74 replies to this topic

[misterE]

I know it to be true from experience (and trust me on that)

I believe I have put forth a much better argument than you have. It should be cystal clear to anyone reading this that SHBG is good. You keep saying SHBG is bad in light of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Here is a question for you: if SHBG is bad, why is SHBG lower in people with metabolic-syndrome?

These studies are based on unhealthy people....apples to oranges...The problem should be obvious.

This is not entriely true. This study compared vegetarians to vegans (eating pretty much the same macronutriet ratio's: 13% protein, 30% fat, 57% carbohydrate and 25 grams of fiber) and found that the vegans still had 12% higher SHBG and 8% higher testosterone levels than the vegetarians.

The researchers even say in that paper: “an increase in SHBG generally causes an increase in total T”.

Edited by misterE, 13 July 2012 - 04:00 PM.

[misterE]

By calling people who disagree with you "laymen", you're implying that you are a professional, i.e. a biochemist, endocrinologist, or some such thing. Yet you see correlations in plots that look like shotgun blasts, which is not the sort of thing a scientist would do. So I'm guessing that you are self-taught.

I refer to them as laymen because anyone who has invested research into SHBG should know that higher is better and that low SHBG is a serious health hazard. Just because most bodybuilders think differently, doesn't make it so. In regards to the correlation-plots, after adjustment (after averaging all the results together) it makes a nice diagonal-line, clearly showing that less SHBG equals less total-testosterone and vice-versa. And yes, I am self-taught, but am using the exact same resources endocrinologists’ use; the scientific-literature.

you keep confusing correlation with causation.

An example of which would be?

[misterE]

By the way… I’m not trying to be confrontational. The whole reason I joined this forum is because I wanted to be challenged intellectually. I figured this forum would have a high number of intellects familiar with the scientific-literature and open for debate.

[nowayout]

Here is a question for you: if SHBG is bad, why is SHBG lower in people with metabolic-syndrome?

You make the mistake of assuming that everything is linear. That is never true in biology.

It is true that MS, diabetes, etc. are associated with very low SHBG (often below 15 nmol/L). However, this does not mean that elevated SHBG is good for you. For any substance in the body there is usually a relatively small window that is optimal for a particular person. For a young male this window is normally between (25 - 35 nmol/L). If a particular diet is going to raise your SHBG higher than that, that isn't good. In healthy aging men, for example, SHBG tends to increase with time, and is associated with problems such as sexual dysfunction. Higher SHBG has also been associated with loss of bone density.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20452803

Joint Bone Spine. 2010 Jul;77(4):306-12. Epub 2010 May 8.
Sex hormone-binding globulin in osteoporosis.

Hoppé E, Bouvard B, Royer M, Audran M, Legrand E.

Source

Inserm U922, service de rhumatologie, CHU, 4, rue Larrey, 49933 Angers cedex 9, France. emhoppe@chu-angers.fr
Abstract

Sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) is a plasma glycoprotein that binds with high affinity to sex steroids, most notably 5alpha-dihydrotestosterone, testosterone, and 17beta-estradiol, thereby regulating their bioavailability and access to target cells. SHBG modulates the sex-steroid signaling system by binding to a specific membrane receptor (SHBG-R). Plasma SHBG levels vary in health and disease due to the effects of multiple regulation factors (age, body weight, sex steroids, insulin, and others). SHBG is involved in a number of diseases, including osteoporosis. Several studies found an inverse correlation between serum SHBG levels and bone mineral density in both males and females. SHBG levels may predict a number of macro-architectural characteristics of cortical bone. Weaker links have been reported between SHBG and bone turnover markers. Finally, high SHBG levels predict the occurrence of osteoporotic fractures of the vertebras and peripheral bones, most notably the proximal femur. Together with estradiol, SHBG plays a key role in the genesis of bone loss and osteoporotic fractures. Given that serum SHBG elevation is associated with the occurrence of multiple fractures, determination of the serum SHBG level, which can be readily performed in everyday clinical practice, may constitute a useful new marker for predicting the severity of osteoporosis.

Edited by viveutvivas, 13 July 2012 - 04:40 PM.

