First cycle please help

I thought this was applicable for those whom are legitimately interested in developing a better understanding of AAS associated "fat loss", exclusive of bro science.

Incidentally, it's prophetic how a study conducted in 1999 is only available in "abstract form" some 17 YEARS later! And to think such "research" was cited by someone who chose my man ARNIE S as his Avatar, LOL
 

Attachments

Last edited:
"testosterone was recently found to be effective for fat loss in young men even in small doses. One recent study showed that men given only 100 milligrams per week of testosterone enanthate lost an average of six percent of their bodyfat after eight weeks.(6) 100 mg per week is generally considered a very low dose by bodybuilding standards. Most impressive about this study was that the result was obtained in young, normal healthy men (aged 18 to 45), not obese or testosterone deficient. Most of the studies showing positive effects with hormone replacement therapy are on subjects who are obese or hormone deficient – i.e. the very subjects most likely to respond. While the amount of muscle gain reported in this study was not reported (it is still just in abstract form), another study showed 100 mg per week of testosterone enanthate was not anabolic.(7) It appears that testosterone has a strong mechanism for fat loss other than increased metabolic rate from increased muscle. Considering how much cheaper testosterone is than growth hormone, it may well be the cost-effective choice for burning fat even if it is slightly less effective overall."

Anawalt, BD, et al. testosterone administration to normal men decreases truncal and total body fat . Presented at 1999 Endrocrine Society conference, San Diego, California

Michael Scally MD
Can you locate this "study" as I had no luck. It seems "Art" is fond of the old cut, paste and reload from one forum to another (inserting the opinions of others during the transition) form of "evidence based" methodology.

Thx
 
Michael Scally MD
Can you locate this "study" as I had no luck. It seems "Art" is fond of the old cut, paste and reload from one forum to another (inserting the opinions of others during the transition) form of "evidence based" methodology.

Thx
You need to tag him my man!!! lol @Michael Scally MD

mands
 
Send to:



J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Mar;88(3):1167-73.
The male contraceptive regimen of testosterone and levonorgestrel significantly increases lean mass in healthy young men in 4 weeks, but attenuates a decrease in fat mass induced by testosterone alone.
Herbst KL1, Anawalt BD, Amory JK, Matsumoto AM, Bremner WJ.
Author information

Abstract
In hypogonadal men, testosterone (T) in replacement dosages is known to increase fat-free mass (lean mass) and decrease fat mass. In young eugonadal men, similar dosages of T increase lean mass, but much higher dosages of T are required to decrease total body fat mass. Current T-based male hormonal contraceptive regimens include a second agent, such as a progestin, to maximize inhibition of pituitary gonadotropins and improve efficacy. To study the effect of such combinations on body composition, we randomized healthy, young, eugonadal men into four combinations of exogenous T and the progestin, levonorgestrel (LNG): 1) 100 mg T enanthate, im, weekly plus 125 micro g LNG, orally, daily (T+LNG); 2) T plus placebo LNG (T alone); 3) placebo T plus LNG (LNG alone); and 4) placebo T plus placebo LNG (placebo). We then analyzed body composition by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry after 4 and 8 wk of treatment. T+LNG significantly increased total lean mass after 4 and 8 wk of treatment (3.5 +/- 0.9% and 4.2 +/- 1.2%, respectively; P < 0.05) and truncal lean mass after 4 and 8 wk of treatment (4.7 +/- 0.9% and 5.0 +/- 0.9%, respectively; P < 0.05) compared with baseline and placebo. T alone also increased total and truncal lean mass significantly compared with placebo after 4 wk of treatment, but not compared with baseline (3.3 +/- 1.4% and 3.2 +/- 2.3%, respectively; P < 0.05 vs. placebo), suggesting an additive effect of T and LNG to increase lean mass. Fat mass significantly decreased in the abdomen in men administered T alone compared with LNG alone (-4.9 +/- 2.8%; P < 0.05). Fat mass significantly increased in the abdomen with LNG alone (4.1 +/- 1.0%; P < 0.05) compared with baseline and was unchanged with the combination of T+LNG, suggesting that LNG attenuates the decrease in fat mass seen with T alone. There was no change in weight or body mass index in any group during the study. This study shows that in young eugonadal men 1) T alone rapidly increases lean mass and decreases fat mass in 4-8 wk; 2) T+LNG rapidly increases lean mass, but has no effect on fat mass; and 3) LNG alone increases fat mass. The favorable profile on body composition by T is, therefore, partially attenuated by the progestin, LNG. These findings suggest that androgen-based male hormonal contraceptives might have favorable effects on body composition. The impact of these changes on cardiovascular risk in normal men needs further study."

