DHEA facts
Jim Kohl
considered a sex steroid hormone, but the body can convert it to sex
steroid hormones. Two byproducts of DHEA metabolism: androsterone and
etiocholanolone are produced in different ratios in men/women; older
men/younger men, and some evidence suggests that this is also true in
homosexual/heterosexual men. In any case, DHEA is the only steroid
hormone that declines lineraly with age. So, if you thought estrogen and
testosterone were more important to maintain--you may be wrong. Though
many researchers were concerned with John Nestler's use of 1600mg/day (4
doses of 400mg/ea, in a study of DHEA's effects on obesity in obese
males, he reported no side effects. Remarkable were the effects on body
fat loss, with no weight loss. These findings were not replicated in
males of normal weight, who showed no significant effects of the DHEA as
I recall. Perhaps more remarkable is that William Regelson has done
research both on DHEA and on Melatonin. He has a book out about
Melatonin, and as I recall, he wrote one on DHEA several years ago. If
you have access to the Medline database, you may want to run a search for
review articles & DHEA (or Prasterone as it is sometimes referred to).
There are several studies, including some on humans that date back into
the early 80's. In Europe, DHEA has been used to treat psoriasis (an
autoimmune disorder) since the early 70's. If you can read German, this
would provide a clue to the dosage in at least one condition. Okay, so
how did I come by all this info? I've been involved in linking steroid
biochemistry to olfaction and human sexuality. Surprising stuff, this.
And among it's other proposed uses (see U.S. Patent # 5,407,684: Use of
DHEA as a Medicinal--Inventors Roger M. Loria & William Regelson),
Winnifred Cutler is using DHEA (or its sulfate) as a fragrance additive
marketed as a human pheromone.
EDOSGOOD
make DHEA inside the body. Answers seem to be that people do not know
or do not believe that DHEA is made in the body due to a lack of
experimental result either pro or con. I've run across a news letter
that stated there was experimental data that proved DHEA was made in the
body by Diocscorea.
Below is an extract from that news letter which is called BIO/TECH NEWS
published at
box 30568.
Parkrose Center
Portland, Oregon 97294
USA
starting at bottom of page 6
"It has been discovered that natural supplementation with Wild yam
(Diocscorea) extracts can provide the human body with the exact
precursor chemicals it needs to produce is own completely natural DHEA.
Since there is no actual DHEA in the Mexican Yam, this was originally
thought to be impossible. But researchers have now discovered that the
adrenal glands, and perhaps other target organs, have the extraordinary
ability to convert a precursor found in Diocscorea to the vital pro
hormone called Pregnenolone, and then to DHEA.
Dr. Neeice Moore cites independent laboratory research shoeing dramatic
increases in serum levels of DHEA by individuals taking the wild Mexican
Yam extract. In one test, serum DHEA levels were checked before oral
administration of the all-natural Diocscorea extract, then again 30 days
later, and again another 30 days later. Amazingly, in the first 30-day
period, DHEA levels in the body had increased 46%. By the end of the
second 30-day period, DHEA body levels had leaped 91% - demonstrating
clearly that the body was quite readily able to convert the all-natural
precursor from the Mexican Yam extract into significant amounts of
natural health enhancing DHEA."
Granted this news letter is very boiler plated and of course they had a
source that you could buy the stuff from, pretty commercial. still what
do
you think? Is it worth digging into further and does anybody know of
Dr. Neeice Moore? Any thoughts?
Ed
NICK KUIPER
writes:
If it's the same Dr. Moore i am thinking about he owns the largest YAM
plantation in all of MExICO!
Mike Davis
wrote:
> Several times the question of does the Mexican Yam extract Diocscorea
> make DHEA inside the body. . .. . .
> Below is an extract from that news letter which is called BIO/TECH NEWS
Ed, did they give any citations, if so then anybody can check it out, if
not you are still depending on a possibly biased source for your info.
--
Melatonin.Folate.Trypto,Articles,Discnt.Suplmnt.Sources,Cool.Stuf
The.Buffalo.SpringBoard:> http://www.quake.net/~xdcrlab/hp.html
Ultrasnd.Tchnlgy: http://www.quake.net/~xdcrlab/Ultrasound.html
Kevin Goldstein
>From: jk...@vegas.infi.net (Jim Kohl)
>Subject: DHEA facts
>Date: 30 Aug 1995 07:55:57 GMT
>DHEA is the most abundant adrenal steroid we produce. It is not
>considered a sex steroid hormone, but the body can convert it to sex
>steroid hormones. Two byproducts of DHEA metabolism: androsterone and
>etiocholanolone are produced in different ratios in men/women; older
>men/younger men, and some evidence suggests that this is also true in
>homosexual/heterosexual men. In any case, DHEA is the only steroid
>hormone that declines lineraly with age. So, if you thought estrogen and
>testosterone were more important to maintain--you may be wrong. Though
>many researchers were concerned with John Nestler's use of 1600mg/day (4
>doses of 400mg/ea, in a study of DHEA's effects on obesity in obese
>males, he reported no side effects.
* rest of interesting article snipped *
I object to positing a lack of long-term negative effects, based on a short
term experiement. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Nestler's study last
six months or less? It's one thing to supplement with the wrong (ie, too high)
dose for six months, and quite another to do so for two, three, ten or twenty
years.
This actually segues into what I find to be one of the most paradoxical
phenomenon of the FDA approval process. For all of the efficicacy, toxicology,
blah blah and etc tests they require, they still haven't thought to ask one
very simple, bottom line question: if experimental animals take this drug
according to the prescribed protocol, how, if at all, does it affect their
life span? It's very possible that some drugs that show negative
short-term side effects may in fact extend life span, meaning on balance, any
negative side effects were overwhelmed by positive ones. Should such drugs be
approved? I think most times that's probably a rhetorical question.
The flip side is, certain drugs that appear relatively harmless in the short
run may be shown as being -- what's a word for life-shortening? -- when some
of the experimental animals are followed for their natural lifespan, rather
than all being sacrificed after some laughably short experimental period. In
that case, approval could be correlated with the severity of the disease the
drug is meant to treat. Under this mechanism, for example, a drug meant to
treat occasional simple tension headaches, that in fact shortened life by say
5 percent, should probably not be approved. Conversely, one that prevented or
aborted severe migraines, but shortened life on average 15 percent, probably
should be approved. (The numbers I chose are by way of example, but they do
seem in the ballpark to me.)
End of tangent. We now return you to the regularly scheduled topic...
Kevin Goldstein
ke...@kg.com
patrick arnold
>From: g...@ix.netcom.com (NICK KUIPER )
>Subject: Re: Yams make DHEA in body
>Date: 31 Aug 1995 03:55:26 GMT
A.
>>Dr. Neeice Moore cites independent laboratory research shoeing
who is reciting this, Ed Sullivan?
>dramatic
>>increases in serum levels of DHEA by individuals taking the wild
>Mexican
Independent research? Published in what peer reviewed journal? Published in
what matchbox cover even? You should be ashamed that you thought this could
be anything but bullshit. Clueless suckers like YOU keep scum like THIS in
business, the whole think makes me want to PUKE.
PA
Conrad Weiler
>dramatic
>>increases in serum levels of DHEA by individuals taking the wild
>>>> Independent research? Published in what peer reviewed journal? Published in
what matchbox cover even? You should be ashamed that you thought this could
be anything but bullshit. Clueless suckers like YOU keep scum like THIS in
business, the whole think makes me want to PUKE. <<<<
Hmmm. I'm led to believe that NICK KUIPER is a non-believer.
Conrad
--
Conrad Weiler, Tidewater, Oregon
cwe...@ednet1.osl.or.gov Novus Ordo Seclorum
Bill Colias
arnold) writes:
>>dramatic
>>>increases in serum levels of DHEA by individuals taking the wild
Mexican...
>Independent research? Published in what peer reviewed journal?
Published in
>what matchbox cover even? You should be ashamed that you thought this
could
>be anything but bullshit. Clueless suckers like YOU keep scum like
THIS in
>business, the whole think makes me want to PUKE.
>
I'm glad we are having a well ordered discussion here...NOT!
Regardless of what we know of what enzymes can or can't do about
cleaving the Dioscorea saponins, there might be metabolic pathway to
DHEA. I decided to take the empirical approach and take the damn stuff
myself while measuring my before and after DHEA-S levels. Any bets on
what I'll find?
-----------
Bill Colias
-----------
patrick arnold
>From: bco...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Colias )
>Subject: Re: Yams make DHEA in body
Let us assume that the enzymes that make up the individual steroid
biosynthesis steps (the first step in which involves side chain cleavage of
cholesterol - this straight side chain, BTW, is wholly dissimilar in nature to
the side set of rings that would miraculously have to be cleaved for
diosgenin) all defy logic and are able to perform the same conversions on
diosgenin that they normally do on cholesterol.