[niner]

By calling people who disagree with you "laymen", you're implying that you are a professional, i.e. a biochemist, endocrinologist, or some such thing. Yet you see correlations in plots that look like shotgun blasts, which is not the sort of thing a scientist would do. So I'm guessing that you are self-taught.

I refer to them as laymen because anyone who has invested research into SHBG should know that higher is better and that low SHBG is a serious health hazard. Just because most bodybuilders think differently, doesn't make it so. In regards to the correlation-plots, after adjustment (after averaging all the results together) it makes a nice diagonal-line, clearly showing that less SHBG equals less total-testosterone and vice-versa. And yes, I am self-taught, but am using the exact same resources endocrinologists’ use; the scientific-literature.

Except you're missing the years of coursework, the mentorship of a number of experienced people, and the experiences gained by doing experimental work, publishing under peer review, writing a thesis that will be critically reviewed, etc. One of the courses that you would likely have taken would be Statistics, after which you probably wouldn't be too impressed with those scatterplots.

you keep confusing correlation with causation.

An example of which would be?

This: (which was why I quoted it in the post you replied to)

And how can this be true? I just showed plenty of studies showing that SHBG is inversely related to metabolic-syndrome. And erectile-dysfunction and metabolic-syndrome go hand in hand [1-3].

[sthira]

[color=#222222]...And in regards to your original post...to promote a vegan diet....current research shows that in regards to diet and nutrition, there is no one size fits all. Current research shows that different people have different genetic propensities for different macro nutrient ratios. Some are genetically inclined to paleo type diet, some Mediterranean type diet, some a higher fat diet, and some a lower fat diet. This can be determined from DNA. But I haven’t read of any genes to advocate a vegan diet.

Is this true? I didn't think the eat-by-genotype suggestion was quite settled in rock yet. Also, many of us vegetarians and vegans may asceed the point that this eating behavior may not be optimal for narrow personal health. Some small amounts of meat at infrequent intervals -- as humble side-dishes, eg -- may be healthier per individual. To go vegan and vegetarian for humane and environmental reasons are factors that shouldn't be brushed casually aside.

[niner]

[And in regards to your original post...to promote a vegan diet....current research shows that in regards to diet and nutrition, there is no one size fits all. Current research shows that different people have different genetic propensities for different macro nutrient ratios. Some are genetically inclined to paleo type diet, some Mediterranean type diet, some a higher fat diet, and some a lower fat diet. This can be determined from DNA. But I haven't read of any genes to advocate a vegan diet.

Is this true? I didn't think the eat-by-genotype suggestion was quite settled in rock yet. Also, many of us vegetarians and vegans may asceed the point that this eating behavior may not be optimal for narrow personal health. Some small amounts of meat at infrequent intervals -- as humble side-dishes, eg -- may be healthier per individual. To go vegan and vegetarian for humane and environmental reasons are factors that shouldn't be brushed casually aside.

Well, it's at least partially true. Some of the genetics have been over-interpreted in these quarters, while other genetic determinants, specifically ApoE genotype, are pretty solid in terms of macronutrient ratios that are optimal. I doubt that there's anyone alive that has all the mutations needed to optimally process everything in the Industrial diet (excessive w-6 PUFAs, large amounts of sugar, lots of wheat), so I don't think it can really be said that there's a significant number of people for whom a paleo diet is really wrong, as long as the macronutrient ratios are right for them. (Paleo means no industrial foods, not necessarily high fat, which it's frequently mistaken for.)

I agree with you that humane reasons are the best argument for veganism/vegetarianism, and I think that's a valid reason for a lot of people. Meat has a huge environmental footprint, and eating less meat is one of the best things anyone can do personally for the environment. I'd rather see ten carnivores lighten up on meat than see one person harm their health by foregoing it though. We could probably get a bigger environmental bang that way. I like your idea of meat as side dishes. I try to go more in that direction when I can.

[Hebbeh]

Paleo means no industrial foods, not necessarily high fat, which it's frequently mistaken for.

