T Nation

Estrogen Sensitivity

Does taking an estrogen supressor/blocker like M gradually increase ones sensitivity to Estrogen?

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Does taking an estrogen supressor/blocker like M gradually increase ones sensitivity to Estrogen?[/quote]

Considering the mechanism(s) of action with respect to M, no, there’s no reason to think such a thing would occur.

To clarify, I’m not asking if Estrogen production would rise. but rather if target cells would become more sensitive due to the drop in Estrogen.

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
To clarify, I’m not asking if Estrogen production would rise. but rather if target cells would become more sensitive due to the drop in Estrogen.[/quote]

I understood perfectly what you were asking. You’re asking if there will be ER up-regulation in the given tissue and the answer is no in respect to M. The different ingredients allow for an increased conjugation and hence increased excretion of estrogens as well as a moderate antagonism of the receptor, decreased prolactin and last, inhibition of growth via non ER-dependent mechanisms. That being said, the debatable issue of whether the ER up-regulates is only applicable in cases where you have complete suppression of estradiol or very strong antagonism. Neither is the case with M.

[quote]Cy Willson wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
To clarify, I’m not asking if Estrogen production would rise. but rather if target cells would become more sensitive due to the drop in Estrogen.

I understood perfectly what you were asking. You’re asking if there will be ER up-regulation in the given tissue and the answer is no in respect to M. The different ingredients allow for an increased conjugation and hence increased excretion of estrogens as well as a moderate antagonism of the receptor, decreased prolactin and last, inhibition of growth via non ER-dependent mechanisms. That being said, the debatable issue of whether the ER up-regulates is only applicable in cases where you have complete suppression of estradiol or very strong antagonism. Neither is the case with M. [/quote]

Just trying to learn here: When you say “target cells” what do you mean? Do you mean cells that tend to have the aromatizing enzyme, or cells like fat cells in the chest area? Is there any way to block the synthesis or ER or increase the synthesis of Testosterone Receptors?

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Cy Willson wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
To clarify, I’m not asking if Estrogen production would rise. but rather if target cells would become more sensitive due to the drop in Estrogen.

I understood perfectly what you were asking. You’re asking if there will be ER up-regulation in the given tissue and the answer is no in respect to M. The different ingredients allow for an increased conjugation and hence increased excretion of estrogens as well as a moderate antagonism of the receptor, decreased prolactin and last, inhibition of growth via non ER-dependent mechanisms. That being said, the debatable issue of whether the ER up-regulates is only applicable in cases where you have complete suppression of estradiol or very strong antagonism. Neither is the case with M.

Just trying to learn here: When you say “target cells” what do you mean? Do you mean cells that tend to have the aromatizing enzyme, or cells like fat cells in the chest area? Is there any way to block the synthesis or ER or increase the synthesis of Testosterone Receptors?

[/quote]

Actually, you said “target cells”, not me. :slight_smile: Just giving you a hard time, I’m assuming you mean to ask what does it mean when referenced in articles or texts.

Well, it’s just that, the target of the given hormone or chemical messenger. Specifically, when you’re talking about a hormone in endocrinology, a major criteria for classification of a hormone is that it has a target cell, tissue, gland which responds to it in a very specific and often times, predictable manner.

So, in respect to estrogens, a target is anything which has estrogen receptors and is accessible. This can be the hypothalamus, adipose tissue, pituitary, etc.

The only compound I’ve ever seen which does what you’re asking in terms of ER expression, is Faslodex. It’s nothing to play around with and extremely expensive though. As for the androgen receptor, most of the available data suggests that exogenous androgen use up-regulates AR expression, the opposite of what one would expect if using deductive reasoning, and it’s why I’ve tried to tell people that such an approach isn’t always fruitful in biological systems, case in point.

Anyhow, the content of the given receptor doesn’t mean much if you don’t have enough of the given ligand (estrogen, testosterone, etc.) to begin with.

[quote]Cy Willson wrote:
Actually, you said “target cells”, not me. :slight_smile: Just giving you a hard time, I’m assuming you mean to ask what does it mean when referenced in articles or texts.

Well, it’s just that, the target of the given hormone or chemical messenger. Specifically, when you’re talking about a hormone in endocrinology, a major criteria for classification of a hormone is that it has a target cell, tissue, gland which responds to it in a very specific and often times, predictable manner.

So, in respect to estrogens, a target is anything which has estrogen receptors and is accessible. This can be the hypothalamus, adipose tissue, pituitary, etc.

The only compound I’ve ever seen which does what you’re asking in terms of ER expression, is Faslodex. It’s nothing to play around with and extremely expensive though. As for the androgen receptor, most of the available data suggests that exogenous androgen use up-regulates AR expression, the opposite of what one would expect if using deductive reasoning, and it’s why I’ve tried to tell people that such an approach isn’t always fruitful in biological systems, case in point.

Anyhow, the content of the given receptor doesn’t mean much if you don’t have enough of the given ligand (estrogen, testosterone, etc.) to begin with.
[/quote]

Yea, I was referring to your term “a given tissue.” Now I remember reading a long time ago that the number of testosterone receptors was the limiting factor in hypertrophy, but if test signals receptor proliferation, it should be the key right?

Also, does a 34 year old male need ANY estrogen whatsoever for normal function?

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Cy Willson wrote:
Actually, you said “target cells”, not me. :slight_smile: Just giving you a hard time, I’m assuming you mean to ask what does it mean when referenced in articles or texts.

Well, it’s just that, the target of the given hormone or chemical messenger. Specifically, when you’re talking about a hormone in endocrinology, a major criteria for classification of a hormone is that it has a target cell, tissue, gland which responds to it in a very specific and often times, predictable manner.

So, in respect to estrogens, a target is anything which has estrogen receptors and is accessible. This can be the hypothalamus, adipose tissue, pituitary, etc.

The only compound I’ve ever seen which does what you’re asking in terms of ER expression, is Faslodex. It’s nothing to play around with and extremely expensive though. As for the androgen receptor, most of the available data suggests that exogenous androgen use up-regulates AR expression, the opposite of what one would expect if using deductive reasoning, and it’s why I’ve tried to tell people that such an approach isn’t always fruitful in biological systems, case in point.

Anyhow, the content of the given receptor doesn’t mean much if you don’t have enough of the given ligand (estrogen, testosterone, etc.) to begin with.

Yea, I was referring to your term “a given tissue.” Now I remember reading a long time ago that the number of testosterone receptors was the limiting factor in hypertrophy, but if test signals receptor proliferation, it should be the key right?

Also, does a 34 year old male need ANY estrogen whatsoever for normal function?[/quote]

I don’t know that I’d go as far as to say that the limiting factor in muscle hypertrophy is simply the concentration of AR. That’s a one hell of a stretch if you ask me. That statement alone…well, I don’t know where to begin with it. Maybe it has been taken out of context, I don’t know.

A male needs some estrogens in circulation, absolutely. Estradiol in particular serves some very important roles in men. Suppress estradiol below the limits of detection and you tend to get a decline in cognition, libido, skin texture, mood, just to name a few.