syndrome, such as impaired fertility potentially leading to small family sizes, lack of a clear phenotype in men (notwithstanding the observations of Sir-Petermann and colleagues) and in prepubertal and menopausal women, and the absence of universally accepted diagnostic criteria (13). Although several positive results have been reported in PCOS, no gene or genes is universally accepted as important in PCOS pathogenesis. This is the result of inadequate analysis of the genes, because often only one or two variants are analyzed, and of the small size of the cohorts in many studies. Equally contributing has been the relative lack of a systematic effort to replicate positive results.

As genetic epidemiology advances, the approach of testing one variant per gene is being replaced by analyzing candidate genes completely with several haplotype-tagging single-nucleotide polymorphisms as well as testing entire pathways or entire genomes with many variants. To mitigate the increased probability of false-positive associations due to multiple testing, it is essential that positive reports be confirmed before results can be widely accepted. Unfortunately, few efforts have been made in this regard in the study of PCOS genetics. Replication studies in the investigation of the genetics of complex disorders, including PCOS, are essential elements in our progress toward understanding the genetic basis of these pervasive disorders. For example, an initial report found association with PCOS of a promoter variant in the gene for 17?-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 5 (14), a biologically plausible candidate. Yet, a study in a much larger cohort demonstrated no evidence of this association (15). It is thus evident that advances in high-throughput genotyping and analysis will need to be accompanied by greater replication efforts in PCOS genetics. Indeed, the great progress in type 2 DM has been made possible by the ample number of replication efforts (12). Notably, proper replication studies need to include a significantly greater number of subjects than the initial study (16), a major problem considering the paucity of large genetic databases available for the study of PCOS.

As important as the findings of the study of Sir-Petermann are, also interesting are what the investigators did not observe. Despite evidence that the BMIs of the infants studied were higher than that of sons of normal women, the weights or gestational ages at birth did not differ between the sons of PCOS and their healthy counterparts. Various investigators have suggested that one cohort of girls at risk for developing premature adrenarche, insulin resistance, or PCOS are those individuals that are born small for gestational age (SGA) (17,18). Sir-Petermann and her colleagues had previously reported that in 47 infants born from singleton pregnancies in women with PCOS, the prevalence of SGA infants was significantly higher (12.8 vs. 2.8%, respectively), compared with 180 infants born to healthy controls (19). Alternatively, other investigators using data from a longitudinal, population-based study of a cohort of women born in 1966 in northern Finland did not observe an association between weight at birth, gestational age, SGA, or growth retardation at birth with self-reported symptoms of PCOS (2). The absence of a higher prevalence of SGA or low-birth-weight infants in the sons of PCOS women, who otherwise appear to demonstrate a higher frequency of impaired insulin action, suggests that the presence of an intrauterine impairment in growth is not associated with the development of the insulin resistance of PCOS or, alternatively, may selectively affect female fetuses, such that SGA may be an etiological factor in a subset of PCOS women. Further investigation of the role of the intrauterine environment in the development of PCOS, particularly in females, is needed.

Finally, the results of this study highlight the significant economic burden that PCOS and its associated morbidities have. In the United States, we estimate that at a minimum 4 million women are affected and that the economic burden of these women just in their premenopausal years is conservatively 4.4 billion dollars (in 2004 figures) (20). A cursory estimate of the cost of PCOS in menopausal women suggests that an additional 9.5 billion dollars would be spent related to the excess rate of DM, cerebrovascular accidents, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) (Azziz, R., and K. D. Gregory, unpublished). The economic burden related to PCOS would rise even further if the disorder were confirmed to be associated with a net increase in the incidence of metabolic disorders and CVD in the sons of women with PCOS, as suggested by the data of Sir-Petermann and colleagues.

The symptoms of PCOS in an index patient or in the mother or sister, arguably the earliest indicator of an increased risk for DM and CVD, may provide an opportunity for early risk factor detection and intervention. For example, women with irregular menses demonstrate an increased risk of DM and CVD (21,22), an effect the investigators attributed primarily to the predominant role PCOS plays in menstrual dysfunction. Consequently, the presence of menstrual irregularities or symptoms of hyperandrogenism or PCOS in female members of a family should be considered an additional risk factor for metabolic dysfunction, type 2 DM, and CVD in all family members.

And so, PCOS is a family affair. Sisters, brothers, fathers, mothers, daughters, and now even sons of women with PCOS have been found to have a higher risk for exhibiting either the hyperandrogenemic or metabolic traits of the disorder. In addition, the data of Sir-Petermann and colleagues (1) suggest that the development of overweightness and obesity in childhood or adolescence, in the absence of gross abnormalities in birth weight, may be one of the earliest signs of the disorder. Currently, most data appear to suggest that the development of obesity in PCOS families is primarily driven by genetic factors, although the degree and overall prevalence of obesity in the disorder may reflect, to a significant extent, the surrounding environment. There is an urgent need to continue to identify potential candidate genes in PCOS, taking into account the fact that in this, like other complex traits, most genes will have relatively modest effects on the development of the disorder when considered individually. Likewise, there is a significant need to develop multiple large consortia to collect and phenotype sufficient numbers of patients to discover putative genes and participate in the necessary replication studies. While I congratulate Dr. Sir-Petermann and her colleagues on a well thought-out investigation, I also look forward to the replication study that will confirm their observations and extend them to gene identification.


Recabarren SE, Sir-Petermann T, Rios R, et al. Pituitary and Testicular Function in Sons of Women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome from Infancy to Adulthood. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008;93(9):3318-24. Pituitary and Testicular Function in Sons of Women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome from Infancy to Adulthood -- Recabarren et al. 93 (9): 3318 -- Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

Context: An important proportion of male members of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) families exhibit insulin resistance and related metabolic defects. However, the reproductive phenotypes in first-degree male relatives of PCOS women have been described less often.

Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate the pituitary-testicular function in sons of women with PCOS during different stages of life: early infancy, childhood, and adulthood. Design: Eighty sons of women with PCOS (PCOSS) and 56 sons of control women without hyperandrogenism (CS), matched for age, were studied. In all subjects, the pituitary-gonadal axis was evaluated by a GnRH agonist test (leuprolide acetate, 10 {micro}g/kg sc). Serum anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) and inhibin B were used as Sertoli cell markers. Serum concentrations of gonadotropins, steroid hormones, and SHBG were also determined. A semen analysis was performed.

Results: Basal concentrations of gonadotropins, sex steroids, and inhibin B were comparable between PCOSs and CS during early infancy, childhood, and adulthood. Similar results in stimulated gonadotropin and sex steroid concentrations were observed. However, AMH serum concentrations were higher in PCOSs compared with CS during early infancy [925.0 (457.3-1401.7) vs. 685.6 (417.9-1313.2) pmol/liter, P = 0.039] and childhood [616.3 (304.6-1136.9) vs. 416.5 (206.7-801.2) pmol/liter, P = 0.007). Sperm-count analysis was similar between both groups.

Conclusions: AMH concentrations are increased in prepubertal sons of women with PCOS, suggesting that these boys may show an increased Sertoli cell number or function during infancy and childhood. However, this does not seem to have a major deleterious effect on sperm production.
 
I see where the misunderstanding has occurred. This is not for men with normal levels of testosterone. This is for men with existing low testosterone levels combined with low SHBG in males that have secondary hypogonadism.

In this scenario, administered testosterone greatly upsets the balance of "free" and total testosterone. There is not enough circulating SHBG to "buffer" the exogenous testosterone. Moreover, added testosterone actually drives SHBG downward which futher compounds the problem. The excess free testosterone leads quickly to excess E2, DHT, etc. Therefore, this is scenario is extremely difficult to treat with traditional TRT.

For example, in my particular case, bringing testosterone up to normal levels causes free testosterone to jump over twice the normal range. Obviously, this produces highly undesirable side effects and practically negates all of the benefits of the normal "total" testosterone level that TRT provides.

While the cause of the low SHBG remains unknown, the prevailing theory is that the lowered SHBG output is the root cause of the low total testosterone. The response to excess free testosterone is lowered tesosterone output, and the reason for the excess free testosterone is the defecit of appropriate levels of SHBG. Males with this combination present with low testosterone because it is the highest amount of testosterone the body can make without creating an excess of free tesosterone given the abnormally low amount of SHBG the body can produce.