Yeah, I always identified Paleo as not necessarily high fat but higher fat and protein coming from animal sources and nuts with lots of veggies, etc thrown in...but your clarification would put me very squarely in the Paleo camp as I eat no processed food other than some protein powder. I do eat a lot of fat free and some low fat dairy (mainly cottage cheese and yogurt) along with couple omega 3 eggs for the main protein sources and do snack on some nuts and go heavy on fruit (mainly blueberries and strawberries with either a token banana or orange) in the morning and lots of veggies (especially cruciferous) in the pm. I never knew I was considered Paleo but guess I'm a version of low fat Paleo....although my olive oil consumption has increased....

[nowayout]

Paleo means no industrial foods, not necessarily high fat, which it's frequently mistaken for.

If paleo now means preindustrial, why not just call it preindustrial? That would eliminate a lot of confusion, since the word paleo has become such a victim of a lot of unscientific and mystical mumbo-jumbo by some of its louder adherents that people cannot think straight when it is used in a conversation.

[niner]

Paleo means no industrial foods, not necessarily high fat, which it's frequently mistaken for.

If paleo now means preindustrial, why not just call it preindustrial? That would eliminate a lot of confusion, since the word paleo has become such a victim of a lot of unscientific and mystical mumbo-jumbo by some of its louder adherents that people cannot think straight when it is used in a conversation.

That's a great idea. You're right that the word paleo has been freighted with a lot of hyperlipid baggage and Hollywood "caveman" mythology that's probably grossly inaccurate. Preindustrial is a good name. Paleo people would argue that a diet from about 200 years ago would qualify as preindustrial, and that paleo is technically supposed to be pre-agricultural. It could be argued that a lot of people have adaptations that allow the consumption of grains and dairy, although admittedly many don't. But virtually no one is adapted to the industrial diet of the last century or two.

We could just declare that the preindustrial diet is a completely new diet that isn't paleo. It could essentially be paleo that admits a modest amount of grains and dairy. That's how I've been eating for a while, and I've been referring to my diet as "paleo-lite". Preindustrial is more accurate.

[misterE]

In healthy aging men, for example, SHBG tends to increase with time, and is associated with problems such as sexual dysfunction.

This is a misconception. While it is true that SHBG increases with age (due to less IGF-1 production), in societies exposed to the rich western-diet, BMI, fasting insulin, obesity and metabolic-syndrome also increase with age... this leads to SHBG levels that do not rise to their full potential [1].

Look at the graph below (taken from reference #1). It shows men without metabolic-syndrome (blue line) have higher SHBG as they age compared to people with metabolic-syndrome (red line).






[1] J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007 Sep;92(9):3568-72. Aging, androgens, and the metabolic syndrome in a longitudinal study of aging. Rodriguez A, Muller DC, Metter EJ,

Edited by misterE, 14 July 2012 - 03:40 PM.

[Hebbeh]

In healthy aging men, for example, SHBG tends to increase with time, and is associated with problems such as sexual dysfunction.

This is a misconception. While it is true that SHBG increases with age (due to less IGF-1 production), in societies exposed to the rich western-diet, BMI, fasting insulin, obesity and metabolic-syndrome also increase with age... this leads to SHBG levels that do not rise to their full potential [1].

Look at the graph below (taken from reference #1). It shows men without metabolic-syndrome (blue line) have higher SHBG as they age compared to people with metabolic-syndrome (red line).






[1] J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007 Sep;92(9):3568-72. Aging, androgens, and the metabolic syndrome in a longitudinal study of aging. Rodriguez A, Muller DC, Metter EJ,

You have to realize causation....its back to the chicken and egg.... SHBG will be driven in response to available androgens...if you live a healthy lifestyle (and don't have crappy genetics), your testosterone will be higher and therefore SHBG will be driven higher to keep free testosterone in check or in balance....if you live an unhealthy lifestyle and therefore are in poor condition and perhaps have some degree of metabolic syndrome, your testosterone will be low and therefore your body will have no need to produce high amounts of SHBG as little is needed to balance T when you have very little T anyway. And another point from previously...total T means very little in the big scheme of things....it's free T that is biologically active and does all the magic...so even if you do have lots of T...if it's all bound due to high SHBG then all that T isn't going to do much for you. And like I said earlier, athletes that use steroids also use drugs and interventions to prevent the response of inevitably increasing SHBG from binding and inactivating all their precious steroids....and also one of the reasons they need to increase dosages...because the body responds to the steroids by increasing SHBG which is what they don't want.....and they do this because it is what works....and has been proven by 50 years of performance enhancing drugs in bodybuilding and sport. I would trust that they have learned all the tricks in the last 50 years with what they have at stake than studies with average Joe couch potato who is already doing everything wrong.

