Why is the bleached stuff so popular?

[Cobra Boy]

I prefer non-bleached sugar, wheat bread, non-bleached flour,
etc., but this stuff is so much harder to come by. Sure, I can
buy the non-bleached stuff at the grocery store, but for
instance if you go to just about any restaurant the only sugar
on the table is the white (bleached) kind. In other words, the
white bread, sugar, flour is the default and the non-white
counterparts are specialties.

I don't understand why the bleached stuff is more readily
available. To me, they all taste worse than the non-bleached,
and it would seem that it's easier to not have to go through
the bleaching process and therefore cheaper to produce the
non-bleached food. But the opposite is the case; bleached
foods are easier to come by and cheaper. I just don't get it!
Anyone have insight into this?

[Mark Thors]

Cobra Boy wrote:

> I don't understand why the bleached stuff is more readily
> available. To me, they all taste worse than the
> non-bleached, and it would seem

Cakes, bread, and pasta all have a much different texture when
made from whole wheat or graham flour. To have the familiar
delicate texture, they must be made from refined flours. These
flours don't have to be bleached, but they would be off-white
if unbleached.

In Japan, brown rice is seen as the food of poor people. There
is a social stigma against it.

> that it's easier to not have to go through the bleaching
> process and therefore cheaper to produce the non-bleached
> food. But the opposite

The cheapest food is the one which sells in high volume.
Low-volume, specialty foods are always more expensive.

> is the case; bleached foods are easier to come by and
> cheaper. I just don't get it! Anyone have insight into this?

Try finding graham flour. By your reasoning, that should be
cheaper than whole wheat, but you probably can't even find it.
If you did, it would be more expensive. Among health food
nuts, nearly all the demand is for whole wheat flour (flour
ground from the whole wheat berry minus the wheat germ), not
graham flour (flour ground from the whole wheat berry
including the germ).

[Ignoramus2]

refining sugar does not involve bleaching, as far as I know.

Aside from that, restaurants cater to what people ask for,
and doubtfully many people ask for unbleached flour that
often. I bake my own bread and frankly unbleached flour is no
better than bleached. Bread tastes better with bleached
enriched flour. Now whole wheat flour does have some
properties superior top regular flour, but unbleached flour
does not imho.

i

In article <1b78953f.0310091618.5a05749d@posting.google.com>,
Cobra Boy wrote:
> I prefer non-bleached sugar, wheat bread, non-bleached
> flour, etc., but this stuff is so much harder to come by.
> Sure, I can buy the non-bleached stuff at the grocery store,
> but for instance if you go to just about any restaurant the
> only sugar on the table is the white (bleached) kind. In
> other words, the white bread, sugar, flour is the default
> and the non-white counterparts are specialties.
>
> I don't understand why the bleached stuff is more readily
> available. To me, they all taste worse than the
> non-bleached, and it would seem that it's easier to not have
> to go through the bleaching process and therefore cheaper to
> produce the non-bleached food. But the opposite is the case;
> bleached foods are easier to come by and cheaper. I just
> don't get it! Anyone have insight into this?

[markd]

The answer is in part a cultural one. Refined food producrts
were more expensive in past times and were used as a status
symbol by those who could afford them. With the advent of
industrial refinement the same products were available to all
with minimal cost. The symbolic screw has turned and now the
less refined is often in many people's mids a status symbol. I
have been in yuppie up scale restaurants which had packets of
brown sugar on the table. The price is only in part based on
cost of production, a price has been assigned to the new
symbolic percieved value of "less refined" as a symbol of
being "up with the times" and other such notions.

>I prefer non-bleached sugar, wheat bread, non-bleached flour,
>etc., but this stuff is so much harder to come by. Sure, I
>can buy the non-bleached stuff at the grocery store, but for
>instance if you go to just about any restaurant the only
>sugar on the table is the white (bleached) kind. In other
>words, the white bread, sugar, flour is the default and the
>non-white counterparts are specialties.
>
>I don't understand why the bleached stuff is more readily
>available. To me, they all taste worse than the non-bleached,
>and it would seem that it's easier to not have to go through
>the bleaching process and therefore cheaper to produce the
>non-bleached food. But the opposite is the case; bleached
>foods are easier to come by and cheaper. I just don't get it!
>Anyone have insight into this?

[Amal Shook]

Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:<3F861E95.2A12ED8B@sonic.net>...
> Cobra Boy wrote:
>
> > I don't understand why the bleached stuff is more readily
> > available. To me, they all taste worse than the
> > non-bleached, and it would seem
>
> > that it's easier to not have to go through the bleaching
> > process and therefore cheaper to produce the non-bleached
> > food. But the opposite

Agreed.

> The cheapest food is the one which sells in high volume.
> Low-volume, specialty foods are always more expensive.

Indeed. There two main reasons I can think of. The first is
basically your argument: the industry would have to revamp
(read: cost money) their processing equipment not to bleach.
The other is that refining extends the shelf lifetime.

What gets me is that their current processing strips out a lot
of nutrients from grains and they spray it back onto the
product before packaging, and because of the spoilage issue
they have to add preservatives. In either case two wrongs do
make a right.

On the other hand, it is quite possible to find inexpensive
alternatives to more greatly processed food. For example, in
my area, conventional bulk oatmeal is invariably cheaper per
unit weight than boxed cereal and even prepackaged oatmeal. If
you have the time and inclination to prepare it yourself....

-p

[Jmk]

On 10/9/2003 10:49 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
> Cobra Boy wrote:
>
>
>>I don't understand why the bleached stuff is more readily
>>available. To me, they all taste worse than the
>>non-bleached, and it would seem
>
>
> Cakes, bread, and pasta all have a much different texture
> when made from whole wheat or graham flour. To have the
> familiar delicate texture, they must be made from refined
> flours. These flours don't have to be bleached, but they
> would be off-white if unbleached.
>
> In Japan, brown rice is seen as the food of poor people.
> There is a social stigma against it.

Interesting. The same is historically true of breads in
European countries. White bread was for the well to do and
brown breads were for the peasants.

[Cobra Boy]

I guess what I'm asking is why does the non-bleached stuff
have to be a specialty; why can't it be the norm?

Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:<3F861E95.2A12ED8B@sonic.net>...
> Cobra Boy wrote:
>
> > I don't understand why the bleached stuff is more readily
> > available. To me, they all taste worse than the
> > non-bleached, and it would seem
>
> Cakes, bread, and pasta all have a much different texture
> when made from whole wheat or graham flour. To have the
> familiar delicate texture, they must be made from refined
> flours. These flours don't have to be bleached, but they
> would be off-white if unbleached.
>
> In Japan, brown rice is seen as the food of poor people.
> There is a social stigma against it.
>
> > that it's easier to not have to go through the bleaching
> > process and therefore cheaper to produce the non-bleached
> > food. But the opposite
>
> The cheapest food is the one which sells in high volume.
> Low-volume, specialty foods are always more expensive.
>
> > is the case; bleached foods are easier to come by and
> > cheaper. I just don't get it! Anyone have insight
> > into this?
>
> Try finding graham flour. By your reasoning, that should be
> cheaper than whole wheat, but you probably can't even find
> it. If you did, it would be more expensive. Among health
> food nuts, nearly all the demand is for whole wheat flour
> (flour ground from the whole wheat berry minus the wheat
> germ), not graham flour (flour ground from the whole wheat
> berry including the germ).

[Ignoramus2]

In article <1b78953f.0310100621.c912105@posting.google.com>,
Cobra Boy wrote:
> I guess what I'm asking is why does the non-bleached stuff
> have to be a specialty; why can't it be the norm?

Why are you seeking unbleached stuff? Does it taste better or
do you suppose that there is some health benefit?

i

> Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:<3F861E95.2A12ED8B@sonic.net>...
>> Cobra Boy wrote:
>>
>> > I don't understand why the bleached stuff is more readily
>> > available. To me, they all taste worse than the
>> > non-bleached, and it would seem
>>
>> Cakes, bread, and pasta all have a much different texture
>> when made from whole wheat or graham flour. To have the
>> familiar delicate texture, they must be made from refined
>> flours. These flours don't have to be bleached, but they
>> would be off-white if unbleached.
>>
>> In Japan, brown rice is seen as the food of poor people.
>> There is a social stigma against it.
>>
>> > that it's easier to not have to go through the bleaching
>> > process and therefore cheaper to produce the non-bleached
>> > food. But the opposite
>>
>> The cheapest food is the one which sells in high volume.
>> Low-volume, specialty foods are always more expensive.
>>
>> > is the case; bleached foods are easier to come by and
>> > cheaper. I just don't get it! Anyone have insight into
>> > this?
>>
>> Try finding graham flour. By your reasoning, that should be
>> cheaper than whole wheat, but you probably can't even find
>> it. If you did, it would be more expensive. Among health
>> food nuts, nearly all the demand is for whole wheat flour
>> (flour ground from the whole wheat berry minus the wheat
>> germ), not graham flour (flour ground from the whole wheat
>> berry including the germ).

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow jmk rambled on about "Re: Why is
the bleached stuff so popular?." Our champion De-Medicalizing
in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>White bread was for the well to do and brown breads were for
>the peasants.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

I can not believe that anybody in there right mind would take
this thread seriously. :(

[John 'The]

History is written by the victors. So, I have set upon the
task of recording the *true* history of the natural healing
movement. :) Truth is often stranger than fiction, and so it
goes with the tale of woe called Medical Scientism.