mands
 
Send to:



J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Mar;88(3):1167-73.
The male contraceptive regimen of testosterone and levonorgestrel significantly increases lean mass in healthy young men in 4 weeks, but attenuates a decrease in fat mass induced by testosterone alone.
Herbst KL1, Anawalt BD, Amory JK, Matsumoto AM, Bremner WJ.
Author information

Abstract
In hypogonadal men, testosterone (T) in replacement dosages is known to increase fat-free mass (lean mass) and decrease fat mass. In young eugonadal men, similar dosages of T increase lean mass, but much higher dosages of T are required to decrease total body fat mass. Current T-based male hormonal contraceptive regimens include a second agent, such as a progestin, to maximize inhibition of pituitary gonadotropins and improve efficacy. To study the effect of such combinations on body composition, we randomized healthy, young, eugonadal men into four combinations of exogenous T and the progestin, levonorgestrel (LNG): 1) 100 mg T enanthate, im, weekly plus 125 micro g LNG, orally, daily (T+LNG); 2) T plus placebo LNG (T alone); 3) placebo T plus LNG (LNG alone); and 4) placebo T plus placebo LNG (placebo). We then analyzed body composition by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry after 4 and 8 wk of treatment. T+LNG significantly increased total lean mass after 4 and 8 wk of treatment (3.5 +/- 0.9% and 4.2 +/- 1.2%, respectively; P < 0.05) and truncal lean mass after 4 and 8 wk of treatment (4.7 +/- 0.9% and 5.0 +/- 0.9%, respectively; P < 0.05) compared with baseline and placebo. T alone also increased total and truncal lean mass significantly compared with placebo after 4 wk of treatment, but not compared with baseline (3.3 +/- 1.4% and 3.2 +/- 2.3%, respectively; P < 0.05 vs. placebo), suggesting an additive effect of T and LNG to increase lean mass. Fat mass significantly decreased in the abdomen in men administered T alone compared with LNG alone (-4.9 +/- 2.8%; P < 0.05). Fat mass significantly increased in the abdomen with LNG alone (4.1 +/- 1.0%; P < 0.05) compared with baseline and was unchanged with the combination of T+LNG, suggesting that LNG attenuates the decrease in fat mass seen with T alone. There was no change in weight or body mass index in any group during the study. This study shows that in young eugonadal men 1) T alone rapidly increases lean mass and decreases fat mass in 4-8 wk; 2) T+LNG rapidly increases lean mass, but has no effect on fat mass; and 3) LNG alone increases fat mass. The favorable profile on body composition by T is, therefore, partially attenuated by the progestin, LNG. These findings suggest that androgen-based male hormonal contraceptives might have favorable effects on body composition. The impact of these changes on cardiovascular risk in normal men needs further study."

mands

Those are less than impressive P values for such a small study, especially considering whenever LBM increases TFM will decrease on proportional basis

Finally the authors fail to mention or even propose a MOA for the fat reduction changes observed.

I'll review the entire study THX
MANDS
 
Take a look at the citation I posted earlier with a much better controlled study design and a proposed MOA being changes in Leptin and Adiopnectin, both proven FALSE.

Heck even if a substance mobilizes adipose triglycerides into FFA, in order for fat reduction to occur metabolic processes must be properly aligned to ensure available Fatty Acids are catabolized or they will simply reassemble into their prior fat like state.

Scientists have played with ways to selectively cut the fat via the induction/reduction of certain metabolic pathways and we are STILL LOOKING some 50 years later.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top