Edited by Hebbeh, 14 July 2012 - 04:09 PM.

[misterE]

if you live an unhealthy lifestyle and therefore are in poor condition and perhaps have some degree of metabolic syndrome, your testosterone will be low and therefore your body will have no need to produce high amounts of SHBG as little is needed to balance T when you have very little T anyway.

Do you have any references for that statement?

According to my research... SHBG has little affect on free-testosterone in vivo (recall the correlation-plots). SHBG mainly regulates the total amount of testosterone and the amount of testosterone available for conversion... and has little affect on free-testosterone. Free-testosterone is nothing more than substrate for estrogen or dihydrotestosterone (DHT) production.

It's like a seesaw: on the left-side (of the seesaw) you have SHBG-bound-testosterone, in the middle (or the fulcrum) is free-testosterone, and on the right-side you have estrogen or DHT. So if one lowers SHBG, the total amount of testosterone is decreased, free-testosterone stays the same, but the production of estrogen/DHT increases.

If anything, low free-testosterone is caused by excess aromatase activity, which soaks up the free-testosterone and converts it into estrogen. Testosterone bound to SHBG is unable to convert into estrogen, thus testosterone stays as testosterone.

And another point from previously...total T means very little in the big scheme of things....it's free T that is biologically active and does all the magic...so even if you do have lots of T...if it's all bound due to high SHBG then all that T isn't going to do much for you.

This is not true. It is actually the total amount of testosterone that predicts health (at least in men). Many studies relating to metabolic-syndrome show that total-testosterone is depressed while free-testosterone is normal.


One of the main hormonal profiles of men with diabetes is low SHBG and testosterone and high estradiol [1]. Because SHBG is low... more testosterone is able to convert into estradiol.



[1] Eur J Endocrinol. 2010 Apr;162(4):747-54. Low testosterone and sex hormone-binding globulin levels and high estradiol levels are independent predictors of type 2 diabetes in men. Vikan T, Schirmer H, Njølstad I,

[Hebbeh]

If you maintain a healthy weight and lifestyle then aromatase and estrogen will not increase. Aromatase is developed in fat cells. Chicken and egg again. Live an unhealthy lifestyle and become fat like Joe couch potato and yes your aromatase (due to the increased fat mass) will increase along resultant estrogen directly. Indirectly, lack of exercise along with a unhealthy lifestyle will result in less T (double whammy) as compared to living a highly active and healthy lifestyle which triggers your body to produce more T due to supply and demand of an athletic lifestyle...the body will produce T in response to hard physical work or exercise And if you are living the right way, then all that T will be going to support muscle mass and your active lifestyle....it will only be preferentially shuttled to E in Joe couch potato. There are studies that show T decreases and E increases only in males living the typical unhealthy Western lifestyle while males in 3rd world countries that aren't exposed to a crappy diet and maintain a normal BMI (read lean) and weight throughout life have the same hormonal profile and T levels at very advanced age as compared to very young men....and that would prove it's the lifestyle and the resultant abuse of Joe couch potato’s body through poor diet and lack of activity which drives the road to poor health that results in decreasing hormonal profile. I don't have time to dig up the study as I'm already late in heading out on a 13 mile 4,000 foot climb up a 14,000 mountain....my favorite summer recreation. But I'm sure you shouldn't have any trouble in digging that study up on your own

Edited by Hebbeh, 14 July 2012 - 05:16 PM.

[misterE]

And if you are living the right way, then all that T will be going to support muscle mass and your active lifestyle....it will only be preferentially shuttled to E in Joe couch potato.

Only if SHBG is low, due to having metabolic-syndrome induced by being a couch-potato. SHBG naturally inhibits the conversion of testosterone to estrogen, and also inhibits the metabolic-clearance-rate of testosterone.

Edited by misterE, 14 July 2012 - 05:48 PM.

[nowayout]

SHBG will be driven in response to available androgens...if you live a healthy lifestyle (and don't have crappy genetics), your testosterone will be higher and therefore SHBG will be driven higher to keep free testosterone in check or in balance...