The end of the Age of Heroic Medicine (1780 - 1850) overlaps
with the beginning of the Age of Quackery, otherwise known as
the Popular Health Movement (1830 - 1870).

The Age of Heroic Medicine was about physicians aggressively
treating disease with bloodletting (venesection), intestinal
purging (calomel), vomiting (tartar emetic), profuse sweating
(diaphoretics), and with blistering. And, while science geeks
would have you believe that Heroic Medicine ended a long time
ago, those in the know claim that the Age of Heroic Medicine
continues today with chemotherapy and radiation therapy. :)

The Popular Health Movement, on the other hand, is usually
dismissed in conventional medical histories as the high-tide
of quackery and medical cultism. Why? Because medical
licensing laws were repealed in most of the states by the
1840's. With physicians it has always been about concerns over
competition, and never about concerns over your health. Hey,
they got to feed their kiddies don't they? Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

During the Popular Health Movement we see people, including
some physicians, advocating prevention and healthy lifestyles.
They had many ideas about good nutrition, clean water and air,
exercise, sunshine and herbs. They advocated healthy eating
long before the science of nutrition even existed. And, they
advocated healthy lifestyles long before any modern health
journals even existed to look at the effect lifestyles had on
health. While they may not have helped their patients, they
certainly did no harm. Physicians, on the hand, were killing
people like George Washington with their Heroic medicine. Yet,
this natural healing is what Medical Scientism today calls
Quackery!!! But of course, when a physician offers the same
preventive health services, the doctor is considered
progressive; in print while their colleagues chuckle privately
about wasting the time of patients.

And, thanks to people like me the Popular Health Movement did
not really end long ago, either. The struggle for good health
still continues.

Today, the science of nutrition still ain't much of a science
by any standard. It is more a matter of political correctness
than anything else. Take for instance the topic of: To take,
or not to take a multivitamin pill. The conclusion advocated
is more a matter of politics than anything else since both
sides are looking at and are arguing from the same
science/data. And, the facts are that the help offered by
nutrition science today ain't much better or worst than what
was advocated during the Popular Health Movement. Furthermore,
anybody who actually bothers to track the latest published
research soon sees that it will be eons before medical
scientism accomplishes anything of real value. But, be sure
that the science geeks will make you pay through the nose for
their incompetent crap and verbally abuse anybody who dares
question the crap that they publish as science.

When science geeks talk about science, I always hear a loud
sucking noise as Medical Scientism drains the lifeblood out
of its modern victims. I am of course referring to fact
that big money buys the 'sizzle' being sold by medical
scientism, today.

Science sells the Sizzle:
(1)If a person is smart enough to select the right
physician , and
(2)if he has enough money, and
(3)if the high-priestess of high-technology doesn't botch the
lab results, and
(4) if your physician makes the correct diagnosis the first
time around (rather than screwing around for a couple of
years), and
(5) if your physician catches your disease early enough, and
(6)if your stay in the health care system doesn't kill you
first (like with adverse drug reactions, medical errors,
and/or catching pneumonia from the gross neglect of the
hospital staff);

Then you *might* be indeed be *lucky* enough to survive for
another five years. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Boy, if that is not
'sizzle' what is? Yes, with medical scientism even the concept
of a cure is pure 'sizzle.' Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

While Quackery sells the Steak:
(7)Seems to me, that if you are smart enough to select the
right physician, you are smart enough to select the
right healer.
(8)Seems to me, that if you have time enough to make the
money required to pay for medical scientism you have
enough time to spend working on your lifestyle.
(9)Seems to me, that if you are smart enough to select the
right physician you are indeed smart enough to figure out
what healthy lifestyles you should be following or what
forms of alternative medicine works with your particular
health conditions..
(10)Finally, it seems to me that building up health reduces
the likelihood of you getting sick in the first place.

And, when you do get sick:
(11)Seems to me, that building up health, builds the bodily
reserves required to survive the chemotherapy and
radiation therapy offered by medical scientism.
(12)Seems to me, that building up health, builds up the immune
system that is required to finished the job started by the
chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

In conclusion, medical scientism sells the 'sizzle' of the
quick fix. While, natural health sells the 'steak' of real
health; obtainable only from the long term solutions offered
by healthy lifestyles.
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and
fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering easy to understand lessons that will change
your life.

[Mark Thors]

Cobra Boy wrote:

> I guess what I'm asking is why does the non-bleached stuff
> have to be a specialty; why can't it be the norm?

That's like asking why can't everybody believe my religion?
Maybe your religion is better -- but it's not what everybody
else believes, and there is little prospect they will all
switch to your religion anytime soon.

[Steve Harr]

John 'the Man' <DeMan@grapefruit.com> wrote in message
news:<dladovgtpo5e3uvi5g4htf3g920hq2sg4q@4ax.com>...
> And, thanks to people like me the Popular Health Movement
> did not really end long ago, either. The struggle for good
> health still continues.

