Bioidentical Hormones

[Ms.Wetback]

Whats the deal with these ????
Supposed to be safer, healthier and better for the body.

They have test for men and we were looking into it instead of the synthetics.

[Ms.Wetback]

Example: http://www.bodylogicmd.com/for-men/b...tical-hormones

[Lokedogg]

I think it's bullshit hype. They're all synthesized from cholesterol. So what does it matter the origing in say testo- test is test is test. Of course I'm not real informed on the matter. Still haven't seen anything to denote anything other than another money scheme.

[Ms.Wetback]

I think it's bullshit hype. They're all synthesized from cholesterol. So what does it matter the origing in say testo- test is test is test. Of course I'm not real informed on the matter. Still haven't seen anything to denote anything other than another money scheme.

I disagree............HUGE difference between synthroid and dessicated thyroid. Ask anyone on thyroid meds that has switched to Armour and they will tell you night and day difference.

[Lokedogg]

I disagree............HUGE difference between synthroid and dessicated thyroid. Ask anyone on thyroid meds that has switched to Armour and they will tell you night and day difference.

Which is why I listed test as an example which what I thought you were referring mainly to. I used tons of thyroid and agree with that. But I'm not buying into testosterone bio-identical hype from my current understanding until I see scientific data to substantiate the claim of supeiorority..

[Ms.Wetback]

Which is why I listed test as an example which what I thought you were referring mainly to. I used tons of thyroid and agree with that. But I'm not buying into testosterone bio-identical hype from my current understanding until I see scientific data to substantiate the claim of supeiorority..

Problem being is the is NO scientific data for Armour, doctors hate prescribing it, but the people that take it love it and say they feel 10X better on it. So who it right ?????

[Lokedogg]

Yeah but armour has t4 and t3. So there is a clear difference in the 2. Synthroid is just t4.

[-JP-]

Any claim I have seen from bioidentical hormones never backs it up with evidence or studies. Here is an interesting article i read once:

Natural Hormones vs. Synthetic Hormones

By Elizabeth Lee Vliet, MD

Many women express a desire to take only natural hormones. But the words “natural” and “synthetic” can be very confusing to patients and doctors alike.

Whether a compound is biologically “natural” (to plants, horses, or whatever), is not the issue. The molecule shape, make-up, and structure must be identical to what is made in the human body to provide the perfect “key” to unlock the body’s receptor sites.

A compound that meets these requirements is called “bioidentical.” The bioidentical hormone replacement process is sort of like getting a spare key from the locksmith. The manufacturer (the ovary) stops making your own hormone at menopause, so a “locksmith” (the laboratory) makes an exact duplicate hormone molecule for you to use if you choose to.

In today’s common usage, “synthetic” has come to mean “artificial,” but this is not always correct. Synthetic simply means “produced by synthesis”, or “made.” Synthroid and Estrace are “synthetic” in that they have been made in the laboratory rather than within a biological organism, but they are “natural” in that they’re the exact molecules made by the thyroid and ovary, respectively. Other examples of exact copies of our bodies hormones synthesized in the laboratory are Humulin® (insulin) and cortisone (cortisol).

So “natural” or bioidentical hormones are made in the laboratory, and the process is called “synthesizing.” Usually, the source of these “natural” human forms of ovarian hormones are the building blocks found in wild yams and soybeans. The laboratory converts these plant compounds into chemical molecules identical to those made in the human body for 17-beta estradiol, progesterone, or testosterone, which can then be fashioned into standardized tablets, patches, creams, gels and injectables for our prescriptions. Thus, we’re able to synthesize a natural, bioidentical compound to replace what our body no longer makes.

The flip side of this coin is that something “natural” may be foreign or “supernatural” for the human body. Consider Premarin: a “natural” mixture of estrogens made by a biological organism, the pregnant mare. But Premarin contains types of estrogen that are never found naturally in the human body. These estrogen types are more potent and more persistent than human 17-beta estradiol. In effect, Premarin is a “supernatural” estrogen for women that has some very undesirable consequences.

Another example is the “natural” estrogen-type compounds (genistein and others) found in soy and red clover and many other plants. These are “natural” substances, since they come from biological plant sources. These compounds are unnatural for our bodies, however, since we don’t make these same compounds and don’t have the enzymes to change the genistein or clover isoflavones into 17-beta estradiol.

These molecules act very differently at our body’s estrogen receptors, and don’t have the full protective effects of 17-beta estradiol on the heart, brain and bone. Furthermore, if you try to get enough active hormone from plant/herbal sources alone, it’s hard to determine how much you are taking and whether the amount is right for you, because plant/herbal sources aren’t standardized.

Don’t be misled by clever wording in advertising. While “natural” bears the mystique of being “better for you,” it isn’t always the case.

[Ms.Wetback]

Any claim I have seen from bioidentical hormones never backs it up with evidence or studies. Here is an interesting article i read once:

Studies to mean mean absolutely NOTHING, example:

Medicine is littered with mistakes and errors:

• For years, doctors urged post-menopausal women to take estrogen to protect their hearts. But in 2002, a study of 16,000 women found that those on estrogen plus progestin actually had more heart attacks than those on a placebo. In 2004, a similar study found no heart benefit from estrogen alone.

• In the 1980s, doctors enthusiastically prescribed two new drugs that seemed to eliminate one type of potentially dangerous irregular heart beat. But a 1989 study found that, compared to a placebo, the drugs actually raised the risk of sudden death.

• A 1968 report about one comatose patient concluded that dexamethasone, a corticosteroid, could save the lives of patients with deadly cerebral malaria. But a 1982 study of 100 comatose patients with cerebral malaria found that, compared to a placebo, dexamethasone actually prolonged comas.

Multivitamins:

One of the greatest health advances of the 20th century was the discovery of the roles of vitamins and minerals. Bye bye, beriberi, a once-common disease caused by a lack of thiamine, or vitamin B1. Simple food fortification efforts and a better understanding of nutrition in general also largely put an end to rickets (low vitamin D), scurvy (low vitamin C), pellagra (low niacin, or vitamin B3), goiter (low iodine) and many more antiquated-sounding diseases.

So, why not load up on all these vitamins by taking one pill each day? Sounds logical, and through the 1990s the medical establishment was recommending this for everyone. Then came big, long studies revealing strange things: high-dose beta-carotene increasing the risk of lung cancer among smokers; high-dose vitamin C fueling cancer in mice exposed to herbicides; vitamin E raising the risk of second heart attacks.

In 2006 the National Institutes of Health proclaimed there's no convincing evidence to support the claim that taking multivitamins is a good idea for the general population. The sage advice today is that you do not really have to stop taking a multivitamin, but there's little reason to start taking one.

Margarine:

Unlike butter, which was developed millennia ago naturally -- albeit after squeezing a goat's or cow's udders to collect her milk, then isolating the liquid fat and agitating it until it turns solid -- margarine was invented in a laboratory by a chemist in 1813. That alone should make you question its healthfulness.

In the early days, margarine indeed was loathed. But this was mainly a result of the dairy industry marginalizing margarine, lobbying for laws to tax margarine or ban its coloring so that it wouldn't look like butter. By the 1960s, though, when cholesterol became a bad word, doctors were recommending margarine over butter because it was naturally cholesterol free. Butter was relegated to the realm of lard and tallow.

Margarine's perceived relative healthfulness compared to butter lasted for several decades until but a few years ago, when we learned that margarine's trans-fat not only raises bad cholesterol but also lowers good cholesterol.

[-JP-]

Without studies you wouldn't have any of the knowledge you just posted haha

I'm not saying studies are perfect by any means but they do have a place the key is getting through all the BS. In terms of Bioidentical Hormones the info is just not out there right now

[Ms.Wetback]

I'm not saying studies are perfect by any means but they do have a place the key is getting through all the BS. In terms of Bioidentical Hormones the info is just not out there right now

I agree.............you know I dont think they mean nothing, I just believe the medical field is warped in there reporting and big money pushes what is best for them and not for us.

[Ms.Wetback]

Upon further research it appears that most synthetic hormones are made from horse pee.
Bio-identical are all natural from plant derivatives.

[Valkyrie]

HORSE PISS YESSSSSSSSS!

[Ms.Wetback]

HORSE PISS YESSSSSSSSS!

Drink up ! ! !