No, you have it the wrong way around. That is not actually the case. SHBG is mostly influenced by estrogens (pubmed it) - higher estrogen leads to higher SHBG, which explains why both E2 and SHBG tend to increase in aging men (more aromatase activity due in part to higher fat mass).

Low testosterone (often associated with elevated E2) tends to cause SHBG to increase to try to hold on to what little you have, and higher testosterone levels tends to cause SHBG to decrease, not increase - in fact, this fact is often used in TRT, where elevated SHBG levels can be brought down significantly by increasing the dose of exogenous testosterone.

Edited by viveutvivas, 14 July 2012 - 06:35 PM.

[nowayout]

It is actually the total amount of testosterone that predicts health (at least in men).

I don't think this hypothesis is anywhere close to being generally accepted. Most andrologists today would say that the important parameter is bioavailable testosterone (free and weakly bound to albumin), not total testosterone, assuming SHBG is within a healthy range.

When SHBG is too low or too high, that is considered bad, and is associated with health problems. Abnormal SHBG levels are also associated with abnormal total testosterone values because of the fact that more SHBG will bind more testosterone and vice versa, true, but that does not mean the health problems have anything to do with testosterone. For example, low or high SHBG may simply be a result of how your health problems are reflected in liver function, since SHBG is made in the liver, and E2 is broken down in the liver (and E2 levels feed back to SHBG production).

Edited by viveutvivas, 14 July 2012 - 06:46 PM.

[TheFountain]

With all due respect niner, did you ask the question "are you trained in the life sciences" to hebbeh?

I think MisterE is making some fantastic points and citing some good studies. Why are people blasting him and insulting his intelligence? I thought we were getting better in the bias department? But hebbeh made some unqualified statements that people just agree with by default because they concur with their view? Look i'm not going to argue or start a flame war, but I am sensing HEAVY bias here. please calm down with that everyone!

Edited by TheFountain, 14 July 2012 - 07:55 PM.

[misterE]

SHBG is mostly influenced by estrogens (pubmed it) - higher estrogen leads to higher SHBG, which explains why both E2 and SHBG tend to increase in aging men (more aromatase activity due in part to higher fat mass).

Actually, SHBG is mainly influenced by fasting-insulin and free-IGF-1 (insulin-like-growth-factor-1). With higher SHBG actually comes less estradiol, because with higher SHBG, less testosterone is up for conversion (into estradiol). This is why men with diabetes and heart-disease have lower SHBG and higher estradiol [1-3].

Any activity that increases insulin-sensitivity and lowers free-IGF-1, would therefore increase both SHBG and testosterone and decrease estradiol levels. The best way to do that (according to my research) is with a high-fiber vegan diet based on whole-grains, which is also low in both fat and sugar and high in phytonutrients and antioxidants combined with exercise.

As I have posted earlier... SHBG does increase with age, but this is not a bad thing; it's what’s suppose to happen. Men with metabolic-syndrome actually have depressed SHBG as they age and their SHBG doesn't rise to its full potential. The reason why estradiol increases as men age is mainly for two reasons. The first is due to an increase in aromatase-laden adipose-tissue caused by the rich western-diet and sedentary behavior. The second reason, is caused by a low level of SHBG (also induced by the rich western-diet), which then allows more testosterone to convert into estradiol.



[1] Eur J Endocrinol. 2010 Apr;162(4):747-54. Low testosterone and sex hormone-binding globulin levels and high estradiol levels are independent predictors of type 2 diabetes in men. Vikan T, Schirmer H, Njølstad I,


[2] Am J Med. 1982 Dec;73(6):872-81. Serum estrogen levels in men with acute myocardial infarction. Klaiber EL, Broverman DM, Haffajee CI.


[3] Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2007 Apr;28(2):182-6. Serum levels of sex hormones in men with acute myocardial infarction. Mohamad MJ, Mohammad MA, Karayyem M.

Edited by misterE, 15 July 2012 - 12:35 AM.