Led by bald, fat, toothless old men? The mind reels.

In the midst of all that talk about how much money is involved
in medical "scientism" you forgot to mention that this is
essentially an ad for how you want to make money. By having
people pay you for advice. Though why they should think your
advice is valid when it's not (according to you) based on any
science, is a mystery.

Hell, you have to continually change your email address here
on the newgroups, even to get people to read you occasionally
for *free.* Otherwise you'd have been killfiled permanently by
all who've known you here for more than a couple of weeks.

A sad commentary.

SBH

[Roy Basan]

cobra@tomgreen.com (Cobra Boy) wrote in message
news:<1b78953f.0310100621.c912105@posting.google.com>...
> I guess what I'm asking is why does the non-bleached stuff
> have to be a specialty; why can't it be the norm?
>
>
Non bleached stuff had lower demand than the bleached item...
And in many food manufacturing concern the functionality of
the purified (bleached)ingredient is much better and more
cost effective and the product comes out best than when made
with impure materials. Although there are items that can
tolerate less refined ingredients but the output is in favour
of the material using the purified or bleached ingredients.
Take for example cake flour.It is usually bleached not only
for aesthetic reason but also for the functional reason as
the unbleached flour is prone to cake failure . It is also
the same with sugar. The less refined sweetener produces
product that is inferior than if made from the fine white and
bleached sugar. Therefore ingredient manufacturer have more
demands for the purified ingredient than the less purified
ones.Hence it will reflect in the resulting product cost. So
if we cannot find often it we should learn to live with what
is available. Just like air. It is hard to find a place that
is free from pollution but we have to bear with it. Do you
mean that you have to go to Antarctica and packaged some air
for you to breathe in your area? You want everything that you
need to be the norm, then are you subscribing to the
mentality of the Al Qaeda and Taliban that we must relieve
the past by abandoning the development of civilisation as it
made the lifestyle impure.

It is just like the mentality of choosing only unrefined food
as it is the only healthy way to consume things. Then if its
really difficult to find unrefined sugar; why not chew and
suck sugarcane while you drink your coffee.Then you can be
assured that you are consuming food in its pristine state. If
you crave only for the less refined ingredient you should
abandon civilisation and live like a hermit in a place that
everything appears natural to you!

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Roy Basan rambled on about "Re:
Why is the bleached stuff so popular?." Our champion
De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>So if we cannot find often it we should learn to live with
>what is available.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Boy, are you a dog!

>Just like air. It is hard to find a place that is free from
>pollution but we have to bear with it.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Only if you are some kind of an idiot.
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ The ONLY Frauds in Health
are those who couldn't care less about prevention. Beware of
anybody who brags about eating a lousy diet, eating
crispbread, non-dairy coffee creamer, being overweight, or
about smoking!

[Keith F. L]

Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com
<sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Led by bald, fat, toothless old men? The mind reels.

What does baldness have to do with health?
--
Keith F. Lynch - kfl@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/ I
always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages,
but unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please
do not send me HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such
email is discarded unread.

[Roy Basan]

John 'the Man' <DeMan@grapefruit.com> wrote in message
news:<91eiovk6tec08tht80f8rmti92q26ck66t@4ax.com>... John 'the
Man' <DeMan@grapefruit.com> wrote in message
news:<91eiovk6tec08tht80f8rmti92q26ck66t@4ax.com>...
> Once upon a time, our fellow Roy Basan rambled on about "Re:
> Why is the bleached stuff so popular?." Our champion
> De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly
Champion in De- medicalizing? Since when?……I did not know that
I was that good in your distorted imagination. As I did not
expect that you a schizoprenic patient will come to this NG
laughing his arse out….Making a fool of yourself!

> >So if we cannot find often it we should learn to live with
> >what is available.
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
Look whose talking?…… You find yourself sensible just to blurt
out your own madness…
> Boy, are you a dog!

I am sure you are …. As you are barking out your own ignorance
for others to hear….

Did you understand the post …..or just pretending that you
are…

If you have nothing else to do, better keep yourself under
straightjacket! Or you can cause harm to yourself and others…

[B-Ob1]

"Keith F. Lynch" wrote:

> Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com
> <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Led by bald, fat, toothless old men? The mind reels.
>
> What does baldness have to do with health?
> --
> Keith F. Lynch - kfl@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
> I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web
> pages, but unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable.
> Please do not send me HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as
> all such email is discarded unread.

It means that there is MISSING CHMISTRY in one's skin..that
shows more on and n the skin of the hair follicles in the
"pate".skin. B-0b1

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow B-Ob1 rambled on about "Re:
Science sells the Sizzle; Quackery sells the Steak!." