The End of Andro Supplements?

Mish Mash of Andro Study ...

What we do now about the modern study of androstenedione in achieving healthy people is a mish-mash of data that looked mainly to the effects of androstenedione on raising levels of testosterone, with one exception, which we will look at briefly. One of the most promising small clinical study was done Dr. Tim Ziegenfuss at Eastern Michigan University in 1998. It is a small group of healthy young people, and gave them either 100 mg of androstenedione, androstenediol 100mg od, or placebo orally. He took their blood for 30 minutes, 60 minutes and 90 minutes and check out their testosterone levels. What he found was the 90 minutes out, getting a group of androstenediol on average 47.7% increase in testosterone and androstenedione group had only a 10% increase in testosterone. He presented his findings at an international conference in Lahti weights, Finland, Novemeber 98th Now remember, this was a very short period of clinical studies that looked at acute rise in testosterone. He did not look at anything else, such as estrogen, changes in bodyfat or muscle, etc., nor will he be expected to be real. This study got a lot of people are excited that these Andro product really can work as claimed.

Another recent study published as an abstract entitled "Oral 4-Androstene-3,17-dione and 4-Androstene-3,17-diol supplementation in young men" (J. Parenteral and Ent. Nutr. 23 (1 ):... Suppl S16 1999) did Dr. Earnest and colleagues at East Tennessee State University. small study, eight men received 200mg or 200mg diol dione or capsule form, showed some interesting results. They check the level of testosterone in the blood of young people in 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes of ingestion Andro products. They also found and androstenedione and androstenediol raised total testosterone (TT) and free testosterone (FT), although they were found, nor have such a dramatic effect on testosterone as a small study reported by Dr. Ziegenfuss. More interesting perhaps, the study by Dr. Earnest found androstenedione was actually better for the increase in TT and FT of androstenediol, which goes against what most people feel should happen as it is commonly understood "diol" version should be better than converter "Dion" version. It is important to remember these studies were short in duration, small, and only looked at testosterone levels up to 120 minutes after intake, although they show some androstenedione no effect on testosterone levels for a short time. On a more negative note, a recent study presented by Dr. Bizeau and Hazel at the 1999 conference of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB J. of, vol. 13:04, 1999.) concluded 100mg of androstenedione given orally to six men for five days had no effect on testosterone, the increase in estrogen (estradiol), and decreased protein synthesis! Ouch!

Finally, the studies presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society 1999 entitled "Changes in serum sex steroid concentrations after oral administration of androstenedione (A4)" did Dr. Spratt and his associates came to a fairly neutral report on androstenedione. This small study, carried out by scientists at the General Medical Research Institute in Portland Maine, looked at several hormonal markers, such as estrogens (estrone and estradiol), luteinizing hormone (LH) and of course testosterone (T). They gave 6 healthy men 100mg and 200mg of androstenedione for two periods of seven days. For both dosing periods, they checked blood T, LH, and estrogen for 30, 60, 120 and 240 minutes after a dose of Andro. What they discovered was the androstenedione was 100mg or 200mg dose had no effect on the T, LH, and estrogen and concludes: "So, it is unlikely that these doses A4 (androstenedione) have a significant anabolic or other clinical effects."

Mother of all against Andro Study ...

As the reader can see what we have is a few small studies with different problems, did for a short duration of time, with findings ranging from positive to negative to neutral in terms of the effects of androstenedione. None of them looked lean body mass (LBM) or fat (FM) changes or even changes in the strength of users. Now comes along this major study in JAMA that the media jumped all over as evidence that androstenedione is the worst thing for weight lifters since the invention of step aerobics. It was bigger than any of the other studies did not check the changes in LBM, FT, strength and hormone levels, and published in what is considered a very prestigious journal. In nut shell, the JAMA study basically concluded that androstenedione does not increase T, does not increase or decrease in LBM FM, and increases estrogen and lowers HDL ("good" cholesterol) levels. Sori. So this is a slam dunk anti-Andro camp were hoping for? But if one looks closely at this study, one will find it was so full of problems and strange conclusions that it is almost used in answering the many questions we have about androstenedione. Now, what follows is a detailed review of research on potential problems and the more scientific minded. If you do not want to deal with the techno babble, feel free to jump to the conclusion that pretty much sums it all in plain English, although you will be missing some interesting information to skip over it.

Comments and questions on the JAMA study.

