• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Testosterone


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 VictorBjoerk

  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 18 April 2008 - 01:39 PM


I don't understand this http://psychologytod...s/pto-3443.html .

Dean Pomerleau talks about his very low testosterone levels but look at his page

http://deanpomerleau...d.com/pictures/

One of the most common symptoms of low testosterone is loss of beard and body hair in men.

As you can see this is really not the case.

Could anyone explain this to me?As far as I understand a severe calorie restriction diet would reduce testosterone and then of course cause loss of body as well as facial hair.

#2 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 18 April 2008 - 04:38 PM

As far as I understand a severe calorie restriction diet would reduce testosterone and then of course cause loss of body as well as facial hair.


Why? For example, women with PCOS often get facial hair. Do you think the hormonal profile of a man on CR is similar to a woman with PCOS?

#3 VictorBjoerk

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 18 April 2008 - 05:58 PM

As far as I understand a severe calorie restriction diet would reduce testosterone and then of course cause loss of body as well as facial hair.


Why? For example, women with PCOS often get facial hair. Do you think the hormonal profile of a man on CR is similar to a woman with PCOS?


If you have low testosterone beard growth and body hair will reduce.If the defiency continues for many years it will disappear comletely.I don't understand your question.

I wonder why someone who has had a confirmed very low testosterone level for a long time due to CR still keeps the male hair pattern.

Any suggestions to why?

#4 VictorBjoerk

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 18 April 2008 - 06:01 PM

I don't think the hormonal profile of a male CR practioner would be similar to a woman with polycystic ovarian syndrome.I however thought that someone who has had a very low testosterone for many years would lack beard and body hair.

#5 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 18 April 2008 - 06:15 PM

My point is that hair growth is due to androgen levels and follicle sensitivity to those androgens. A woman with PCOS has androgen levels that are high enough to induce facial hair growth. Do you really think CR by itself is capable of driving a man's androgen levels so low that it would be below that threshold?

I wonder why someone who has had a confirmed very low testosterone level for a long time due to CR still keeps the male hair pattern.


Because he's still a man.

#6 VictorBjoerk

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 18 April 2008 - 06:54 PM

I don't have a clue about that.Maybe some CR practioner on this board knows? But if you have so low testosterone as Dean Pomerleau,(if you read the article he says that he has the same testosterone level as the average woman) you would without doubt have lost body hair and beard if the levels have continued for many years like in Dean's case.

Another thing that strikes me in the article is that he believes CR will have such a low payoff.

#7 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 18 April 2008 - 07:14 PM

I don't have a clue about that.Maybe some CR practioner on this board knows? But if you have so low testosterone as Dean Pomerleau,(if you read the article he says that he has the same testosterone level as the average woman) you would without doubt have lost body hair and beard if the levels have continued for many years like in Dean's case.


Yes, he says that. Doesn't mean that it's true. I don't think he realizes how ridiculous the difference in testosterone levels is between men and women. He is attributing way too much to testosterone alone, and even still...it isn't the only thing to look at regarding hair growth.


Edit: Here are his blood tests results.

http://deanpomerleau...blood_tests.htm

They are all over the place. But, still on average significantly higher than the average woman's:

http://jcem.endojour...a0645bf7c939492

Edited by shepard, 18 April 2008 - 10:36 PM.


#8 VictorBjoerk

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 04 May 2008 - 12:29 AM

Another thing I don't understand when talking about low testosterone.Why do adult men with low testosterone experience fatigue as well as depression and general poor health?Children doesn't suffer from that kind of things and apparently not the cr humans with low testosterone.

#9 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 04 May 2008 - 02:31 PM

im sure the myriad of androgens other than testosterone are coming into play there, as well as receptor sensitivity and density. i dont think the level of free test in and of itself is solely responsible for hair growth or lack thereof.


and WOW, i cant believe the change in that guys body.. he had a decent build the first few months but man, he looks like he has aids in the last few. im sorry but theres no way i could do that to myself for the possibility of a few extra years.

i do however, LOVE his 'life strategies'


Another thing I don't understand when talking about low testosterone.Why do adult men with low testosterone experience fatigue as well as depression and general poor health?Children doesn't suffer from that kind of things and apparently not the cr humans with low testosterone.


pre and post pubescent bodies are 'wired' totally differently.