[Hebbeh]

Here's a recent study that show obese men had major fat loss and lean muscle gain just by supplementing testosterone. It would seem T was the driving factor, not SHBG.

http://www.scienceda...20623144941.htm

Here's a recent study indicating that declining hormones in men is not normal.

http://www.scienceda...20623144944.htm

Here's a recent study showing that T can be restored in older men by losing weight...probably by losing that weight by any kind of diet.

http://www.scienceda...20625124914.htm

Here's a recent study linking metabolic syndrome in older men with low T and successfully treating the metabolic syndrome with replacement T.

http://www.scienceda...20625152354.htm

This is off a clinical website and is referenced.

http://www.naturemed...replacement.php
In older men above the age of 65 or 70 years, the changes in total testosterone are overshadowed by a more significant decline in free testosterone levels. This is a consequence of the age-associated increase of the levels of sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG). SHBG is the protein that binds up serum testosterone and makes it unavailable for use. Only free testosterone has a major physiologic effect.

Here's the study I mentioned showing older men have just as much T as younger men in 3rd world countries.

http://www.ergo-log.com/rurt.html

And I based my statement on SHBG being driven by T in response that it has always been my understanding that SHBG preferentially binds to T over E, and since this appears to be the case, it seems logical that SHBG would be driven by the preferential hormone. Here is one paper that quickly came up.

http://mend.endojour...16/10/2181.full
The majority of serum T and DHT (approximately 60%) is complexed with SHBG, with the remainder bound to albumin (28, 29). SHBG is also capable of binding estradiol (E2)
but with a lower affinity than androgens (28, 30).


These are just a quick sampling if papers from a quick Google to demonstrate what I'm trying to convey. The important take home message (that I've tried to convey) is that metabolic syndrome and hormone status could be drastically improved in the majority simply by losing fat mass (by any kind of dietary intervention) and exercise...basically improving lifestyle...and I believe this sampling of papers supports that. Anything else is simply making excuses for poor health as excuses are easier than the hard work of change...and as I said earlier...I have experience...been there done that...walk the walk...and now live the dream.....and have tried to serve as an inspiration to others wanting to improve their health and life and have witnessed dramatic life changes in others. And experience is worth a thousand words...I'm living proof.

[niner]

With all due respect niner, did you ask the question "are you trained in the life sciences" to hebbeh?

I think MisterE is making some fantastic points and citing some good studies. Why are people blasting him and insulting his intelligence? I thought we were getting better in the bias department? But hebbeh made some unqualified statements that people just agree with by default because they concur with their view? Look i'm not going to argue or start a flame war, but I am sensing HEAVY bias here. please calm down with that everyone!

No, I didn't ask Hebbeh that. I asked MisterE that, because he was slagging off people who didn't hold his point of view as "laymen", implying that he was a professional. At the same time, he was making fundamental errors that a person trained in the sciences wouldn't make, so it was really he that was the layman. I think it was a fair response to what I perceived as arrogance, frankly. Is that an insult to his intelligence? Read the whole thread- I held off for a long time. I'm not trying to insult people, but if someone misinterprets the science in an attempt to validate their personal dietary choices, they are going to hear about it from a lot of people here. There is a bias here. Our bias is that we want to get to the truth. In order to do that, we have to understand the science and the methodology involved. I don't think anyone is "blasting" MisterE or insulting his intelligence, but just about everyone is disagreeing with him and trying to point out what we see as his errors. And I don't see where Hebbeh is making unqualified statements that we're all letting slide. Viveutvivas disagreed with something he said, for example, but most everything he's saying is right, as far as I can see. What do you think he said that was wrong?

[Thorsten3]

There are plenty of vegans and vegetarians where I live. In general they would seem to have lower testosterone, especially vegans. There are exceptions. There are some outdoorsy types who surf and seem highly testosteronized even though they are vegan/vegetarian. If you eat a lot of commericial animal products you can also pick up a lot of synthetic estrogen which was fed to the animals, which will not help. That also depends on the person. Some people develop sloth and man-boobs from stuff like that, others don't. Commercial chicken and eggs are the worst for that, followed by commercial dairy.

You need to listen to your body.

I sort of agree to a certain extent but eating the right foods (highly nutritious foods and those that contain sufficient cholestrol), even if they are from the supermarket and not organic, will still help you with testosterone. Also eliminating pointless foods like bread, pasta, cakes, sweets, sugar and all that other junk will help enormously.