To address your contention more directly: the "failure of TRT" in this case is the administration of TRT itself. Testosterone does not need to be replaced. SHBG needs to be normalized. Administrating testosterone will only further lower SHBG.

The common mistake is that low testosterone is treated instead of the real issue. It has been known for some time that the most likely culprit of low SHBG is Metabolic Syndrome, but the paper that I presented highlights some alternate possibilities.

The proper treatment in this scenario is to determine what is causing the low SHBG and focus on that very issue.

I do not understand why you might promote the addition of testosterone in the scenario described in the first paragraph, especially when that approach has failed numerous members of this very board. If you have some reason why SHBG ought NOT to be considered in a diagnosis, or why adding testosterone ought to be a blanket treatment for this and other anomalous 'low T' cases, please don't keep them a secret.
 
Question for Dr. Scally:

Do you believe that a HRT/TRT patient with low SHBG should be treated the same as one that can produce adequate SHBG?

According to the research that I've read, at the very least, one should be aware of the implications of low SHBG and start out with a much lower dosage of exogenous testosterone. In general, however, these patients should avoid TRT. They won't be able to get adequately high levels of total testosterone without creating other imbalances. Instead, they should discover the cause of the low SHBG and correct it.

What is your stance on the above?
 
Question for Dr. Scally:

Do you believe that a HRT/TRT patient with low SHBG should be treated the same as one that can produce adequate SHBG?

According to the research that I've read, at the very least, one should be aware of the implications of low SHBG and start out with a much lower dosage of exogenous testosterone. In general, however, these patients should avoid TRT. They won't be able to get adequately high levels of total testosterone without creating other imbalances. Instead, they should discover the cause of the low SHBG and correct it.

What is your stance on the above?

It looks to me like the author of this paper is pointing towards male hair loss prior to 30 years of age as a prerequisite for the male version of PCOS - i.e. genetically low SHBG. I don't see anyone on this board pointing this out. My SHBG is low and I have a full head of hair. Someone, I forget who, was calling me an idiot for starting TRT with low SHBG.

If my SHBG is due to metabolic syndrome, then I think it makes perfect sense to start TRT. We are all looking for a quick fix, and that just does not happen in those with low SHBG due to Metabolic Syndrome. However, my increased Free-T, even though high, has helped me lose 25 lbs in two months. With my becoming aware of the Jupiter study showing Crestor leading to insulin resistance and ultimately diabetes, I have since quit the Crestor. It will be interesting to see what the impact of both losing the additional weight and increasing BMI coupled with stopping Crestor treatment (another paper specifically targeted statins as decreasing SHBG) will have on my own SHBG and other hormones, especially since my LDLs were driven to very low levels (17 and 28) with a total as low as 89. I now monitor my cholesterol at home with a CardoChek kit and take appropriate measures to keep it under control. Soon I'll be adding Glucose to that list.

So the theory that TRT is not good for low SHBG patients not true in all cases. On TRT my exercise induced angina is gone, my muscle mass is shooting up fast, and my adipose fat is disappearing before my eyes. I have libido and ED issues but I'll address those later after I get the SHBG (if I can) under control. If not, then pellets are a good choice for low SHBG patients, just keep the total T around 400 (for me) and constant, allowing the body to reach homeostasis and then use HRT for libido and ED. I know I am capable of a very high libido and excellent erections because for three weeks on the shots it was like I was 18 again. So some combination worked.

I'm tired of hearing this low SHBG contraindicates TRT BS. Maybe for some it does, but sounding the horn of doom for all cases is not helpful.
 
I hear what you are saying, gmerits.

However, your low SHBG isn't congenital, you aren't young (or healthy) and you probably had/have a genuine testosterone deficiency atop the low SHBG -- likely exaerbated by some of your medications, adipose tissue and insulin resistance.

I posted the paper to bring light to congenital low SHBG. Very often, it is assumed that the low SHBG is always a secondary symptom of a larger problem. However, some of us are born with it, and it is the cause of the rest of our problems.