Edited by ajnast4r, 04 May 2008 - 02:33 PM.


#10 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 04 May 2008 - 03:20 PM

and WOW, i cant believe the change in that guys body.. he had a decent build the first few months but man, he looks like he has aids in the last few. im sorry but theres no way i could do that to myself for the possibility of a few extra years.


I had the same reaction. His starting picture, 140lbs., didn't look too bad. Dude must be crazy short. But his last pictures....I don't care if I was guaranteed an extra 10 years on the tail-end of life because I doubt that I'd make it there in that condition.

#11 VictorBjoerk

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 04 May 2008 - 07:56 PM

and WOW, i cant believe the change in that guys body.. he had a decent build the first few months but man, he looks like he has aids in the last few. im sorry but theres no way i could do that to myself for the possibility of a few extra years.


I had the same reaction. His starting picture, 140lbs., didn't look too bad. Dude must be crazy short. But his last pictures....I don't care if I was guaranteed an extra 10 years on the tail-end of life because I doubt that I'd make it there in that condition.


Well even in the last picture he would qualify as quite chubby when compared to Michael Rae who has a BMI of 15.6.....

#12 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 04 May 2008 - 08:22 PM

Well even in the last picture he would qualify as quite chubby when compared to Michael Rae who has a BMI of 15.6.....


Yes, but it takes an unclothed view for it to really register what that means.

#13 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,862 posts
  • 149
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 05 May 2008 - 04:24 PM

and WOW, i cant believe the change in that guys body.. he had a decent build the first few months but man, he looks like he has aids in the last few. im sorry but theres no way i could do that to myself for the possibility of a few extra years.


I had the same reaction. His starting picture, 140lbs., didn't look too bad. Dude must be crazy short. But his last pictures....I don't care if I was guaranteed an extra 10 years on the tail-end of life because I doubt that I'd make it there in that condition.


Well even in the last picture he would qualify as quite chubby when compared to Michael Rae who has a BMI of 15.6.....


I had a BMI between 18.5 - 19.5 for much of my teen years, and I felt quite normal at this BMI and could happily live that weight, even at 17.4 I NOW feel more comfortable. Dean does look fairly skinny at that weigh though, more so than I was when I was at a BMI of 16.4 which you can see a pic here

me at BMI 16.4 http://www.matthewla...mages/matt6.JPG

#14 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 05 May 2008 - 04:36 PM

Dean does look fairly skinny at that weigh though, more so than I was when I was at a BMI of 16.4 which you can see a pic here

me at BMI 16.4 http://www.matthewla...mages/matt6.JPG



thats not skinny.. thats emaciated & unnatural. thats what people in the depths of an eating disorder or with cronh's disease look like

#15 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,862 posts
  • 149
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 05 May 2008 - 04:54 PM

Dean does look fairly skinny at that weigh though, more so than I was when I was at a BMI of 16.4 which you can see a pic here

me at BMI 16.4 http://www.matthewla...mages/matt6.JPG



thats not skinny.. thats emaciated & unnatural. thats what people in the depths of an eating disorder or with cronh's disease look like


Yes it's not natural to be at such a body weight, however that is the consequence of real anti aging CR :) My doctors had no problem with me at this weight either, they never said I looked ill, but quite the opposite. The ribs on severely starved persons are much more visible than mine aswell.

CR leads to UN NATURAL body weights, but CR also leads to UNNATURAL Longevity.

Edited by Matt, 05 May 2008 - 05:07 PM.


#16 FunkOdyssey

  • Guest
  • 3,443 posts
  • 166
  • Location:Manchester, CT USA

Posted 05 May 2008 - 04:57 PM

Imagine what happens if/when you become seriously ill at that BMI and are not able to eat or properly absorb nutrition for a period of time. Your body has nothing left, no reserves to draw energy from. It is then possible that in the extreme pursuit of longevity, your life ends prematurely due to some mundane infection -- a real and more immediate danger that some completely overlook. That would be ironic in an awful way.