Comments and questions on the JAMA study.

study uses men who had never lifted weights! Why are untrained men chosen for the study? That none of them were trained strength athletes could have masked any small gains made ​​by force of androstenedione is there any benefit to be had. People who embark on a strength training program for the first time, as the JAMA study found, increasing strength and LBM while losing bodyfat fast even without a nose. And some of them achieve much greater increase in strength and size than others. This confuses and statistics can do the impossible to tell whether one group actually do better than others or not. Subjects who achieved a stable condition in response to their training, which would not have made substantial gains with placebo, and would not differ greatly in their gains, it would be much more suitable for the study. Small differences could then be detected between the supplement and placebo groups that could be of great importance to sports is not yet clear when using untrained individuals as subjects. And really, who cares what Andrea works for non-athletes anyway?

Why are men with such a high body fat percentage have chosen? The subjects in this study were around 23% bodyfat! It is well known that high bodyfat percentage increases estrogen production (see: .. Increased conversion of androstenedione to estrogens in obese men J Clin Endocrinol Metab November 51 (5) :1128-32 1980, a relationship between aromatase activity and body fat. Distribution Steroids from July to September, .. 50 (1-3) :61-72 1987, Adipose tissue as a source of hormones Am J Clin Nutr Jan,..... 45 (1 Suppl) :277-82 1987 Review.). Unusually high levels of estrogen seen in the baseline with the study participants will be done in accordance with it. The study notes that participants were not "abuse alcohol." What was the cut off for alcohol intake? Even small amounts of alcohol in men with high levels of bodyfat will increase production of estrogen. Again, the subjects are not representative of athletic users.

Why is so much emphasis on results from chronic studies (testosterone, which then was elevated after an overnight fast), when so far as I know, no one would expect that testosterone, which will remain elevated through night? No such effect is currently claimed to be a product of our knowledge. We do not see how one can justify the conclusion that androstenedione does not affect testosterone levels, as a broad sweeping statement, when the evidence from which it is drawn only to the level unchanged after overnight fast - especially when the evidence is obtained that seem to show increased levels of acute for several hours after ingestion of supplement, even if not considered statistically significant.

Why are some positive results observed in the androstenedione group not discussed? It seems that the interest levels of LH and FSH is suppressed, potential side effects that comes a lot. The study says there is no difference between groups in bodyfat, but on average 1.4 kg greater fat loss (175%) in group Andro found! Androstenedione as a fat loss agent? It is difficult to understand why a large amount of text is devoted to what seems to be speculation about possible health risks, without the aid of data of observation, while the observed positive results received little or no attention to the text. It seems rather biased to us.

Finally, the study states that a daily protein intake is 85-98 grams per day, which exceeds the recommended daily intake. Although all groups in the study increased LBM and decreased FM, it does not exceed the recommended amount of protein intake in weight-trained athletes and the fact indicates that protein deficient diet, in our opinion (see Lemon, PW, "Is the increase in protein is necessary or useful for people with a physically active lifestyle, "Nutr Rev 54:. S169-175, 1996, Lemon, PW,"? Do athletes need more protein and amino acids, "International J. Sports Nutri S39-61,?. 1995, and Tarnopolsky, MA, "Evaluation of protein requirements for trained strength athletes." J. Applied Phys. 73 (5) :1986-1995, 1992). a common myth and misconception that people engage in weight training does not need the extra protein is put to rest more times, but the old views change slowly (even in the face of previous research ).

The bottom line ...

So what's the bottom line in this study? Is this a slam dunk against Andro? Not at all. The study used fat guys who never lifted a weight in your life who has actually started with high estrogen levels and amazingly enough (we're witty here if you can not tell) concluded that androstenedione increased estrogen! Now the reader should be very clear that we are not particularly impressed with oral androstenedione by myself, but I feel strongly that there is a double standard for nutritional supplements. What bothers us most perhaps is much evidence in the JAMA study does not support the published findings, and twists the fact that they were able to prove absolutely certain that androstenedione increases testosterone and turned it into a conclusion that is not actually raising testosterone. Although their graphs show an increase! We all know that nothing extensive androstenedione and other compounds, such as 4-androstenediol are probably a better bet for raising T and some of the "neither" products can also have its benefits. Future research needs to be done in order to confirm this, however. Also, other delivery technologies such as topical, Cyclodextrins, and some time release formula, can enhance the effects of above-Andro products.

Although it is perfectly possible androstenedione will turn out to be a miracle supplement some companies make it to be, like many of us have always suspected. Regardless, much of this seems quite reminiscent of the days when it was published several times in scientific journals that anabolic steroids had no effect in improving athletic performance, and we all know that turned out to be true!

Readers Note 2009: The "Andro" supplements, pro hormones, and the most "designer supplements" are prohibited, as this article was written, a lot of information is questionable at this time. Regardless, it's a good article to see how things have changed since it was announced, and it goes to the "oldie but good" file.

Want to science is based on hype free facts about Andro and other supplements? See: