Estrogen: the forgotten key to building muscle

[Moppy1]

I think your severely underestimating the importance of estrogen for increased muscle growth.
Its not just a "minor effect" on igf-1; its an effect on gh, increased glucose utilization & more energy - all these factors put together make a measurable difference.
These adaptations lead to more muscle growth, its not simply a "perception" caused by water retention - its a fact.

I understand your concerned more about the health implications rather than muscle potential of estrogen, which is why I recommend reading Jimi's sticky on estrogen.

However, there are serious bodybuilders who do not have issues with estrogen on cycle. For them, taking an ai "just in case" makes no sense & will limit the success of their cycle.
As I previously stated, for these guys its equivalent would be taking some antibiotics proactively for something that may not happen.

Well, there are no medical studies or even studies in animals showing that estrogen is required for muscle growth. In fact, studies in rodents and even beef cattle suggest that when androgens or other growth promoting agents are given to females they do not grow more than males as a percentage of their initial muscle mass, and since females generally have much higher estrogen levels, it strongly suggests that estrogen is not enhancing real muscle growth. Now I do appreciate the experience of members of this body building community, so I trust that some or maybe even many bros notice greater gains when they dont use AIs, but there is also a fair amount of placebo effect with this and there is certainly a water weight gain issue that can also add to the mental aspects of any conclusion that higher estrogen levels made their past cycle more effective.

These issues notwithstanding, the cold hard truth is that as many as 50% of us will develop prostate cancer if we live long enough, and estrogen is medically linked to promoting this type of cancer. So, I agree that we all spin the wheel, so to speak, when we take AAS and an uncertain genetic predisposition to various diseases (heart disease, etc), not knowing where the weaknesses are. But it is almost a certainty that high estrogen year after year will affect the prostate, while its anabolic effects on new muscle synthesis is mostly anecdotal, hence I would rather bet on the former and take my AIs

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

Well, there are no medical studies or even studies in animals showing that estrogen is required for muscle growth. In fact, studies in rodents and even beef cattle suggest that when androgens or other growth promoting agents are given to females they do not grow more than males as a percentage of their initial muscle mass, and since females generally have much higher estrogen levels, it strongly suggests that estrogen is not enhancing real muscle growth. Now I do appreciate the experience of members of this body building community, so I trust that some or maybe even many bros notice greater gains when they dont use AIs, but there is also a fair amount of placebo effect with this and there is certainly a water weight gain issue that can also add to the mental aspects of any conclusion that higher estrogen levels made their past cycle more effective.

These issues notwithstanding, the cold hard truth is that as many as 50% of us will develop prostate cancer if we live long enough, and estrogen is medically linked to promoting this type of cancer. So, I agree that we all spin the wheel, so to speak, when we take AAS and an uncertain genetic predisposition to various diseases (heart disease, etc), not knowing where the weaknesses are. But it is almost a certainty that high estrogen year after year will affect the prostate, while its anabolic effects on new muscle synthesis is mostly anecdotal, hence I would rather bet on the former and take my AIs

Estrogen is required for optimal/maximised muscle growth, which was the whole point of my write up.

Estrogen has been proven to affect glucose utilization within muscle tissues by altering the level of G6PD available. G6PD is heavily linked to glucose use for muscle growth & recovery:

Pentose cycle activity in muscle from f... [Arch Biochem Biophys. 1966] - PubMed - NCBI

The pentose phosphate pathway in regenerating skel... [Biochem J. 1978] - PubMed - NCBI

Now I usually don't pay attention to aninal studies but this suggests estrogen is vital for optimal muscle growth:

Modulation of the cytosolic androgen receptor ... [Endocrinology. 1984] - PubMed - NCBI

The study showed that estrogen administration in rats caused a 480% increase in the binding of an oral androgen (methyltrienolone).
The theory was that this occurs either due to estrogen stimulating androgen receptor production OR diminishing receptor breakdown.
This should put to rest the "no studies showing estrogen for muscle growth" stuff.

