Opioid Modulation for Preventing AAS Induced HPTA Suppression.

cvictorg

New Member
Saw this posted on another forum - any opinions

http://www.cuttingedgemuscle.com/Forum/showthread.php?threadid=22473 (Opioid Modulation for Preventing AAS Induced HPTA Suppression. - Cutting Edge Muscle Forums)

Opioid Modulation for Preventing AAS Induced HPTA Suppression.


By Eric M. Potratz (Email)

Eric M. Potratz has developed his education in the field of endocrinology and performance enhancement through years of research, counseling, and real world experience. Over the past five years he has been a private consultant for hundreds of athletes and bodybuilders alike, and is the founder & president of Primordial Performance.


Suppression of the HPTA (Hypothalamus, Pituitary, Testicular Axis) is seemingly unavoidable during a steroid cycle. What I will be presenting in this article is a new idea to the world of AAS users. This exciting new concept addresses the possibility of limiting and possibly preventing suppression of the (HPTA) during cycle. More specifically, I will show you how to actively modulate the hypothalamus & pituitary pulse generator during cycle and how this can prime our endocrine system for a quicker, smarter, and healthier recovery from anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS).

For a moment, let?s forget the concept of ?post cycle therapy?, and embrace the idea of ?on cycle therapy? ? active therapy throughout a steroid cycle. The HPTA involves a constant biological interplay of responses and feedback loops that can ultimately become shutdown and degraded during AAS administration. However, research suggests suppression of the hypothalamus and pituitary may be preventable during steroid use. Before we delve into the details, lets first take a quick recap on the HTPA and how it responses to AAS.

HPTA ? The basics

When the hypothalamus senses low hormone levels, it secretes gonandotropin releasing hormone (GnRH). This GnRH then travels a short distance to the nearby pituitary gland to stimulate the release of the gonadotrophins -- luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle stimulating hormone (FSH). These gonadotrophins travel all the way down to the testes, to activate their respective leydig and seritoli cells. LH initiates testosterone production by stimulating the leydig cell receptor (steroidogenesis), while FSH initiates sperm production by stimulating the sertoli cell receptor (spermatogenesis).

AAS?s inhibit hormone production just as your body?s own hormones do. Testosterone interacts with the androgen receptor (AR) and estrogen interacts with the estrogen receptor (ER). When these hormones are in high concentration, they cause the hypothalamus to decrease its release of GnRH, which decreases LH and FSH production from the pituitary. (1) This cuts off the signal to the testis and halts all hormone production. This process is a daily event for the rhythmic endocrine system. Spikes in LH & FSH are followed by spikes in testosterone, and spikes in testosterone result in a reduction of LH & FSH release until testosterone levels decline and LH & FSH is released again. The caveat with most steroids, is that hormone levels remain chronically high (24/7) and do not allow release of LH or FSH, thus leaving the pituitary and testis in a dormant state for as long as the steroids are administered.

While low-dose on-cycle hCG is a good protocol to mimic LH and keep the testes from atrophy, (discussed here) it won?t help prevent pituitary atrophy. We forget that the pituitary is susceptible to the same degradation and atrophy as the testes. That is, when the GnRH secretion from the hypothalamus stops (during a steroid cycle), the pituitary reduces its number of GnRH receptors and becomes less and less responsive to GnRH stimulation as time goes on. (11) This is analogous to atrophy of the testis, during absence of an LH or FSH signal. On the other hand, both the pituitary and testis will decrease receptor concentration during over stimulation as well, as its been found from too much hCG use or too much GnRH stimulation.(12,13) The point here, is that only minor stimulus is required for the preservation of sensitivity in the endocrine organs. Perhaps a completely neglected and suppressed pituitary (or testes) may explain the lack of full and prompt recovery for many steroid users, despite adherence to a ?tried and true? PCT regimen. So the question is ? How can we prevent suppression of the testes, and better yet, how can we prevent suppression of the pituitary?



A closer look ?