#17 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,862 posts
  • 149
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 05 May 2008 - 05:02 PM

Imagine what happens if/when you become seriously ill at that BMI and are not able to eat or properly absorb nutrition for a period of time.


intravenous feeding?

Your body has nothing left, no reserves to draw energy from. It is then possible that in the extreme pursuit of longevity, your life ends prematurely due to some mundane infection -- a real and more immediate danger that some completely overlook. That would be ironic in an awful way.




Critical BMI for men is 13, and is 11 for women. You have an excellent point and I've raised it with many researchers and the CR Society. However I have experienced Flu once and had 1 or 2 stomach viruses during my time of CR and handled them all very well, much better than ad lib days in fact... I haven't vomited at all for 5 1/2 years now either. I think old frail people on CR would have more of a potential problem. A study on mice actually proved exactly your point, the mice given primary influenza died much more quickly because they reached a critical body weight and died.

Something to certainly be cautious about, and is precisely why I now maintain a BMI above 17.

Now with better medical care it should lessen the risks enough, I think, to live fine on a moderate CR diet.


We're living on the edge though :)

Edited by Matt, 05 May 2008 - 05:19 PM.


#18 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 05 May 2008 - 05:06 PM

Imagine what happens if/when you become seriously ill at that BMI and are not able to eat or properly absorb nutrition for a period of time.


Imagine what happens if you get into any kind of accident. I can't imagine a body like that holding up well in a hard fall or car crash. And, I'm sure a lot of my reaction has to do with the unevolved part of me that needs to be able to take a punch.

#19 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,862 posts
  • 149
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 05 May 2008 - 05:15 PM

Imagine what happens if/when you become seriously ill at that BMI and are not able to eat or properly absorb nutrition for a period of time.


Imagine what happens if you get into any kind of accident. I can't imagine a body like that holding up well in a hard fall or car crash. And, I'm sure a lot of my reaction has to do with the unevolved part of me that needs to be able to take a punch.


The relationship between body weight and risk of death and serious injury in motor vehicle crashes.
Mock CN, Grossman DC, Kaufman RP, Mack CD, Rivara FP.

Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, WA 98104, USA. cmock@u.washington.edu

We sought to investigate the effect of increased body weight on the risk of death and serious injury to occupants in motor vehicle crashes. We employed a retrospective cohort study design utilizing data from the National Automotive Sampling System, Crashworthiness Data System (CDS), 1993-1996. Subjects in the study included occupants involved in tow-away crashes of passenger cars, light trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles. Two outcomes were analyzed: death within 30 days of the crash and injury severity score (ISS). Two exposures were considered: occupant body weight and body mass index (BMI; kg/m2). Occupant weight was available on 27263 subjects (76%) in the CDS database. Mortality was 0.67%. Increased body weight was associated with increased risk of mortality and increased risk of severe injury. The odds ratio for death was 1.013 (95% CI: 1.007, 1.018) for each kilogram increase in body weight. The odds ratio for sustaining an injury with ISS > or = 9 was 1.008 (95% CI: 1.004, 1.011) for each kilogram increase in body weight. After adjustment for potentially confounding variables (age, gender, seatbelt use, seat position and vehicle curbweight), the significant relationship between occupant weight and mortality persisted. After adjustment, the relationship between occupant weight and ISS was present, although less marked. Similar trends were found when BMI was analyzed as the exposure.

In conclusion, increased occupant body weight is associated with increased mortality in automobile crashes. This is probably due in part to increased co-morbid factors in the more overweight occupants. However, it is possibly also due to an increased severity of injury in these occupants. These findings may have implications for vehicle safety design, as well as for transport safety policy.

PMID: 11829292 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

#20 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 05 May 2008 - 05:23 PM

I doubt there were many serious CR practioners observed in that study. And, the above doesn't specify mortality related to injury vs. other causes. I imagine this would follow a bell-curve as most everything else.

#21 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,862 posts
  • 149
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 05 May 2008 - 05:36 PM

See this post to look at body weight and mortality
http://www.imminst.o...&...st&p=206508

#22 kenj

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 67
  • Location:Copenhagen.

Posted 05 May 2008 - 05:58 PM

OK, humans usually do not live in controlled environments like the precious CR-induced animals, devoid of any danger, - however I believe it's possible to function fairly well with a low BMI like Matt's, if you give your body time to adapt (i.e. no crash diets, but cut cals slowly with continuous moderate exercising), - if coming from a higher body weight.

#23 VictorBjoerk

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 05 May 2008 - 07:21 PM

This thread is getting a little off topic as it was intended to discuss the apparent paradox of how cr-induced low testosterone doesn't seem to affect the humans the way normal testosterone defiency does.If CR really can prolong human lifespan to 120 years it may without doubt be worth the thinness and discipline.I don't think Matt looks anywhere close to a starvation victim however with a BMI comparable to the models on the catwalk.In a previous discussion on this forum someone had a BMI of 14.6 and that sounded actually dangerously low to me.I hope that person gains weight.

Now I'm going even more offtopic by asking if anyone knows if there are there any members on this forum who has been doing CR for a very long time eg 10 years?

#24 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 05 May 2008 - 07:35 PM

This thread is getting a little off topic as it was intended to discuss the apparent paradox of how cr-induced low testosterone doesn't seem to affect the humans the way normal testosterone defiency does.


Absolute values of hormones often don't mean a whole lot. Usually, ratios of various hormones are more important.

#25 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,862 posts
  • 149
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 05 May 2008 - 07:37 PM

Now I'm going even more offtopic by asking if anyone knows if there are there any members on this forum who has been doing CR for a very long time eg 10 years?


Michael must have been on CR now for 9 - 10 years, ask him. He's been on the news quite a lot over the past few years as well, you can see a few videos on my youtube channel http://www.youtube.c.../matthewlake182 see; Calorie Restriction CBS and Calorie Restriction - Chasing life videos.

Also a few here at my website: http://www.matthewla...s.com/Media.htm

Edited by Matt, 05 May 2008 - 07:38 PM.


#26 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 05 May 2008 - 07:42 PM

CR leads to UN NATURAL body weights, but CR also leads to UNNATURAL Longevity.


isnt that purely speculative when it comes to humans?

Edited by ajnast4r, 05 May 2008 - 07:43 PM.


#27 VictorBjoerk

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 05 May 2008 - 10:15 PM

CR leads to UN NATURAL body weights, but CR also leads to UNNATURAL Longevity.


isnt that purely speculative when it comes to humans?


I think some calorie restrictors look younger than their age.Also thin supermodels like Elle MacPherson seems to look young for her age although she's not being doing anything like the CR people

#28 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 05 May 2008 - 10:27 PM

I think some calorie restrictors look younger than their age.Also thin supermodels like Elle MacPherson seems to look young for her age although she's not being doing anything like the CR people


Sadly, looking younger doesn't necessarily mean anything about total lifespan. Also, supermodels or the like might not be the best models anyway due to various procedures one might employ to look younger.

#29 VictorBjoerk

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 05 May 2008 - 10:40 PM

I think some calorie restrictors look younger than their age.Also thin supermodels like Elle MacPherson seems to look young for her age although she's not being doing anything like the CR people


Sadly, looking younger doesn't necessarily mean anything about total lifespan. Also, supermodels or the like might not be the best models anyway due to various procedures one might employ to look younger.


Yes probably,many of them may have had some discrete facelifts or botox as they enter their 40's.But if the CR effect applies many of the current stick-thin models remaining thin may have at least a mild Cr effect compared to others.
However when looking at pictures of Jeanne Calment she looks at every stage in her life without doubt younger than her chronological age.Have you seen the pictures of her aged 59 and 80?

#30 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,862 posts
  • 149
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 05 May 2008 - 11:01 PM

Those that become centenarians really do generally look far younger than their age at most or all points of time in their life. Sure we can't say much on lifespan in regards to just how young someone looks, but nevertheless this is still a consistent thing seen among CR'd rodents, rhesus monkeys, dogs, and also seems to be true in humans (those on long term CR). And sure we can assume that a minority of models/super models are on some sort of CR that is healthy.

I think some calorie restrictors look younger than their age


Yes, quite a few of those on long term CR really do seem to be aging slowly, both biologically [Fontana studies] and 'I think' look younger than their chronological age.

Edited by Matt, 05 May 2008 - 11:08 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users