Article Discussions
| Cy-BORG |
| Cy Willson was once a normal, rosy-cheeked youth who spent his days getting the heifers ready for the county fair. Then, one day, while plowing a neighbor girl in the barn, he was bitten on the ass by a radioactive cow. The bite transformed him, giving him strange powers. Most of them, like being able to sleep standing up, were pretty much useless, but others, like being able to digest pharmaceutical and nutrition texts at great speed, were pretty handy. Of course, he often read some of these texts before digesting them. He became an expert on nutrition and drugs of all kinds. What's more, after experimentation, he became more than human. He became a Cy-BORG, ready to answer almost any question you puny humans want to throw at him. Remember, resistance is futile!
Q: In your last column you kinda' slammed coral calcium and said it was mostly hype. I thought that stuff was supposed to be some sort of miracle supplement? Can you talk more about why you don't think so? Thanks! A: First of all, calcium is an important element and plays a role in many functions. Here are a few of them:
However, all essential vitamins and minerals have important functions. It's not as if calcium is the only important element. Anyhow, the infomercials you see on coral calcium make a great production about how necessary calcium is for bodily functions. This is true, but by reporting this info the commercials get people to start thinking, "Well, this stuff really is important so I'd better make sure I'm taking the best kind." In other words, it's just a marketing technique. Then they go on to convince you that coral calcium is superior because it's "found in nature" and thus has greater biological value. Well, that's odd because last I had checked, calcium carbonate (found in Tums) is also found in nature. They make claims that coral calcium is better absorbed and utilized when, in fact, there's no evidence whatsoever to support this claim. There isn't even a valid theoretical reason to expect higher bioavailability. Now, is there any evidence that using calcium (in any form) will prolong life, prevent aging, prevent many metabolic disorders, and whatever else they claim in those ads? Not to my knowledge. However, there is evidence supporting the use of calcium in the following: colorectal cancer prevention, dysmenorrhea, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, osteoporosis, and even premenstrual syndrome. So, based on all this, I still suggest going with the cheaper carbonate salt of calcium found in Tums and other heartburn products. Stick with around 500 to 2000 mg/day. (1-21)
Q: Finasteride (found in Propecia and Proscar) has recently been discovered to be a double-edged sword in that it may prevent certain cancers while promoting other, more virulent cancers. Any thoughts or theories on this? A: I do have a theory. Finasteride inhibits DHT formation and I believe it's this decrease in intraprostatic DHT which causes the virulent or high-grade cancer. DHT itself has an estrogen-lowering effect in general and this includes the prostate. Now, as TC so eloquently pointed out in his article, Estrogen's Dirty Little Secret, estrogen is a great mediator of cell growth and cancer formation in the prostate. Well, when you decrease intraprostatic DHT, you give rise to the possibility of having elevated intraprostatic estradiol levels. On top of this, you also have Testosterone itself in the same, if not higher concentrations when using finasteride. Thus, you have androgen receptor binding and of course estrogen receptor binding which both seem to play a role in carcinogenesis in the prostate, with estrogen playing a greater role in my opinion. Another contributing factor, although less likely, is that the increase in endogenous Testosterone from finasteride provides yet more substrate for estradiol formation, although after investigation I don't think this is really a factor. Basically, we need DHT for its anti-estrogenic properties. So, in summary, I think the main reason this is happening is due to decreased intraprostatic DHT levels, which in turn allows for elevated intraprostatic estradiol and consequently increases the risk for high-grade prostate cancer. (22-29)
Q: I often use melatonin as a natural sleep aide, but I notice the life extensionalists guys really promote this stuff as an anti-aging product and say it may even be useful as an anti-cancer therapy. Do you know anything about that? Should I take it every night whether I need it for sleep or not? A: Melatonin actually has some pretty solid evidence supporting its use as an anti-cancer agent. It's been shown to increase the effectiveness of chemotherapy as well as protect against radiation. It also showed benefit in those being treated for various types of metastatic, solid tumors (e.g. skin and lung cancers which were very resistant to other forms of treatment and deemed untreatable) with tamoxifen. Other studies had similar findings. As far as its anti-aging effects, melatonin possesses free radical-scavenging properties, protecting cells from oxidative damage, so you could technically say it has "anti-aging" properties, although this can be said for just about any antioxidant. However, another additional benefit may be that melatonin can inhibit nitric oxide synthase. Nitric oxide can have damaging effects on cells via its reaction with superoxide, which allows for the formation of peroxynitrite. This in turn stimulates lipid peroxidation and depletes glutathione concentrations. So, melatonin may help in a more indirect manner as well. The common dosages for those with cancer are 40 to 50mg per day (taken at night) in combination with another anti-cancer drug. If using melatonin alone, use 20mg per day intramuscularly for two months and then begin taking 10mg per day orally. If using it as a prophylaxis or sleep aid, stick with 1-5mg a day before bed. Some people may find that 5mg is too much, so start out with 1mg and work your way from there to assess what amount works best for you. Just as some "precautionary" side info, melatonin can have some effects that we bodybuilders and athletes may perceive as negative. For instance, it's been shown to cause statistically significant reductions in body temperature (.5-1.5° Fahrenheit). In reality though, this isn't that big of a deal, just some interesting info. Chronic ingestion of melatonin (1 gram per day) did cause suppression of serum LH in humans, but again, the dosages commonly employed are only a fraction of that so it's probably nothing to worry about. (30-48)
Q: Cy-BORG, what's this Lipostabil stuff I've been hearing about coming out of Europe? Supposedly it's some sort of injectable substance that kills fat cells. Some claim it's like getting lipo. Any info? A: Depending on which country you're in, Lipostabil, made by Aventis, may contain only phosphatidylcholine and is intended for injection, or it may also contain multivitamins and theophylline and be used orally (capsules) instead. Lipostabil in South Africa contains phosphatidycholine, vitamins, and adenosine phosphate and is intended for injection, but they also have an encapsulated version containing phosphatidylcholine, vitamins and theophylline. Many countries have actually discontinued marketing or even making the product. However, I'm assuming this is because it was originally designed for other purposes (hyperlipidaemias, atherosclerosis, thromboembolism, etc.) and not for "fat reduction" and such. Anyhow, since you specifically mentioned Europe, I believe every current formulation there only contains phosphatidylcholine and is available for injection. However, it could very well be that they're using the formulation with theophylline or a derivative thereof, along with vitamins and phosphatidylcholine. In my opinion, the latter actually has more merit to its purported effects. With a phosphodiesterase inhibitor like theophylline, we of course get an accumulation of cyclic AMP, which eventually leads to lipolysis in adipocytes. The use of phosphatidylcholine, while playing an important role in fat metabolism, is a bit of a stretch. I'm guessing their theory is that the lecithin (phosphatidylcholine) is emulsifying the fat when injected and allowing it to be dispersed. In actuality, the combination of theophylline and lecithin is the combination that makes most sense in terms of people seeing reductions in fat mass after subcutaneous injection of such a product. Still, until some validating research arises, I won't recommend people using this sort of treatment. Aside from that, theophylline isn't my first choice for phosphodiesterase inhibition as there are other methylxanthines out there that don't have the same toxicity issues.
Q: Okay, don't flame me too much, but I heard some guys in my gym talk about using nicotine patches as a pre-workout stimulant and I've thought about trying them. Do they work? Any health dangers? A: I've never really heard of this method nor would I ever advise anyone to use it. Caffeine can provide significant CNS stimulation as well, yet isn't anywhere near as addictive as nicotine. This isn't to say that nicotine has absolutely no medicinal value but for a "pre-workout stimulant" it's really not worth using as there are other viable alternatives available. Aside from that, nicotine may indirectly cause cancers. I suppose that nicotine may be slightly more advantageous in terms of increasing strength prior to a workout due to its binding to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, allowing for stronger muscle contractions. However, even if you're able to "kick" the nicotine addiction, you're more likely to experience a bout of depression thereafter. Not only that, but it's possible that nicotine can cause desensitization and/or persistent inactivation of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor. That means it's possible you could actually lose strength after continued use of the drug. It's also been shown that while caffeine doesn't increase cortisol levels to a significant extent, nicotine does, so that's just one more reason not to use it for such a purpose. In short, using nicotine as a "pre-workout stimulant" is a bad idea. (49-56)
Q: I'm a big guy — 250 pounds, 6'2", mostly muscle. Do I need a higher dosage of HOT-ROX? I'm getting great results at four per day in two divided dosages, but surely me and a 120 pound woman wouldn't use the same serving size, right? A: Well, basing dosage only on body weight really isn't too accurate with many compounds. It's more accurate to take into account not only body weight but body surface area, plasma protein binding, extraction ratio, renal function, hepatic function (cytochrome P-450) and in some cases even cardiac function. It's also important to realize that drugs are metabolized in places other than the liver and kidneys, like the GI tract, lungs, and even the skin. With that being said, it's easy to see how each individual can vary in terms of how they metabolize various drugs and how these can be influenced by our genes. However, for the majority of people, functioning of the above is similar enough to where one dosage can be used in various sizes and sexes. Essentially though, this is where clinical pharmacokinetic data comes into play to help answer questions on dosing for a given drug. Again, while body weight does play a role, it's simply part of the total picture. This is why, for the most part, just about any drug you take will have the same prescribed dosage irrespective of size or sex. (Although, the sex portion has been the subject of debate by some pharmacologists.) Anyhow, extreme variations in one of these factors, mainly hepatic and renal metabolism, is also why you tend to have some people who need varying dosages. For example, some 150 pound guys can tolerate 250 mg of ephedrine and 1000 mg of caffeine in a day without any negative side effects, while some 250 pound males can only tolerate a fraction of that dosage. With the particular compounds in HOT-ROX, it isn't really necessary to base the dosage on body weight. That's why we have the same recommended dosage irrespective of sex or size.
Q: I've recently been diagnosed with prostatitis (inflammation of the prostate gland) and my doc thinks it has something to do with my Testosterone injections. Any corrolation between 'roids and prostatitis, or injectable 'roids and BPH? A: I'm not aware of any direct link between Testosterone use and prostatitis. In the majority of cases with those suffering from prostatitis, the cause is really not known. For a small fraction of those people, it appears to be due to bacterial infections. With BPH (Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy) however, using Testosterone could contribute to such a condition. Those with BPH can sometimes experience prostatitis as a result. So, if you have BPH and suspect that it stems from the use of androgens and have recently developed prostatitis, it may be a good idea to discontinue use for a while and see if that helps. If however, you have no symptoms of BPH and your physician has determined you don't have BPH, yet have prostatitis, I see no reason why you can't continue to use Testosterone as well as other androgens.
|
| © 1998 — 2003 Testosterone, LLC. All Rights Reserved. |
Home | Free Articles | Forums | Store | Search | About Us
© 1998-2010 Testosterone Publishing, LLC
Privacy
Policy | Acceptable
Use Policy | Technical
Support | service@tmuscle.com