There are several ways that steroids can inhibit LH & FSH release from the pituitary based on the receptors they occupy, and this is important to understand if you plan on blocking AAS induced suppression. For instance, it appears that AAS which bind strictly to the AR only inhibit LH & FSH release by suppressing GnRH release from the hypothalamus (ie Primobolan, Proviron, Anavar or Masteron). (34,37,39) However, AAS which possess estrogenic (ER) or progestogenic (PR) activity inhibit LH & FSH by directly down-regulating the GnRH receptors on the pituitary, while also reducing GnRH release from the hypothalamus. (35,38) Therefore, progestin based AAS such as trenbolone and nandrolone are ?double suppressive? because they are binding to the AR and PR and suppressing LH & FSH by two different mechanisms. (36) The same can be said for steroids that aromatize, such as testosterone or methandrostenolone since they can activate both AR and ER receptors.

Evidence suggests that estradiol is about 200x more suppressive than testosterone on a molar basis (37), and that administration of Arimidex can greatly reduce testosterone?s suppression of LH release. (42) However, since progesterone based AAS?s such as nandrolone and trenbolone are inherently progestogenic based on their hormone structure, there is no way to prevent them from activating the PR. Therefore, it?s virtually pointless to try to block the suppression from progestin based anabolics. However, we can block suppression from the ER by using either non-aromatizing AAS?s or aromatase inhibitors. So this now leaves us with suppression of LH & FSH via the AR, but this suppression can be blocked, and that?s exactly what I?m going to show you.

When it comes to suppression of the hypothalamus, there is more than a simple on/off switch for the hypothalamus control center. Evidence suggests that there isn?t even a direct AR or ER receptor on GnRH secreting neurons. (2-6) Meaning, steroid hormones do not directly influence GnRH release from the hypothalamus, but actually communicate through an intermediary. (7)

It was well summarized here by A. J Tilbrook et al,

?It follows, that the actions of testicular steroids on GnRH neurons must be mediated via neuronal systems that are responsive to steroids and influence the activity of GnRH neurons.?

And again here by FJ Hayes et al,

?It was thus postulated that estrogen-receptive neurons were acting as intermediaries in the non-genomic regulation of GnRH by estrogen?

There is a network of neurogenic intermediaries in the hypothalamus governing GnRH release from steroid hormone influence. More specifically, it is the combined efforts of neuro-active peptides and catecholamines which send the message of ?suppression? to the GnRH neurons once activated by steroid hormones. (16) These primary messengers are known as a group of neuro-active peptides called endogenous opioid peptides (EOP?s). (7,16) The EOP?s consist of the three main peptides -- b-endorphin, dynorphin, and enkephalins, which act upon their respective u-opioid, k-opioid, and s-opioid receptors. It appears that the most influential EOP in GnRH modulation is b-endorphin, acting upon the u-opioid receptor. (8-10) For this reason, b-endorphin will be the main focus of the article (although there are other minor intermediates involved.)

When steroid hormones reach the hypophysial portal, they activate the EOP?s, which suppress GnRH and consequently suppress LH & FSH. We know that steroid hormones must communicate with these opioid receptors in order for them to inhibit the release of GnRH from the GnRH neurons, since the GnRH neurons do not have their own AR or ER receptors. What?s most interesting here is that the suppression on GnRH neurons can actually be intercepted by a u-opioid receptor antagonist ? such as naloxone, and the orally active congers naltrexone, and nalmefene.

This is accomplished by blocking the u-opioid receptor and preventing the inhibitory effects of b-endorphin upon the GnRH releasing neuron. It should be noted that this ?antagonism? of suppression is not due to antagonism of the AR or ER itself, since u-opioid antagonists to not bind to hormone receptors. (15,32)

The effect of a u-opioid receptor antagonist on the HPTA is demonstrated here --



Essentially, a u-opioid antagonist such as naloxone takes the brakes off of GnRH release and allows pulses of GnRH to occur as if no steroid hormones are present. (17) Naloxone, and related u-opioid antagonists have consistently proven to block the suppressive effects of testosterone, DHT, and estrogen administration in both animals and humans. (18-25) It also appears that these drugs have the ability to increase pituitary sensitivity to GnRH. (26,27)

