Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

morebass t1_iw0gjt5 wrote

No, androgen receptor activation seems to improve glucose metabolism through a few pathways from what I remember. B-cell activation as well as increased GLUT1 expression and well the increase in the skeletal muscle ability to store glycogen.

There are many negative effects to chronically elevated androgens, however...

43

teatimewithbatman1 t1_iw15hby wrote

>There are many negative effects to chronically elevated androgens, however...

I wonder if there's a way to counteract the negative side effects of androgens using different hormonal optimizing drugs

4

morebass t1_iw176l0 wrote

That was essentially the premise behind the development of SARMs (selective androgen receptor modulators) but in trials they never quite panned out, and negative effects were still apparent (dyslipidemia, hypercholesterolemia, elevated liver enzymes, suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary axis, etc...) So right now it doesn't seem possible in practice with available drugs.

10

RazedByTV t1_iw377a0 wrote

Since you seem knowledgeable, is there a benefit (theoretical or practical) to a SARM over an Aromatase Inhibitor? Or a downside to an AI such as anastrazole, etc?

1

morebass t1_iw3era2 wrote

Do you mean a SERM? An aromatase inhibitor will effectively lower the body's estrogen by preventing androgens from being converted to estrogen via the aromatase enzyme. A SARM binds to and activates specific androgen receptors, to mimic the positive effects of something like testosterone, without the negatives (in theory but not in practice)

2

RazedByTV t1_iw42obg wrote

No, but somewhat similar end result if you use a SERM like enclomiphene (with one exception of estradiol levels being different). An aromatase inhibitor will cause testosterone levels to rise, and an excessive amount of inhibitor will tank estrogen levels if aromatase is inhibited too much. So it sounds like ideally, the SARM would avoid the negatives associated with increasing endogenous testosterone.

Edit for clarity: Lowering the (male) body's estrogen causes production of more testosterone, as the body uses estrogen level to determine how much testosterone to produce. Reduce conversion of testosterone using aromatase inhibitor, body has lower estrogen, and makes more testosterone. Trick body into thinking there is less estrogen using SERM, body makes more testosterone, and you end up with somewhat elevated estrogen.

1

morebass t1_iw4akmu wrote

I see, to answer your previous question, a SARM will decrease your body's ability to produce testosterone on its own as well as having the deleterious effects of high androgen levels, and since it is metabolized by the liver, effect hepatic function...

An AI lowers circulating estrogen which may boost "natural" testosterone (causing the same effects from higher androgen levels) as well as the negative effects of aromatase inhibitors in general (vision and hepatic involvement). Estrogen also serves to counteract some problems caused by high androgens, so lowering estrogen in order to increase testosterone may negatively effect blood pressure, cholesterol, lipids, joint health, electrolyte balance.

3

HarbingerDread t1_iw1yds7 wrote

Really makes you wonder how much steroids could advance if they were legalized and made available in the free market. Creating a legitimate marketplace and competition for steroid development could change the world as we know it. We've probably only skimmed the surface of what can really be accomplished with steroids because the potential for legitimate profit is almost non-existant.

−3

SippyTurtle t1_iw3ox1r wrote

I'm assuming you mean legal in the sports world in which I would disagree. People would maximize the short term boosting effects to get the wins and disregard long term detriment.

2

HarbingerDread t1_iw3paf6 wrote

No. I meant legal to purchase and use for everyone. Steroids are still classified as narcotics virtually everywhere and are only dangerous because there is no incentive to make better and safer steroids because of their limited marketability and prescription.

0

Otherwise-Way-1176 t1_iw8s2e6 wrote

Rockets have been legal for a while, and they’re still quite risky.

When talking about a complex system we don’t fully understand - that is, the human body - the belief that if only we tweaked the incentives of pharmaceutical companies a teeny bit then we’d have side effect free drugs is ludicrous.

1

HarbingerDread t1_iw9st6b wrote

Rockets? Red rockets? If you're talking about the same thing I'm talking about, they're not steroids. Red rockets are a cutting drug and are only legal in some countries, Canada not being one of them. Not sure about American legality.

1

[deleted] OP t1_iw0qj1p wrote

[deleted]

8

Pandalite t1_iw0v9s2 wrote

Steroid induced diabetes is ICD10 code E09.9. You treat like you treat type 2 diabetes primarily; they need more prandial insulin than basal so the dosages are a little different. You can get glucoses of 400s on steroids. Diabetes is diagnosed with fasting glucose > 126 x 2.

9

sterfri99 t1_iw1iq9k wrote

r/confidentlyincorrect. Why say anything if you don’t know what you’re talking about?

1