Does Estrogen Make Me Fat? What about Fertility?

Figure 2
Proposed mechanisms and hypothesised physiopathology at low altitude (<2500 m), high altitude (2500–3500 m) and very high altitude (>3500 m). O2 is the oxygen availability in relationship to sea level. FiO2: angiogenesis occurs at different elevations above sea level but during the hypoxic beneficial window, polycythaemia and red cell as well as platelet adhesiveness are not significant as above 3500 m, thus the protective effect reaches its maximum. Above 3500 m, although angiogenesis is present, the significantly high haematocrit and polycythaemia increase the risk of blood stasis and thrombogenesis. BP, barometric pressure.

Discussion

The results from this review suggest that stroke seems to be more likely to occur in very high-altitude locations (>3500 m) when the exposure is longer than 28 days, especially among younger people (<45 years old). On the other hand, when people live above 1500 m and below 3500 m, it seems like there is a protective effect for stroke, probably triggered by better adaptation to hypoxia, efficient enough to reduce the likelihood of dying when compared with lower altitudes; nevertheless, no information is available about the exact point in which this protective effect becomes a risk factor.

It has been challenging to define how high-altitude exposure can be defined and where the threshold is located in terms of mild or severe hypoxia.37 For instance, Imray et al in 2011 used a classification of high-altitude exposure according to the recommendations from the International Society of Mountain Medicine, a categorisation that seems to be the most pragmatic.38 The authors defined low altitude as everything located below 1500 m, moderate or intermediate altitude between 1500 and 2500 m, high altitude from 2500 to 3500 m, the very high altitude from 3500 to 5800 m, extremely high altitude more than 5800 m and death zone above 8000 m.38

As humans acclimatise to high altitude, adverse and often mild secondary effects can occur in response to hypoxia. Some of these adverse effects are linked to the increased blood viscosity due to polycythaemia, augmented pulmonary arterial pressure and, sometimes, they are linked to a proposed hypercoagulation unbalance.22 24

These consequences might be increasing the risk of forming an atherothrombotic plaque resulting in a stroke or myocardial infarction or venous thrombotic events, resulting in DVT or pulmonary embolism.39–41 Although information about the time of exposure is scarce, the longer the exposure, the higher the risk.21 42

Acute exposure to hypobaric hypoxia produces several compensatory physiological effects that can last for hours, days, months or years. The essential mechanisms are: increasing the heart and respiratory rates, a secondary polycythaemia, haemoconcentration derived from reduced plasma volume caused by respiratory evaporative water loss and polyuria and increased ventilatory response.37 43 44 When acute exposure lasts longer than 28 days, more efficient and prolonged mechanisms take place, including sustained polycythaemia, endothelium changes, reduced vascular resistance, nitric oxide-mediated hypotension and angiogenesis.45–48 Acute exposure to high-altitude hypoxia triggers a series of events that produce a hypercoagulable state.24 This hypercoagulable state is boosted by dehydration, haemoconcentration and polycythaemia. When combined with dehydration (due to tachyphemia and extenuating physical activity) and limited mobilisation (sleeping in tents and secluded spaces), these factors produce the perfect scenario for increasing vascular stasis and thrombosis.22 37 49

When humans are exposed continuously to hypoxia, they develop adaptative mechanisms that are far more efficient than those observed in newcomers.50–53 These long-lasting mechanisms include anatomical (wider chests, shorter and lighter bodies, etc), embryological (smaller fetus and placentas), circulatory (improved maximum flow output and higher pulmonary arterial pressure) and respiratory adaptations (improved hypoxic ventilatory response and oxygen diffusion capacities).52 54–56 Chronic exposure to hypobaric hypoxia leads to the development of more subtle compensatory mechanisms. These factors include long-term erythrocytosis, angiogenesis, capillary remodelling and an improved ventilatory response57–60 (figure 2).

Once the general context of acute or chronic hypobaric hypoxia has been described, the main intrigue is which elevation is enough to generate compensatory mechanisms capable of reducing the risk of developing stroke and when these mechanisms become detrimental. After reviewing the current literature, the information available suggests that a window around 2000–3500 m of elevation might be enough to generate some protective mechanisms (ie, angiogenesis or vascular remodelling) against stroke.21 45 48

In elevations below 2000 m, the degree of compensation might not be enough to ensure a protective effect, while at above 3500 m, the adaptative compensatory mechanisms such as significant polycythaemia and vascular stasis might increase the risk of thrombosis and, therefore, the risk of developing stroke14 22 32 (figure 2).

The information is still contradictory and opposed from one study to another. The few studies available have many limitations, and confounders’ control was low in most of them. Nevertheless, very few studies that are better controlled and designed support some of our statements above. This report was designed to guide clinicians and researchers who are currently working with stroke and wanted to understand the role of elevation and hypobaric hypoxia for developing stroke while we suggest that further analysis and well-controlled studies are needed.

Limitations

Several limitations were found, including scarce information, conflicting results and lack of data when adjusting for confounders. In this sense, more research is needed to obtain a definitive answer; nevertheless, the information provided in this document can be used as an updated guide of the possible role of high-altitude exposure as a risk factor for developing a stroke.

Conclusions

This review suggests that the most robust studies tend to advocate that prolonged living at higher altitudes reduces the risk of developing stroke or dying from it. Increased irrigation due to angiogenesis and increased vascular perfusion might be the reason behind improved survival profiles among those living within this range. In contrast, residing at high-altitude locations, especially above 3500 m, is associated with an apparent increased risk, probably linked to the presence of polycythaemia and other factors such as increased blood viscosity, and the presence of a proposed hypercoagulable state might increase the risk of developing stroke among those exposed to very high altitudes. It seems clear that short-term exposures to very high altitudes are a risk factor for developing a stroke. The available scientific literature suggests that above 3500–4000 m, the risk of developing stroke increases, especially if the exposure is acute among non-adapted populations.

It is important to note that one of the main limitations presented by some of the studies analysed was the lack of analysis of risk factors related to stroke; in addition, the level of education, socioeconomic level or living conditions of the participants were not analysed. We also highlight that certain risk factors such as diabetes, arteriosclerosis, coronary heart disease or hyperlipidaemia have a lower prevalence in people living in high-altitude areas

You debate like a Short man, are u?

1 Like

Honestly if we argue correlation, these are not guys I would want to role model as having ideal protocols and hormone levels.

Tell em bro. Im done trying to pass on Alpha, just to be called a troll.

The confirmation bias these guys have is absurd, they cant stand the truth and want to waste time discussing everything but the facts presented to them.

Resorting to calling me names. Quite sad that today the person who tries to tell the truth is shot down like a liar, and the liar is treated like a truthful person.

I posted it and you didn’t read it. There are facts, then there is bias. You have the fact that 99.9% of all evidence on TRT was without an AI. All the benefits and etc reported were without an AI.

Can you put the pieces of a puzzle together. This is the easiest puzzle ever presented to someone. Evidence shows E is the most beneficial for men and woman, not DHT. Not Free T.

Literature shows that JUST ABOUT every study done on TRT was without an AI.

From this point forward its obvious you are here to argue and not have a respectful discussion. A respectful discussion would be where you actually aknowledge whats been presented, not totally ignore.

But you dont have any evidence to the contrary, yet you continue digging your hole deeper.

what a waste of time.

it pretty much says that they are grasping at straws on this. you pull one study that says "its actually health, but can be unhealthy at very high altitude’ and then says “most do not have diseases htat live in high altitude areas”… yet the people they put at high altitude are not natives. then you have millions who live at high atlitude and they dont seem to be dying of strokes and heart attacks. Were making a comparision to altitude, not mount everest or an 8k meter high mountain village man.

your response is so weak and you continue to have weak evidence.

One thing i hvae learned about you is that you have zero experience, nor do you have a degree that qualifies you to dissect studies. WHY? Becuase you always pick one article that supports your claims … instead of dozens.

If you understood studies, you woud know that one study is not how you make a decision on a topic. there has to be dozens over years with a multidude over variable sand circumstances and attributes.

You have spent god knows how many hours responding to everything with a negative outlook, everyone is wrong in your eyes, and you have not once ever dug up the overhwelming studies that show you are wrong.

You are not even realizing how blatelently biased you are with everything you post.

You are the best example of a walking , living, breathing confirmation bias that i have ever seen.

You seem to like to dish it out but then throw a hissy fit after the fact. You have this pompous attitude and have been told plenty of times, but you can’t accept that fact. Like I said don’t dish out if you can’t take it yourself.

Edit: also did I even resort to name calling? I don’t see it.

I am!

Lol u are getting completely destroyed in this debate, sorry dude.

So someone living at normal altitude who didn’t have high hematocrit before hand, then takes super doses of T and all of a sudden has high HCT is the same as natives who lived in high altitude all their lives? Or is it more similar to a sudden introduction of a non native to high altitude?

1 Like

I would venture the latter which seems to fit with the clinical picture that develops in the most vulnerable during the first year of TRT. The cardiovascular system responds to the additional demands of increased Hct that rises over the first 3 months after treatment starts. You have have RAAS/aldosterone effects causing additional fluid management concern. Hence the tradeoff between Hct rise, inflammation status and reserve capacity for each individual patient. To @enackers and @Carma 's point TT has shown great benefit in many cardiac patients with low T status. But too MUCH T in the wrong patient too quickly may be the other side of coin.

What could go wrong combining the statements “1500-2000 ng/dl TT is healthy” along with “elevated Hct is harmless” without considering patient inflammatory status, RAAS, mineral corticorticoid response, cardiovascular status?

Then there’s the whole debate on when to put a morbidly obese cardiac patient on TRT. Notice I said TRT and not TOT. Do they lose the fat first or go on TRT to aid in the process?

And then there is the long term issue of elevated Hct and cardiac workload. Hence, hand waving all of this with simple statements like elevated Hct is harmless doesnt seem responsible to me. The individual context and status is important.

Should we move all this HCT discussion over to the Hct thread @enackers ? Didnt mean to go off topic.

2 Likes

Your user name has me thoroughly confused. I thought I knew who RobRoy was over at ExcelMale but is it just coincedence you are using the same handle over here in this thread? Not the same person I presume?

I am getting that dream within a dream vibe. :grinning:

I suppose it depends why the fatty has low T

Depends how low the T is if hypogonadism is purely functional. TT of 99ng/dl? Probably not gonna have normal testosterone levels

Does he have hypogonadism due to klinefelters syndrome? Testicular cancer leading to the loss of both testicles etc?

Never gonna have normal testosterone levels

1 Like

For whatever it is worth, and regardless of whether it is TRT or TOT (leave that for the experts), I have had plenty of guys lose as much as 100 pounds on testosterone. Many stop BP medication, stop metformin, and some stop statins.

Some get their act together exercise and diet wise. Some didn’t change anything else, just took testosterone, still eat like crap and do not exercise and lose 80 pounds. As they say, “this is the best thing I have done in my life!” As I say, “don’t tell any of your fat friends.”

2 Likes

Do you have much experience with patients and heart problems?

Im Equel but ive forgotten My pass to equel and dont seem to be able to recover it

Some, probably no more than anyone else. What kind of heart problems are you referencing?

Nothing with arrhythmia but more to do with CHF, maybe CVD as well. Pretty much cases where the heart is too weak.

None with CHF, I would want cardiology clearance before proceeding and I doubt that would happen. As for CVD, some stents, some grafts. They’ve done very well.

I am only 35 but sometimes I psych myself out as to why I am so sensitive to higher doses and why I must pop an AI if I am even to go over 120mg of T.

My cardio had gone to utter shit in the last 6 years. I can possibly trace it back to periods of stopping any form of exercise and being chronically stressed/depressed, also chronic vaping for 6 years as well, and I am talking about vaping from the moment I wake up to laying in bed before sleep to hitting the vape in bathrooms during work to hitting the vape when waking up to go pee in the middle of the night.

Working on it now and have since stoped vaping and smoking. I ran 2 miles on the treadmill the other day in 16 minutes. Took up mountain biking and both times I went had to stop and couldn’t finish the path after a while with insane sweating and being so short of breath I needed to puke.

1 Like