U-opioid antagonists have long been used for treatment of opioid dependence; not only to control cravings of narcotics, but to restore a suppressed endocrine system. (28,29) It?s well known that strong opioid based drugs such as methadone, cocaine, heroin and alcohol can suppress GnRH and therefore suppress LH & FSH. It seems that this decease of GnRH, LH & FSH is due to the same EOP mechanisms seen with AAS induced suppression. (33) In alcoholics, cocaine and heroin users, naltrexone and naloxone have been used to restore LH and testosterone levels. (28,29) Naltrexone has even been proposed as a treatment for male impotence and erectile dysfunction. (30,31)

Naloxone, naltrexone and nalmefene seem progressively more powerful in their potency to block b-endorphin, respectively. (14,18) Naloxone lacks oral bioavailability therefore injection is required. An injectable preparation could easily be made with BA water due to the water solubility of the compound. A 40mg subcutaneous injection would be a typical dose of naloxone. Naltrexone is orally active, with a safe and effective oral dose being about 100mg for a 220lb male. (18) While a lower dose of about 25-50mg of nalmefene would seemingly have the same benefit. (20,24) Increasing the dose of these drugs will surely increase the likelihood of side-effects without notably increasing the benefit. A twice a week dosing protocol would seem appropriate with these drugs, as only to increase GnRH and LH release enough to prevent pituitary and testicular shutdown ? Just enough to keep them in the ?ball game? so to speak. Also, a twice a week dosing protocol would most likely limit the increased opioid sensitivity induced by the long-term use of the drugs.

A word of caution: The opioid antagonists mentioned in this article are recognized as safe and non-toxic at the given dosages; however they can cause severe withdrawal symptoms in opiate users (methadone, morphine, cocaine, and heroin addicts.) Caution is also advised when using opioid antagonists prior to sedation or surgery as they can reduce effectiveness of anesthetics. Temporary nausea, headache or fatigue, are occasional side-effects associated with the use of these drugs. Naltrexone has been reported to heighten liver enzymes, while naloxone and nalmefene do not appear to have this issue. At any rate, a twice a week protocol for 4-16 weeks is unlikely to cause any liver issues that may be associated with naltrexone. Contrary to popular believe, opioid antagonists do NOT have any addictive properties.

A few point to consider -

For those who choose to embark on an opioid antagonist protocol several things should be considered.



Remember, progestin based anabolics such as trenbolone and nandrolone are ?double suppressive? because they desensitize the pituitary directly by PR activation. It also appears that no opioid receptor antagonist or aromatase inhibitor can prevent suppression via the PR. Therefore, trenbolone or nandrolone are going to cause unavoidable inhibition of HTPA function by causing suppression via the ER, AR and PR. (40,41) If one hopes for a prompt and full recovery post cycle, perhaps progestin based anabolics are better avoided, or at least limited in duration of use.
As it was pointed out earlier in this article, estrogen has a markedly stronger effect on suppression of LH release compared to androgens since estrogen suppresses the hypothalamus and pituitary. Usage of an AI such as anastrozole, letrozole, or exemestane (Aromasin) can reduce estrogen and greatly reduce suppression on GnRH, LH and FSH release by preventing excessive ER activation in the hypothalamus and desensitization of the pituitary GnRH receptors. (35,37,38) Anastrozole has ~50% maximal total estrogen suppression at 1mg/day. Exemestane has ~50% maximal total estrogen suppression at 25mg/day. While letrozole has ~60% at 1mg/day. These are averages based on compiled data from several studies. Similar estrogen suppression can also been seen from only twice a week administration of these AI?s. (43-47)


References

1. Hypothalamic Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone: Basic and Clinical Aspects.
Yen SSC
Raven Press, New York, pp 245?280 (1991)

2. Absence of androgen receptors in LHRH immunoreactive neurons.
Huang X, Harlan RE.
Brain Res 1993; 624:309?311

3. Augmented hypothalamic proopiomelanocortin gene expression with pubertal development in the male rat: evidence for an androgen receptor-independent action.
Kerrigan JR, et al.
Endocrinology.128:1029-1035. (1991)

4. Distribution of estrogen receptorimmunoreactive cells in the preoptic area of the ewe: co-localisation with glutamic acid decarboxylase but not luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone.
Herbison AE, et al.
Neuroendocrinology 1993; 57:751?759.