I eat commercial supermarket chicken eggs (free range, not that this means much being sold in a supermarket) and when I do this (I eat four each morning) I have noticably higher sex drive (although still not perfect, but i'm not 18 anymore). I feel more masculine and competetive. This is all anecdotal and conjecture, of course it is, but I was about to add a comment at the end of this thread saying that if you are vegan and think you suffer with low sex drive then adding eggs would be essential (if eating eggs doesn't bother you as well). Sure I would probably be more healthy if I bought organic produce but I can't afford it unfortunately.

If you are vegan where else can you get cholestrol people?

Edited by Thorsten2, 15 July 2012 - 08:41 AM.

[Application]

Just to add a contrasting personal anecdote: Vegetarian for 20 years(20-40 years old), and then Vegan for nearly 5. My sex drive hasn't declined much at all since I was a teenager (high), and seemed to go up a bit after going vegan. To address an other theory in the thread, body weight was about the same since high school until going (moderately low fat) vegan, when I lost about 5 pounds.

[Hebbeh]

Just to add a contrasting personal anecdote: Vegetarian for 20 years(20-40 years old), and then Vegan for nearly 5. My sex drive hasn't declined much at all since I was a teenager (high), and seemed to go up a bit after going vegan. To address an other theory in the thread, body weight was about the same since high school until going (moderately low fat) vegan, when I lost about 5 pounds.

Was that 5 pound loss fat mass or muscle mass? If already lean, where did the 5 pounds come from?

[nowayout]

This is why men with diabetes and heart-disease have lower SHBG and higher estradiol [1-3].

Any activity that increases insulin-sensitivity and lowers free-IGF-1, would therefore increase both SHBG and testosterone and decrease estradiol levels. ...

As I have posted earlier... SHBG does increase with age, but this is not a bad thing; it's what’s suppose to happen. Men with metabolic-syndrome actually have depressed SHBG as they age and their SHBG doesn't rise to its full potential.

In my opinion you are still confusing two distinct issues. I don't disagree that low SHBG is associated with disease states. So it is good for aging men to have levels higher than the very low levels associated with these disease states. That does not mean elevated SHBG in aging men is a good thing. There are aging men who don't have diabetes or heart disease. In fact, they are a majority. As with all blood parameters, there seems to be an optimal window for SHBG, and you don't want to be below or above that, and most otherwise healthy older men are above that window. If some is good, that doesn't mean that the more the better.

What you basically seem to be saying is that an aging hormone profile is healthier for an older man than a youthful hormone profile, and by implication that a youthful hormone profile is associated with heart disease or diabetes. There is no evidence for that AFAIK.

Actually, SHBG is mainly influenced by fasting-insulin and free-IGF-1 (insulin-like-growth-factor-1).

I was responding to your earlier statement implying that increasing testosterone levels caused SHBG to increase by pointing out that of the sex hormones, it is E2 that drives SHBG up, and that raising testosterone will actually drive SHBG downwards.

As for the effect of insulin and IGF-1, you may be correct in the presence of the above mentioned disease states where SHBG is abnormally low, but how would you reconcile your statement with the fact that in most otherwise healthy men, SHBG rises with age?

With higher SHBG actually comes less estradiol, because with higher SHBG, less testosterone is up for conversion (into estradiol).

No. As has been pointed out by various posters, since it is mostly free (or more accurately, non-SHBG-bound) testosterone that is converted to E2, and since free testosterone is essentially independent of SHBG, higher SHBG does not translate into less estradiol. In fact, the way the HPT axis regulates hormone levels is via a feedback loop that uses estrogen levels as the main gauge, so it is in fact set up to keep estrogen levels the same independent of what T or SHBG levels may be.

Edited by viveutvivas, 15 July 2012 - 04:40 PM.

[misterE]

but if someone misinterprets the science

With all do respect, any outsider reading this would see that you (and others) are misinterpreting the data. A perfect example of this is when you claimed the correlation-plot between total-testosterone and SHBG wasn't significant, even thou the average line was perfectly diagonal.

[misterE]

If you are vegan where else can you get cholestrol people?