Estrogen has also been proven to be vital to energy levels while ai use has been shown multiple times to induce fatigue:

Phase II trial of anastrozole in women with as... [Gynecol Oncol. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI

Letrozole. A review of its use in postmenopausal women... [Drugs. 1998] - PubMed - NCBI

Exemestane: a review of its clinical efficacy and saf... [Breast. 2001] - PubMed - NCBI

A study of fadrozole, a new aromatase inhibitor... [J Clin Oncol. 1992] - PubMed - NCBI

Since ai use combined with lower estrogen leads to more fatigue, this will inevitably lead to lower intensity/quality of workouts, which will impact long term muscle growth - I'm assuming you don't need to read yet another study to know that this is common sense

My final point would be the fact that the most estrogenic compounds (anadrol, dbol, etc) are well known for being the best mass builders. Basic physiology suggests this isn't simply due to the extra water retention.

I completely understand your preference to sacrifice some potential muscle gains for the good of your long term health.
However, pretending that its just placebo/water/mental despite the evidence I provided in the article and in this post is a bit close minded - to put it nicely.

I made it clear in the article (at least I thought I did) that this info would be useful only to advanced bodybuilders who are aware of their estrogen sensitivity. I also did not, at any point in this thread, suggest that you should simply let your e2 skyrocket - there is a sweet spot to aim for that varies from person to person.

 

[STAUNCHED427]

Just because someone is "fine", doesn't tell what's going on on the inside. Last time I checked by the time you are no longer fine because your prostate is causing issues enough to warrant "fine" no longer being "fine", it's already too late.

I'm all for having my e2 elevated on blasts, hell yeah, for all the reasons above. But, there is no doubt a price we are paying...

 

[JimiThing]

In taking a step back and thinking about this further the thing you need to prove here to support your contention if you are willing to put health issues aside is how the effects of elevated estrogen levels in males differs from elevated estrogen levels in females with regard to muscle growth. There are a slew of studies that show elevated estrogen levels in women shows absolutely no impact on muscle hypertrophy what so ever, and the G6pd enzyme s present in both men and women, role and expression are the same. Its a tough one for you to overcome. Your argument is also more difficult to support due to the lack of estrogen receptors directly in muscle tissue so you have to look at other, roundabout *********/anabolic pathways that might make an anabolic difference AND ones with any clinical significance. This is a tough one for you to prove although it is interesting.

 

[STAUNCHED427]

^^ One pathway the comes to mind is regardless of whether or not there is estrogen receptors in muscle is that estrogen has an affect on IGF-1, therefore indirectly having an affect on muscle.

And this is from real life experience, but when I have crushed my e2 I simply can not gain at all let alone even get a pump. It literally feels like I've just come off a cycle, mentally and physically, so while there is no doubt estrogen has an affect on muscle, I don't believe it warrants to allow estrogen to be as high as possible just for muscle growth. I believe estrogen is necessary for growth, but by no means do you have to jack the shit out of it.

 

[JimiThing]

^^ One pathway the comes to mind is regardless of whether or not there is estrogen receptors in muscle is that estrogen has an affect on IGF-1, therefore indirectly having an affect on muscle.

And this is from real life experience, but when I have crushed my e2 I simply can not gain at all let alone even get a pump. It literally feels like I've just come off a cycle, mentally and physically, so while there is no doubt estrogen has an affect on muscle, I don't believe it warrants to allow estrogen to be as high as possible just for muscle growth. I believe estrogen is necessary for growth, but by no means do you have to jack the shit out of it.

No we agree re: cost benefit etc. Also I am aware of the pathways. The thing is what is the clinical significance of the eevated levels of igf. Is their any at all? Also you cant anecdotally assume because you crash e2 and its harder to build muscle for you that raising it higher and higher will allow you to build more & more muscle. It just doesnt always work that way. The same pathways exist in women and there is n impact on muscle mass at all. Im not calling right or wrong. I will call prudent or not prudent, but not right or wrong. I cant say either way for sure but I can present the opposite and pose the questions that need to be answered to definitively support the OP position. If he can do so I think thats awesome. If he can make educated speculation, I say very interesting food for thought. If he cant then its speculation that cant yet be tilted either way. It is all interesting,

 

[STAUNCHED427]

Crashed e2 for me... No pump, no fullness hence glycogen I look flat, depleted and feel like I have no energy to lift, regardless of what I eat I just look shit and the scale doesn't move nor does the mirror change. This is whilst on a blast. Drop the AI and soon enough it start becoming fuller and gaining actual muscle tissue (not just water) + strength.

That's enough anecdotal evidence for me. Estrogen is required, but yes I certainly agree with you not at ridiculously elevated levels.

 

[Moppy1]

Estrogen is required for optimal/maximised muscle growth, which was the whole point of my write up.

Estrogen has been proven to affect glucose utilization within muscle tissues by altering the level of G6PD available. G6PD is heavily linked to glucose use for muscle growth & recovery:

Pentose cycle activity in muscle from f... [Arch Biochem Biophys. 1966] - PubMed - NCBI

The pentose phosphate pathway in regenerating skel... [Biochem J. 1978] - PubMed - NCBI

Now I usually don't pay attention to aninal studies but this suggests estrogen is vital for optimal muscle growth:

Modulation of the cytosolic androgen receptor ... [Endocrinology. 1984] - PubMed - NCBI

The study showed that estrogen administration in rats caused a 480% increase in the binding of an oral androgen (methyltrienolone).
The theory was that this occurs either due to estrogen stimulating androgen receptor production OR diminishing receptor breakdown.
This should put to rest the "no studies showing estrogen for muscle growth" stuff.

Estrogen has also been proven to be vital to energy levels while ai use has been shown multiple times to induce fatigue:

Phase II trial of anastrozole in women with as... [Gynecol Oncol. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI

Letrozole. A review of its use in postmenopausal women... [Drugs. 1998] - PubMed - NCBI

Exemestane: a review of its clinical efficacy and saf... [Breast. 2001] - PubMed - NCBI

A study of fadrozole, a new aromatase inhibitor... [J Clin Oncol. 1992] - PubMed - NCBI

Since ai use combined with lower estrogen leads to more fatigue, this will inevitably lead to lower intensity/quality of workouts, which will impact long term muscle growth - I'm assuming you don't need to read yet another study to know that this is common sense

My final point would be the fact that the most estrogenic compounds (anadrol, dbol, etc) are well known for being the best mass builders. Basic physiology suggests this isn't simply due to the extra water retention.

I completely understand your preference to sacrifice some potential muscle gains for the good of your long term health.
However, pretending that its just placebo/water/mental despite the evidence I provided in the article and in this post is a bit close minded - to put it nicely.

I made it clear in the article (at least I thought I did) that this info would be useful only to advanced bodybuilders who are aware of their estrogen sensitivity. I also did not, at any point in this thread, suggest that you should simply let your e2 skyrocket - there is a sweet spot to aim for that varies from person to person.

Well, having gone through the literature myself, there truly is a lack of a direct correlation between estrogen levels and muscle growth. If estrogen really worked as a muscle anabolic agent we would all be taking estrogen, or giving it to our beef cattle. The studies you linked are not directly addressing the hypothesis that estrogen can cause muscle growth, they are tangential at best and are antiquated and not accepted in the current day by the field of muscle researchers. Simply put, estrogen is not a muscle anabolic agent.....it is really that simple. But your other points about metabolism and sense of well-being are probably dead on. Maybe for those reasons one might not want to lower estrogen below a certain value. I still like to keep mine on the low side for all the reasons I stated earlier.

But good discussion!!!! Lots of things for everyone to consider

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

In taking a step back and thinking about this further the thing you need to prove here to support your contention if you are willing to put health issues aside is how the effects of elevated estrogen levels in males differs from elevated estrogen levels in females with regard to muscle growth. There are a slew of studies that show elevated estrogen levels in women shows absolutely no impact on muscle hypertrophy what so ever, and the G6pd enzyme s present in both men and women, role and expression are the same. Its a tough one for you to overcome. Your argument is also more difficult to support due to the lack of estrogen receptors directly in muscle tissue so you have to look at other, roundabout *********/anabolic pathways that might make an anabolic difference AND ones with any clinical significance. This is a tough one for you to prove although it is interesting.

Due to their naturally elevated estrogen levels, women also possess higher gh & igf-1 levels than men.
However, none of this is helpful to building muscle when you have low test as women do - not exactly an anabolic environment for estrogen to thrive in.
Its not the fact that estrogen acts differently between men & women per se, its more an issue of low test/high e vs high test/high e. An anabolic environment (being on cycle) is essential to gain the benefits of estrogen for muscle mass; low test is a huge obstacle in trying to create this environment in women.

I'm aware of studies in postmenopausal women showing a decrease in muscular mass & general strength, which was only fixed by adding estrogen through HRT. This would suggest that estrogen does play its part in gaining muscle & improving performance (lifting heavier, etc).