5. Unmasking the neural progesterone receptor in the preoptic area and hypothalamus of the ewe: no colocalization with gonadotropin-releasing neurons.
Skinner DC, at el.
Endocrinology 2001; 142:573?579.

6. Multimodal influences of estrogen upon gonadotropin releasing
hormone neurons.
Herbison AE.
Endocrine Reviews 1998; 19:302?330.

7. Negative Feedback Regulation of the Secretion and Actions of Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone in Males
A.J. Tilbrook and I.J. Clarke
Biol Reprod, Mar 2001; 64: 735

8. Steroid Control of Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Secretion: Associated Changes in Pro-Opiomelanocortin and Preproenkephalin Messenger RNA Expression in the Ovine Hypothalamus
James A. Taylor, et al.
Biol Reprod, Mar 2007; 76: 524

9. Do gonadotropin-releasing hormone, tyrosine hydroxylase-, and *-endorphin-immunoreactive neurons contain oestrogen receptors? A double-label immunocytochemical study in the Suffolk ewe
Lehman MN, Karsch FJ.
Endocrinology 1993; 133:887?895

10. ?-Endorphin blocks luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone release by inhibiting the nitricoxidergic pathway controlling its release
Alicia G. Faletti, et al.
PNAS, Feb 1999; 96: 1722.

11. The frequency of gonadotropin-releasing hormone stimulation determines the number of pituitary gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptors.
Katt JA, et al.
Endocrinology. 116:2113?2115. (1985)

12. Exogenous gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) stimulates LH secretion in male monkeys (Macaca fascicularis) treated chronically with high doses of a GnRH-antagonist.
Weinbauer GF, et al.
J Endocrinol. 133:439?445. (1992)

13. Chronic administration of the luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) antagonist cetrorelix decreases gonadotrope responsiveness and pituitary LHRH receptor messenger ribonucleic acid levels in rats.
Pinski J, Lamharzi N, Halmos G, et al. 1996
Endocrinology. 137:3430?3436.

14. Acute effects of testosterone infusion and naloxone on luteinizing hormone secretion in normal men.
GB Kletter, et al.
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., Nov 1992; 75: 1215 - 1219.

15. Naloxone-induced increases in serum luteinizing hormone in the male: mechanisms of action
TJ Cicero, et al.
J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., Mar 1980; 212: 573.

16. Endogenous opioids participate in the regulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-luteinizing hormone axis and testosterone?s negative feedback control of luteinizing hormone.
CICERO, T. J., et al.
Endocrinology 104: 1286-1291, (1979)

17. Opiatergic control of LH secretion is eliminated by gonadectomy.
BHANOT, R. et al.
Endocrinology 112: 399-401, (1983)

18. Role of endogenous opiates in the expression of negative feedback actions of androgens and estrogen on pulsatile properties of luteinizing-hormone secretion in man.
Veldhuis JD, et al..
J Clin Invest. 74:47?55 (1984)

19. Counteraction of gonadal steroid inhibition of luteinizing hormone release by naloxone.
VAN VUGT, et al.
J. Chro- naloxone. Endocrinology 34: 274-278, 1982

20. Unexpected effects of nalmefene, a new opiate antagonist, on the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis in the male rat.
P Limonta, et al.
Steroids, Dec 1985; 46(6): 955-65.

21. In vivo evidence for a direct effect of naloxone on testicular steroidogenesis in the male rat
TJ Cicero, et al.
Endocrinology, Aug 1989; 125: 957

22. Endogenous opioids participate in the regulation of the hypothalamus- pituitary-luteinizing hormone axis and testosterone's negative feedback control of luteinizing hormone
TJ Cicero, et al.
Endocrinology, May 1979; 104: 1286

23. Effect of naloxone on the plasma levels of LH, FSH, prolactin and testosterone in Beetal bucks.
Singh B, et al.
Department of Animal Production Physiology, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, 125004, Hisar, India

24. Endocrinology: The effect of nalmefene on pulsatile secretion of luteinizing hormone and prolactin in men
G.R. Graves, et al.
Hum. Reprod., Oct 1993; 8: 1598 - 1603.