Even if this were true, then you would get just as much of an increase in
hormone levels from supplying extra cholesterol starting material than you
would supplying extra diosgenin wouldn't you? And if you had any knowledge on
this subject you would know that the processes in steroid biosynthesis are
tightly regulated thru complicated and very sensitive feedback inhibitions
which would make any attempt at increasing downstream hormone levels by
increasing the basic precursor levels futile.
But you better buy some and do your tests just to make sure huh. Dumbass.
PA
EDOSGOOD
KUIPER ) writes:
>>In <423anf$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> edos...@aol.com (EDOSGOOD)
>>writes:
>>
>>Several times the question of does the Mexican Yam extract Diocscorea
>>make DHEA inside the body. Answers seem to be that people do not know
> << SNIP >>
>>Ed
>If it's the same Dr. Moore i am thinking about he owns the largest YAM
>plantation in all of MExICO!
> Also xdc...@quake.net (Mike Davis) writes
>Ed, did they give any citations, if so then anybody can check it out, if
>not you are still depending on a possibly biased source for your info.
I'll write BIO/TECH and see if I can get any answers back on who Dr.
Neeice Moore is and what data he has to back up his claims. It may be
useful, more likely a wild goose chase.
Jim Kohl
>I object to positing a lack of long-term negative effects, based on a
short
>term experiement. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Nestler's study
last
>six months or less? It's one thing to supplement with the wrong (ie, too
high)
>dose for six months, and quite another to do so for two, three, ten or
twenty
>years.
I agree and apologize for not adding this insight to my original 'facts"
posting. You are right, of course. Nestler's study--as I recall--lasted
only one month. One would not expect to see any indications of long term
side effects. Notably, however, there were no reports of increased liver
function tests, which would likely be the first such indication. Kevin is
absolutely right in advising caution. Nestler was somewhat obese when I
met him a couple years ago, and was not taking DHEA himself. In part, he
said that this was because he did not want to bias any further
experiments, by forming an opinion of DHEA's effectiveness. On the other
hand, I also met with William Regelson, noteworthy author and authority
on DHEA, who was (about a year ago) taking 40 mg every other day. He said
that more than this was perhaps more of a risk than he wanted to take at
70 years of age.
>This actually segues into what I find to be one of the most paradoxical
>phenomenon of the FDA approval process. For all of the efficicacy,
toxicology,
>blah blah and etc tests they require, they still haven't thought to ask
one
>very simple, bottom line question: if experimental animals take this
drug
>according to the prescribed protocol, how, if at all, does it affect
their
>life span?
My sense of it tells me that because DHEA is not inherantly patentable,
no pharmaceutical company is pursuing its use, which makes it likely that
it will be a very long time before proper clinical trials are performed.
Sure Regelson et.al., have a patent for many potential medical
applications, but they are unlikely to have the financial resources to do
what it takes to satisfy the FDA.
Meanwhile, other interesting facts: DHEA is higher in smokers than in
none smokers; a paradox, due to the link between smoking and cancer, but
with the known effects of DHEA on weight loss--this could explain the use
of smoking to maintain lower body weight. Also, "A randomly chosen
control has an estimated 89% probability of having a higher 0800 h DHEA
reading than a randomly chosen schizophrenic." Erb, J.L. et al., Journal
of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 52,2, (1981) p 185.
And tying in the DHEA pheromone connection, which I have studied rather
extensively, it is interesting that schizophrenics can be distinguished
from controls by the characteristic odor that schizophrenics produce.
Interesting stuff, this.
Hope to hear more on this thread. Sorry, I don't check the newsgroup more
frequently.
Richard Tanner
Steven Wm. Fowkes
In article <42aak1$8...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Bill Colias (bco...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>Regardless of what we know of what enzymes can or can't do about
>cleaving the Dioscorea saponins, there might be metabolic pathway to
>DHEA. I decided to take the empirical approach and take the damn stuff
>myself while measuring my before and after DHEA-S levels. Any bets on
>what I'll find?
I'll bet $1 that your DHEA and DHEA-sulfate levels will go up,
likely caused by the DHEA added to the dioscorea-based "DHEA
precursor complexes" to "standardize" their potency.
Raw dioscorea extracts should not contain significant amounts of
DHEA or pregnenolone.
It would be interesting to find out whether dioscorea-mediated
reductions in cholesterol absorption in the gut would change the
conversion of cholesterol to pregnenolone and DHEA. Any comments?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Wm. Fowkes (fow...@ceri.win.net) voice: 415-321-CERI
Cognitive Enhancement Research Institute fax: 415-323-3864
PO Box 4029, Menlo Park, CA 94026 USA alt: 415-321-6670
-----------------------------------------------------------------