I will recover the studies once I'm home but I suspect the low test pretty much wipes out any muscle building benefits of estrogen for women.

Well, having gone through the literature myself, there truly is a lack of a direct correlation between estrogen levels and muscle growth. If estrogen really worked as a muscle anabolic agent we would all be taking estrogen, or giving it to our beef cattle. The studies you linked are not directly addressing the hypothesis that estrogen can cause muscle growth, they are tangential at best and are antiquated and not accepted in the current day by the field of muscle researchers. Simply put, estrogen is not a muscle anabolic agent.....it is really that simple. But your other points about metabolism and sense of well-being are probably dead on. Maybe for those reasons one might not want to lower estrogen below a certain value. I still like to keep mine on the low side for all the reasons I stated earlier.

But good discussion!!!! Lots of things for everyone to consider

I'm not suggesting that estrogen is directly anabolic, I'm simply pointing out that in the presence of an anabolic environment (on cycle, bulking, etc) it can maximise the potential to add muscle.

Ideally, I would want a study comparing identical twins on the same cycle with only one using an ai. My hypothesis would be that the twin not using the ai would increase his lbm by a larger margin because his estrogen wouldn't be suppressed.
Of course no such study exists so this is pure speculation

 

[Mprtz]

I'm not disputing, but I do wonder with the money and prestige of top competition if it isn't likely that top bodybuilders would have already determined this and strictly limit their AI use.

Also, past bodybuilders before AIs became available probably had high and uncontrolled estrogen but they were not larger than today's bodybuilders (yes I know there are other factors here as well).

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

I'm not disputing, but I do wonder with the money and prestige of top competition if it isn't likely that top bodybuilders would have already determined this and strictly limit their AI use.

Also, past bodybuilders before AIs became available probably had high and uncontrolled estrogen but they were not larger than today's bodybuilders (yes I know there are other factors here as well).

I don't coach the ifbb level guys so its difficult to even speculate as to what they use/don't use on cycle. However, it wouldn't suprise me if some didn't use AIs during the off season while bulking.
Once its contest prep time you want to limit estrogen as much as possible to eliminate water retention for the stage, so AIs have their place here.

Past bodybuilders may have benefited from the lack of AIs but, as you said, there's too many different factors at play here - mainly the "look" of that era was very different (comparing arnold/zane to coleman/yates) with less emphasis on huge muscle mass.

 

[bonexyster]

I would assume that the major player pros often have blood drawn at the expense of thier sponsor and are prescribed the necessary prescriptions and told the exact dosages to stay perfectly hormonalized for optimal muscle growth. In addition to just muscle growth I dare someone to eradicate thier estrogen and then attempt to get a hard on regardless of how rediculously hot the chick is, cause all they're going to do is whip that limp noodle all over the sheets in anger and frustration.

 

[jroe802]

ive noticed by taking only 12.5 aromison once a week i feel way better all around. I can eat more, dont get wore out so quick

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

Further to some of moppy's comments regarding the lack of recent data on estrogen influencing muscle growth, I decided to consult a hrt friend of mine for more recent views on the subject.

He showed me strong data on mice & rats that confirms my hypothesis about estrogen's role in optimizing muscle growth.
Estrogen also has been shown to optimize muscle growth in humans in a variety of ways, for example:

Influence of Sex and Estrogen on Musculo... [Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2014] - PubMed - NCBI

This study is very recent (it came out last month) but it provides evidence for my hypothesis in the following ways:
- It showed estrogen to have an anabolic effect by reducing protein turnover.
- It proves that estrogen increases your bodys ability to adapt to resistance training, which means enhanced performance can occur quicker.
- It also highlighted the health benefit of protection from injuries, a risk that is enhanced by aas use.
The abstract of the study also states very clearly that estrogen does have anabolic tendencies in the right environment e.g. males on cycle NOT women with low test/high e, etc.

There is still more research needed to explain exactly how all these mechanisms I've described across this thread come together for muscle growth.

However, IMO its not a question of whether estrogen optimizes muscle growth (it does) - its simply a case of finding exactly HOW it does this

 

[Moppy1]

I cant get that study, even though I am at a medical university and we have access to almost everything. All I can read is the abstract and I have no way of evaluating if the study has credible data to backup the abstract. The journal itself has almost no impact factor, which is always a worry. There are all sorts of studies published in the literature, and not all are correct. Just saying that you can find a paper to support almost any hypothesis you have, but what is most important is that the data are strong and based on real scientific principles and that the study was designed with the appropriate power to show differences that are truly meaningful. Many are not.

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

I cant get that study, even though I am at a medical university and we have access to almost everything. All I can read is the abstract and I have no way of evaluating if the study has credible data to backup the abstract. The journal itself has almost no impact factor, which is always a worry. There are all sorts of studies published in the literature, and not all are correct. Just saying that you can find a paper to support almost any hypothesis you have, but what is most important is that the data are strong and based on real scientific principles and that the study was designed with the appropriate power to show differences that are truly meaningful. Many are not.

The study was recommended to me by someone who has read it - I wouldn't suggest a study is credible simply based off the abstract.
Here is another study that was recommended to me that highlights the problem science has with showing estrogen to influence muscle mass:

The influence of estrogen on skeletal muscle: sex... [Sports Med. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

There are countless studies in mice/rats showing estrogen to be influential in regards to muscle mass - the problem has been replicating these results in humans.
I believe, and this study highlights the same point, that hormones outside of estrogen have influenced the findings. What I mean by this is the following:
Postmenopausal women = positive estrogen influence on muscle
Normal men & women = no influence
There isn't a SINGLE study on high test/high estrogen subjects, which is the MOST relevant to my hypothesis & this community.
This probably means less than nothing to you, but other AAS experts (including william llewelyn) are in agreement with me on this.

You originally stated that estrogen's affect on muscle mass was simply water retention or placebo & that no studies even in animals proved my point.
So I provided a large number of studies showing how estrogen influences muscle mass & have seen numerous others on animals illustrating my view - you decided to call these studies outdated & no longer accepted (not according to the professionals I've spoken to).
So I provide a recent study, which you dismiss WITHOUT READING as probably lacking in credibility due to the source of the study.

I think your one of those people who needs to see an exact study showing the exact mechanism of how estrogen helps build muscle in the anabolic environment I highlighted - that's fine but you will be waiting quite a while.

Again, IMO there is more than enough evidence more me to state with confidence that no ai on cycle will lead to greater lbm gains.

 

[Moppy1]

I can see how my position might be frustrating, as I am indeed dismissive of some of the studies you are suggesting. I am taking such a stance because I ultimately think your hypothesis is incorrect, nothing personal here, and that greater biologic principals are in play. Here is an example of the logic. Gregor Mendel is often cited as the father of modern genetics, which he established through his work on trait inheritance in the common garden pea plant. However, he formulated his rule of "independent trait assortment" by cheating, because he ultimately knew he was right, even though some data were against him. There are only 7 chromosomes in the pea, and only genes on separate chromosomes independently assort, but genes on the same chromosome do not and hence would hurt his hypothesis. So he rigged his data to only look at those traits (round versus non-round peas, etc) that are on different chromosomes and hence showed perfect independent assortment. But, he did this because he understood far more of the biologic system in play and his rule of independent assortment was indeed correct.

So, this is my analogy to suggest that the overwhelming preponderance of "common sense" data suggest that the greater biology here is that estrogen is not a muscle anabolic agent whatsoever. I actually do not think you are disputing this fact, as you have so much as admitted that supplementing with estrogen probably would not induce or enhance muscle growth. The converse argument that in its absence, muscle does not grow as well is not of the same logic, as you could make a person vitamin C deficient (scurvy), or even lysine deficient (corn only diet) and muscle will not grow properly, but vitamin C and lysine are not anabolic agents. It really is that simple. So, it very well may be that in the complete absence of estrogen muscle cannot grow properly. But estrogen is simply not an anabolic agent, no one would take it for muscle growth, and my hypothesis is that keeping it on the low end of normal will not hurt your muscle gains on AAS. This has been true for me and I monitor my blood levels religiously. In fact, I have had some of my strongest periods with my lifts when my estrogen has been on the lower side of normal, or right around normal.

Again, nothing personal.

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

As you said previously - good discussion all round, plenty of data for everyone to digest & make up their own minds

 

[Moppy1]

Cheers mate!

 

[Moppy1]

We totally geeked that thread out!