25. Effects of the novel opiate antagonist, SDZ 210-096, on luteinizing hormone secretion in the rat
RA Siegel et al.
J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., Apr 1989; 249: 264.

26. Effect of antagonists of dopamine and opiates on the basal and GnRH-induced secretion of luteinizing hormone, follicle stimulating hormone and prolactin during lactational amenorrhoea in breastfeeding women
C.C.K. Tay, et al.
Hum. Reprod., Apr 1993; 8: 532 - 539.

27. Naltrexone administration modulates the neuroendocrine control of luteinizing hormone secretion in hypothalamic amenorrhoea
Alessandro D. et al.
Hum. Reprod., Nov 1995; 10: 2868 - 2871.

28. Heroin and naltrexone effects on pituitary-gonadal hormones in man: interaction of steroid feedback effects, tolerance and supersensitivity
JH Mendelson, et al.
J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., Sep 1980; 214: 503.

29. Alcohol effects on luteinizing hormone and testosterone in male macaque monkeys
NK Mello, et al.
J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., Jun 1985; 233: 588.

30. Erectile function and naltrexone
Goldstein JA
Ann Intern Med 105:799 (1986)

31. Opiate antagonists in erectile dysfunction: a possible new treatment option? Results of a pilot study with naltrexone
van Ahlen H, et al.
Eur Urol 28:246?250 (1995)

32. The effects of opiates on androgen binding in the forebrain of the rat.
PJ Sheridan and JM Buchanan
Int J Fertil, January 1, 1980; 25(1): 36-43.

33. Morphine exerts testosterone-like effects in the hypothalamus of the castrated
male rat.
CICERO, T. J., et al.
Brain Rae. 202: 151-164, (1980)

34. Studies of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) action using GnRH receptor-expressing pituitary cell lines.
Kaiser UB, Conn PM, Chin WW.
Endocr Rev. 18:46?70. (1997)

35. Patterns of LH secretion in castrated bulls during intravenous infusion of androgenic and estrogenic steroids: Pituitary response to exogenous luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone
M.J. D?occhio et al.
Biology of reproduction 26, 249-257 (1982)

36. Demonstration of progesterone receptor mediated gonadotrophin suppression in men.
Brady B, Anderson RA, Kinniburgh D, Baird DT 2002
J Endocrinol 3(Suppl):OC37

37. The direct pituitary effect of testosterone to inhibit gonadotropin secretion in men is partially mediated by aromatization to estradiol.
Bagatell CJ, Dahl KD, Bremner WJ. 1994
J Androl. 15:15?21.

38. Studies on the role of sex steroids in the feedback control of FSH concentrations in men.
Sherins RJ, Loriaux DL. 1973
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 36:886?893

39. Is aromatization of testosterone to estradiol required for inhibition of luteinizing hormone secretion in men?
Santen RJ. 1975
J Clin Invest. 56:1555?1563

40. Influence of nandrolondecanoate on the pituitary-gonadal axis in males.
JW Bijlsma, et al.
Acta Endocrinol (Copenh), September 1, 1982; 101(1): 108-12.

41. Endocrine approaches to male fertility control.
UA Knuth et al.
Baillieres Clin Endocrinol Metab, February 1, 1987; 1(1): 113-31.

42. Aromatization Mediates Testosterone's Short-Term Feedback Restraint of 24-Hour Endogenously Driven and Acute Exogenous Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone-Stimulated Luteinizing Hormone and Follicle-Stimulating Hormone Secretion in Young Men
J. A. Schnorr, et al.
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., June 1, 2001; 86(6): 2600 - 2606.