Cholesterol is not a nutrient. It's a hormone produced in the body. If you are familiar with the works of Dr. Dean Ornish or Caldwell Esselstyn, you will see that subjects eating a very low-fat, cholesterol-free diet (based on whole-grains and vegetables), actually had reversal of atherosclerosis [1-4]! No other diet has yet to demonstrate these results. So why are people following the paleo-diet when there is no evidence that it reverses heart-disease? Oh yeah, it's much easier to give up beans and whole-grains than it is steak and eggs and convince yourself you are getting healthier!



[1] Lancet. 1990 Jul 21;336(8708):129-33. Can lifestyle changes reverse coronary heart disease? The Lifestyle Heart Trial. Ornish D, Brown SE, Scherwitz LW.

[2] JAMA. 1998 Dec 16;280(23):2001-7. Intensive lifestyle changes for reversal of coronary heart disease. Ornish D, Scherwitz LW, Billings JH.

[3] Prev Cardiol. 2001 Autumn;4(4):171-177. Resolving the Coronary Artery Disease Epidemic Through Plant-Based Nutrition. Esselstyn CB Jr.

[4] J Fam Pract. 1995 Dec;41(6):560-8. A strategy to arrest and reverse coronary artery disease: a 5-year longitudinal study of a single physician's practice. Esselstyn CB Jr, Ellis SG, Medendorp SV,

[Application]

Just to add a contrasting personal anecdote: Vegetarian for 20 years(20-40 years old), and then Vegan for nearly 5. My sex drive hasn't declined much at all since I was a teenager (high), and seemed to go up a bit after going vegan. To address an other theory in the thread, body weight was about the same since high school until going (moderately low fat) vegan, when I lost about 5 pounds.

Was that 5 pound loss fat mass or muscle mass? If already lean, where did the 5 pounds come from?

I didn't measure it scientifically, but from clothing and appearance, I lost thin layer of fat around middle, dropping about a half pants size. Noticed no change in muscle except improved definition.

[misterE]

My sex drive hasn't declined much at all since I was a teenager (high), and seemed to go up a bit after going vegan.

If anything sex-drive should go up on a vegan diet do to an increase in testosterone, a decrease in estrogen and better blood-flow to the penis. People feasting on animal-fat and cholesterol are likely to get erectile-dysfunction as they age. Not to mention the main source of dioxins (a proven testosterone-antagonist) are primarily found in animal-fat.

Edited by misterE, 15 July 2012 - 06:30 PM.

[misterE]

I was responding to your earlier statement implying that increasing testosterone levels caused SHBG to increase by pointing out that of the sex hormones, it is E2 that drives SHBG up, and that raising testosterone will actually drive SHBG downwards.

I did not make that statement. I said that increasing SHBG would increase the total amount of testosterone, since SHBG binds testosterone with a high affinity. Increasing SHBG would therefore increase the testosterone to estrogen ratio (due to the different binding affinities).

Plus, if estradiol increased SHBG and testosterone decreased SHBG… why do the hormonal-profiles of men with diabetes and heart-disease show low testosterone and SHBG and high estradiol?

but how would you reconcile your statement with the fact that in most otherwise healthy men, SHBG rises with age?

Because that is what's suppose to happen. IGF-1 decreases with age because you body is done growing. IGF-1 peaks at puberty and slowly decreases as you age. Having high levels of IGF-1 as you age would predispose you to numerous cancers. The body doesn't make mistakes, the decline of IGF-1 and the rise of SHBG as you age is normal. In fact... it might even be your bodies’ way of trying to maintain longevity and prevent cancer.

As has been pointed out by various posters, since it is mostly free (or more accurately, non-SHBG-bound) testosterone that is converted to E2, and since free testosterone is essentially independent of SHBG, higher SHBG does not translate into less estradiol.

It gives the illusion, that that is correct. But free-testosterone always stays the same in vivo (at least according to my research). What changes is the total-amount of testosterone and the production rate of estrogen... with free-testosterone (staying the same) in the middle of the two variables.

Example: if you lower SHBG, total-testosterone is decreased, free-testosterone stays the same (as it always does), but estrogen (or other testosterone metabolites) increases, regardless of free-testosterone fluctuations.

Edited by misterE, 15 July 2012 - 06:59 PM.