We, with congenitally low SHBG, do often go bald before 30 and all of our symptoms occur at very young ages. You'll normally see a number of young 20-somethings reporting the problem while it is the-40 somethings that complain of late-onset primary hypogonadism. They know what it felt like to "be 20." We still do not.

One of the keys to the congenital presentation is that free T is often midrange. You had low free and total testosterone, correct? So, yes, in your case, a boost in T is indicated.

In your case, it sounds like what you have is acquired Metabolic Syndrome with symptomatically low SHBG. Your excess insulin prevents SHBG expression from the liver.

It sounds as though you are up in years. With your 25 stents, Crestor, blood pressure medication and Klonopin, I'm not sure what to make of your situation, except:

You may very well have traditional primary hypogonadism in addition to insulin resistance/Metabolic Syndrome X. In that case, I'm not surprised a boost of testosterone helped. If your free T was LOW, then testosteorne will help. You aren't a classic low SHBG case, though, then.

So, your low SHBG isn't congenital, you aren't young (or healthy) and you probably have/had a genuine testosterone deficiency atop the low SHBG -- likely exacerbated by some of your medications and other health issues.

Regarding the "death toll," I believe I was clear in other threads about the possibility of recovery, if the root of the issue is addressable. It's only a "death toll" when it is genetic, because we can't change those genetics.
 
I hear what you are saying, gmerits.

However, your low SHBG isn't congenital, you aren't young (or healthy) and you probably had/have a genuine testosterone deficiency atop the low SHBG -- likely exaerbated by some of your medications, adipose tissue and insulin resistance.

I posted the paper to bring light to congenital low SHBG. Very often, it is assumed that the low SHBG is always a secondary symptom of a larger problem. However, some of us are born with it, and it is the cause of the rest of our problems.

We, with congenitally low SHBG, do often go bald before 30 and all of our symptoms occur at very young ages. You'll normally see a number of young 20-somethings reporting the problem while it is the-40 somethings that complain of late-onset primary hypogonadism. They know what it felt like to "be 20." We still do not.

One of the keys to the congenital presentation is that free T is often midrange. You had low free and total testosterone, correct? So, yes, in your case, a boost in T is indicated.

In your case, it sounds like what you have is acquired Metabolic Syndrome with symptomatically low SHBG. Your excess insulin prevents SHBG expression from the liver.

It sounds as though you are up in years. With your 25 stents, Crestor, blood pressure medication and Klonopin, I'm not sure what to make of your situation, except:

You may very well have traditional primary hypogonadism in addition to insulin resistance/Metabolic Syndrome X. In that case, I'm not surprised a boost of testosterone helped. If your free T was LOW, then testosteorne will help. You aren't a classic low SHBG case, though, then.

So, your low SHBG isn't congenital, you aren't young (or healthy) and you probably have/had a genuine testosterone deficiency atop the low SHBG -- likely exacerbated by some of your medications and other health issues.

Regarding the "death toll," I believe I was clear in other threads about the possibility of recovery, if the root of the issue is addressable. It's only a "death toll" when it is genetic, because we can't change those genetics.

Agreed on almost everything you said. I am neither secondary not primary. I argue that in another post: https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/134298760

I responded to Scally's PCT, got to 560 right after stopping, leveled out at 390 TT, and then ate like a pig, gained over 20lbs and was back in low T land. I just had a Bod Pod measurement done in a hydrostatic chamber - 26 or 28% body fat -can't remember off the top of my head. I don't look like it until I look sideways in mirror and don't suck in the gut. Then it's obvious. As I have very little fat anywhere else, all 56lbs of my fat is pretty much adipose (probably closer to 46 lbs). MSX is where I am for sure.

I think if I get the SHBG under control by losing the weight I need to, I can successfully restart. My idiopathic is not primary or secondary - MRI of pituitary and adrenals are normal - and I responded to clomiphene citrate and tamoxifen as well as HCG. My idiopathic is the dumping of excess bio-T into estrogen which blunts the hypothalamus release of GnRH and subsequently LH from the pituitary. Sound secondary, but in the above referenced post I argue why the idiopathic in my case is better described as insulin resistance with a side effect on my HP axis. It is not strictly correct to call my idiopathic secondary if I am looking at a systemic effect. If I just look at the HPTA axis only then I could, but isolating the axis and not looking outside of it is not good medicine as far as I am concerned.

The congenital version looks very real to me and folks on this board should not dismiss is lightly. However, I believe the pellets - if properly used - can keep your TT levels constant at whatever level you need to keep your bio-T in range and then use vitamin D and possibly Arimidex (I take 15,000IUs per day of vitamin D and it puts me in the mid-range - it is a great AI for all the estrogens, not just E2), you may be surprised at how you feel. Of course, keeping track of DHEA-S and DHT is important as well and there may be a necessity to modulate these values either up or down. It sounds difficult, but I think it can be done with the right doctor.

I think Marciano works with patients like this, does he not?

I agree with you 100% that this condition does exist and is relatively new to the community. I would also argue that anyone who ignores the evidence this condition exists and attempts to treat such a person with normal TRT protocols is insane if they are aware you have such a genetic issue with SHBG that is not related to any gene expression for insulin resistance or some other concomitant issue that lowers SHBG as a side-effect.

People with low SHBG as a natural state absent any other condition should be treated differently. It may be that a cause is found and it may not be genetic, but right now those suffering from this illness present with symptoms such as hair loss before age 30 (same as PCOS sufferers) that pointing to insulin resistance or adrenals or thyroid when the evidence exists that low SHBG is present in these patients without medical concerns surrounding any of these systems is lazy.

If I were such a sufferer I would look for a doctor who is willing to take this condition seriously and work with the patient. Perhaps you should start a group on this forum and begin to collect the names of endos and ODs over time that assist people experiencing this newly noticed phenomenon. If you are interested, I can help you setup a wordpress blog for free (except for the hosting which is around $9 a month and then the cost of any forum software (around $200). Either way, I think this deserves a section of its own as it is something new and relatively misunderstood.
 
James, I find all your info on the subject of the relation of SHBG very informative and have enjoyed since the first thread last year. I certainly find all the proposed possible connections interesting. But clarify for me as it has been a while since I gave it a whole lot a thought.

My thoughts preliminarily are that sexHBG simply drops as a response to lowered TT levels THAT have resulted from what I think is the primary cause of most diagnosed Low T scenarios for middle aged men. SAY WHAT??? All I am saying, is if high body fat levels are the reason for the shutdown in TT production, and due to high estrogen levels resulting, then isnt SHBG simply being lowered as a counter to try to resolve the now victimized levels of androgens...?? So IMO SHBG is simply a second level tweak on the body's TT availability as it relates to productions. And the "fine tune" so to speak.. So hows someone with E based shutdown going to feel better anyway, when all they are doing is fueling even more E on top of the new availabe for androgens? They wont.....

My point was that I think that SHBG is merely a resulting adjustment, and not a driving cause...
 
BBC3,

I think I've addressed this in other posts. In healthy men, SHBG will increase as T increases and lower as T lowers, as you've mentioned.

However, in the men with the same genetic anomaly that is shared by women with PCOS, SHBG expression will be minimized regardless of circulating androgens.

For example, in my case, if it were low T causing the low SHBG -- when I inject testosterone my SHBG should increase proportionately. Instead, injecting testosterone leaves SHBG just as low or even lower and the excess free testosterone rapidly turns to DHT and E2

This observation reveals that it must the low SHBG that is keeping the body from attempting to boost testosterone and not the opposite. This only holds for men with this specific SHBG gene polymorphism.

The faster we can get this information into the mainstream, the faster we can cure all of the "mysterious" cases of young men with low testosterone that do not respond to testosterone theraphy and continue to bewilder clueless doctors like Dr. Scally and Dr. Crisler.
 
Last edited:
But you missed my point. What I was say is that exactly your SHBG did not go up, or even decreased, because your body is not only shutting down TT production for say, whatever reason, hence no futher SHBG is going to respond or be observed. So I am saying SHBG IS NOT A SERVANT TO, BUT A REGULATOR to TT metabolism, and primary to production points.

Still I am not sure how SHBG is measured. Do they include actively binding to TT and also just plain old SHBG, both, what. Did we ever get an answer to this question. Because it would make a difference to my hypothesis with regard to serum counting. I COULD apply this concept to SHBG, however, it does not seem to work regardless due to;. I am thinking the SHBG is only produced by demand/regulation factors and therefore ALL produced immediately binds to TT, so therefore ALL SHBG measured must be actively involved with TT.

I will point out that just as we can not COUNT the number of TT molecules metabolised, then we could not count the SHBG. So actually this COULD be a premise to resolving my issue with actual production as it relates, and further clarify the point I have about SERUM COUNTS.

At first typing this I was thinking perhaps I could corrolate measurements of SHBG with TT counts, and perhaps affirm or deny some of my hypothesis. BUT, then you have the monkey wrench of the fact that we dont know what TT is metabolising to and at WHAT RATES. Therefore, there is no way to corrolate the turnover. For all we know, TT may metabolize to E's EXTERMELY SLOWLY due to E's may remain potent for several receptor interactions once converted. And hence the percieved potency of their effect on the HPTA.

But it would be interesting to know how the serum count of SHBG relates to TT in circulation. I would speculate it to be higher since it would be a more primary metabolim controlling factor in my hypothesis. But actually only higher in a subject who was not doc'd with low T AS A REAL AND ACCURATE DIAGNOSIS ON A FRONTS. Then I would expect SHBG to be closer to TT levels in LowT males, but still higher due to the incredible fast rate of hormone metabolism at the TT level. Just some more thoughts. More feedback is appreciated. I certainly respect your views with regard to this matter.:)

BBC3,

I think I've addressed this in other posts. In healthy men, SHBG will increase as T increases and lower as T lowers, as you've mentioned.

However, in the men with the same genetic anomaly that is shared by women with PCOS, SHBG expression will be minimized regardless of circulating androgens.

For example, in my case, if it were low T causing the low SHBG -- when I inject testosterone my SHBG should increase proportionately. Instead, injecting testosterone leaves SHBG just as low or even lower and the excess free testosterone rapidly turns to DHT and E2

This observation reveals that it must the low SHBG that is keeping the body from attempting to boost testosterone and not the opposite. This only holds for men with this specific SHBG gene polymorphism.

The faster we can get this information into the mainstream, the faster we can cure all of the "mysterious" cases of young men with low testosterone that do not respond to testosterone theraphy and continue to bewilder clueless doctors like Dr. Scally and Dr. Crisler.
 
I have some very interesting news. I have recently come in contact with my biological family. As it turns out, my sister has full blown PCOS.
 
Last edited:
I have some very interesting news. I have recently come in contact with my biological family. As it turns out, my sister has full blown PCOS.

Been a while for me looking at this thread. What does this mean for you and how can it help you?
 
It means that my low-SHBG problem is genetic, as I've suspected and as the paper that I presented in the original post would support.

It helps me because I know know that my minor thyroid issues are symptomatic, rather than the root cause of my problems.

Here's the rub for all the other TRT-incurable low-SHBG gentlemen out there: PCOS is incurable and there is no known cause. It appears to be genetic and since it is a "syndrome" there are many factors which differer from case to case.

It means, as I've been saying for years, I need to get my SHBG up. Somehow.
 
It also means that doctors need to wake up:

The young males with issues that cannot be cured with TRT and that have low SHBG have a genetic problem that is the male equivalent of the syndrome known in females as PCOS.

It could be easily solved if someone could find a drug to increase SHBG!
 
I just started taking 500mg of metformin a day. When should I start noticing the benefits, if ever?
 
I just started taking 500mg of metformin a day. When should I start noticing the benefits, if ever?

I have been using core from othomolecular and there has been a rise with people with low SHBG. Gmerit will verifiy this. Metformin can have side effects. I use this product in women with PCOS and also men with metabolic syndrome.
 
I just started taking 500mg of metformin a day. When should I start noticing the benefits, if ever?

I never noticed any subjective benefits in my 4 years on metformin. On the contrary, it plus being a statin hyper-responder is why I'm on TRT in the first place (it lowers both IGF-1 and testosterone in a significant number of patients). Its benefits are reflected only in labs. My A1C is at 5.5% and holding instead of the 5.8% at time of the prediabetes diagnosis.

What benefits were you expecting to notice?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top