43. Short-Term Aromatase-Enzyme Blockade Unmasks Impaired Feedback Adaptations in Luteinizing Hormone and Testosterone Secretion in Older Men
Johannes D. Veldhuis et al.
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., Jan 2005; 90: 211 ? 218

44. Effects of Aromatase Inhibition in Elderly Men with Low or Borderline-Low Serum Testosterone Levels
Benjamin Z. Leder, et al.
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., Mar 2004; 89: 1174 - 1180.

45. Comparative Assessment in Young and Elderly Men of the Gonadotropin Response to Aromatase Inhibition
Guy G. T?Sjoen, et al
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., Oct 2005; 90: 5717 - 5722.

46. Pharmacokinetics and Dose Finding of a Potent Aromatase Inhibitor, Aromasin (Exemestane), in Young Males
Nelly Mauras, et al.
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., Dec 2003; 88: 5951 - 5956.

47. Differential Regulation of Gonadotropin Secretion by Testosterone in the Human Male: Absence of a Negative Feedback Effect of Testosterone on Follicle-Stimulating Hormone Secretion
Frances J. Hayes, et al
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., Jan 2001; 86: 53 - 58.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've seen several guys mention how Naltrexone made them feel terrible. If hCG can prevent testicular dysfunction (the primary issue in long term suppression), then you're left with the secondary issue of restoring LH levels. During PCT, what does Naltrexone add to a SERM in increasing LH levels? In my opinion, probably not much, considering LH levels return to normal relatively quickly even without a SERM. I don't think the small potential increase in LH levels would be worth the side effects. If one didn't have hCG to prevent testicular dysfunction, however, I think Naltrexone probably would be worth the side effects.
 
This is one of the dumbest and foolish posts/articles I have ever read. It does not surprise me though, hucksters like the author are constantly trying to boost their bona fides on this type of garbage. There is absolutely no scientific basis for this except in his imagination. As a note, a few years back I reviewed a supplement the author was trying to develop. I told him in no uncertain terms, the supplement would not work and was potentially harmful. As is typical for many of these so-called ideas/supplements, they only wanted to "persuade" the buying public.

I have many more important projects on my table. However, I will point out over the weekend some of lunacy in this article. I challenge the author to refute my points. Some of the problems are his willingness to misquote and misrepresent authority; use nonhuman studies, and make assumptions without evidence.

First, T and E2 do not act only centrally (hypothalamus). but act at the level of the pituitary.

Second, this model assumes that the only so-called intermediary is the endorphin receptor, which is far from the evidence.

Third, this model takes into account no literature other than that he picks and chooses to try and arrive at a predetermined conclusion, badly. What about the current best evidence for HPTA regulation(i.e., the role of kisspeptin). Of course , this works against his predetermined conclusion!

***Fourth, it is apparent that this author does not know the meaning of "nongenomic." If he did, he would recognize the errors of his ways. The conclusion is that he did this purposefully or does not know the meaning. Either way, this demonstrates the article to be pure unadulterated BS.

Fifth, . . . at a later time.

***In the classical model of steroid action, the effector mechanism involves the binding of steroids either to receptors present in the nucleus or in the cytosol, followed by translocation of the receptor-ligand complex to the nucleus, with subsequent modulation of transcription and protein synthesis.

It has become increasingly clear that rapid actions of steroids, occurring within a few minutes after the addition of the agent, exist that are incompatible with the classical model of action. To address the diversity of mechanisms for rapid steroid signaling described over the past years, a classification of rapid steroid effects has been proposed to promote the discussion and understanding of nongenomic steroid action. In other words, the steroid acts directly upon the cell without the presence of a receptor.
 
This is one of the dumbest and foolish posts/articles I have ever read. It does not surprise me though, hucksters like the author are constantly trying to boost their bona fides on this type of garbage. There is absolutely no scientific basis for this except in his imagination. As a note, a few years back I reviewed a supplement the author was trying to develop. I told him in no uncertain terms, the supplement would not work and was potentially harmful. As is typical for many of these so-called ideas/supplements, they only wanted to "persuade" the buying public.
Amen. I too am sick of the his articles and all the scientific hooey that fails to support his conclusions. Unfortunately, it dazzles the uncritical masses. His article on "Clomid & Nolvadex - The Dark Side" was a good marketing ploy. The unwarranted extrapolations and conclusions came strong. For example, he warns that tamoxifen use along with 19-nors "can dramatically increase the chances of developing gyno" by increasing progesterone receptor expression. If you look at the references, you'll see that all of them look at the effect of tamoxifen on the endometrium, a tissue that's highly sensitive to estrogen and where tamoxifen has a selective estrogen agonist effect. Using some real bright reasoning, he states matter-of-fact that tamoxifen does the same in the breast. Apparently, the fact tamoxifen has an opposite, antagonist effect there is inconsequential.

The "scienfitic support" for his PCT product "Sustain Alpha" is a bigger joke. He parades 7,8-benzoflavone as a breakthrough "GABAergic modulator" when even his own references ascribe its positive effect on LH to being just another aromatase inhibitor. You'll find no mention of that in his write up, though. His inclusion of resveratrol, another aromatase inhibitor, is a real fine touch. Why would I want to use a proven, third-generation, pharmaceutical AI when I can spend a lot more money on some unproven, natural AI's, while also down-regulating the androgen receptor with resveratrol?
First, T and E2 do not act only centrally (hypothalamus). but act at the level of the pituitary.
I'm assuming you mean that T is directly suppressive at the pituitary as an androgen (otherwise there's no disagreement with what Eric said). I have to disagree with you though. The most conclusive research on this topic was performed recently in an elegant study by Pitteloud et al [http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/93/3/784 (reference)]. Their work supports Eric's claim that "AAS which bind strictly to the AR" are only suppressive at the hypothalamus (i.e. and not at the pituitary). To quote their conclusions, "T feedback at the hypothalamus can occur via a direct androgen effect that does not require aromatization." However, "T’s negative feedback at the pituitary requires aromatization." Finally, "E2 has dual sites of feedback [hypothalamic and pituitary], but its predominant effect is at the hypothalamus."
Second, this model assumes that the only so-called intermediary is the endorphin receptor, which is far from the evidence.
I completely agree.

-Conciliator
 
Last edited:
I've seen several guys mention how Naltrexone made them feel terrible. If hCG can prevent testicular dysfunction (the primary issue in long term suppression), then you're left with the secondary issue of restoring LH levels. During PCT, what does Naltrexone add to a SERM in increasing LH levels? In my opinion, probably not much, considering LH levels return to normal relatively quickly even without a SERM. I don't think the small potential increase in LH levels would be worth the side effects. If one didn't have hCG to prevent testicular dysfunction, however, I think Naltrexone probably would be worth the side effects.

From your post, I take this possibly meaning that the idea of naltrexone use has been written of before. Is that right? I seem to vaguely recall reading of its use elsewhere. This would not surprise me.
 
Last edited:
The Hayes study, for which Conciliator posted the link, allowed only 7 days.

Suppression of the pituitary from androgen exposure would not, or should not, have been expected in that time frame.

A much earlier study showed that it takes 15 days for the pituitary to show reduced sensitivity to LHRH as a consequence of androgen exposure. Prior to that pont, indeed there is no suppression of the pituitary. In fact, increased sensitivity was seen.

It should not be concluded from the Hayes study that there is no androgenic suppression of the pituitary, but rather, in that regard, it should be taken only as verification that this process is not immediate.
 
Last edited:
The Hayes study, for which Conciliator posted the link, allowed only 7 days.
Not even that. They administered the steroids (either T or E2) for only 2-3 days (administration started on day 4, with testing on days 6-7). That was plenty long for T to produce negative feedback at the hypothalamus (as an androgen) and for E2 to produce negative feedback at the pituitary and hypothalamus. Yet in contrast to this, you're saying it requires 15 days of direct androgen action for negative feedback to be seen at the pituitary?
Suppression of the pituitary from androgen exposure would not, or should not, have been expected in that time frame.
Why would it not be expected in this time frame when it's sufficient for other, similar negative feedback to be seen?
A much earlier study showed that it takes 15 days for the pituitary to show reduced sensitivity to LHRH as a consequence of androgen exposure. Prior to that pont, indeed there is no suppression of the pituitary. In fact, increased sensitivity was seen.
Could you post a reference to this paper? I'm interested to see what androgen they used and how they controlled for estrogen and LHRH.
It should not be concluded from the Hayes study that there is no androgenic suppression of the pituitary, but rather, in that regard, it should be taken only as verification that this process is not immediate.
Hayes discussion of previous research on the topic, including his own, makes no mention of a latent effect. It seems he would have addressed this if one had been established. This is what he says about a direct androgenic effect at the pituitary:
In previous studies, we showed that the increase in LH in response to selective E2 suppression was significantly lower than that seen after suppression of both T and E2, suggesting that T has both direct effects on LH mediated through the androgen receptor as well as indirect effects mediated by aromatization (9). However, in that study, we were unable to determine whether it was the hypothalamic or pituitary effects of T that required aromatization. The demonstration by Bagatell and colleagues (4) that the nonaromatizable androgen dihydrotestosterone causes no suppression of LH levels in GnRH-deficient men undergoing GnRH administration suggested that aromatization is needed for T?s negative feedback at the pituitary. Based on the demonstration that addition of an aromatase inhibitor completely blocks the inhibition of LH secretion by T in men, Schnorr et al. (3) suggested that T?s restraint of LH secretion is largely conditional on its in vivo aromatization at both the hypothalamic and pituitary level. The present study demonstrates that T can normalize GnRH pulse frequency in healthy men when E2 levels remain suppressed, thereby indicating that T?s feedback at the hypothalamus is a direct androgen effect. In contrast, the failure of T add-back to suppress either mean LH levels or LH amplitude in GnRH-deficient men maintained at a constant GnRH pulse frequency indicates that T?s negative feedback at the pituitary requires aromatization as previously suggested (4).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd expect you're tired at this point of my saying I don't have the reference, it is simply one that I read many years ago, as that was the case also with the veterinary reference where no progestagenic effect was detected for trenbolone. Though Dr Scally did kindly provide that reference in a followup post.

I read the literature for the sake of personal knowledge rather than to be able to document things, and except for when I had to write papers for journals and therefore HAD to have references, or there is key specific data that I may need and won't be able to remember (for example, reaction conditions for a particular synthesis) I don't save them. I am not an organized person for that kind of thing.

More recent stuff is generally not a problem to find again whenever needed, though I had trouble on that trenbolone one, but older stuff that is not in Pubmed could take a vast amount of time to find again. The article was only found by me in the first place in the process of thumbing through every single bound volume of the relevant literature such as J Med Chem, Steroids, etc which used to be a reasonably practical project for years such as the 60s and 70s.

Your questions are very good ones. Personally I also would like to know the answer. All that I recall is that at the time I considered the paper carefully and did not myself see a flaw in their method. But I do not now know what the method was.

As to a possible explanation of why this may be:

While I'm not a student of mathematics, I'm informed that it is mathematically known that a cyclic system must (a proven matter) include positive feedback among its processes.

Therefore, the manner in which LH is regulated in females, which is cyclic, must include positive feedback aspects. Not might include, but must include.

While this does not prove anything, a doctor that I discussed this with advanced the idea that while the same organs (hypothalamus and pituitary) do not normally operate cyclically in males (at least with regard to multiday periods) it seemed unlikely to him that positive feedback mechanisms did not exist -- it's just that ordinarily cyclic behavior is not induced.

So as to why there could be positive feedback -- sensitivity to LHRH actually increasing in response to increased androgen for 14 days -- it is that positive feedback certainly can occur in biological systems, and it is already known that at least one positive feedback mechanism must exist in this organ system, although not known until this study that androgen response was in this category for the first 14 days of increased exposure.

Yes, it would be a really nice thing if I could provide the reference. If I even remembered which journal it was in, then I could thumb through just that journal over a 10 or 15 year period and find it, but sadly I don't even remember the journal :(
 
Last edited:
Back
Top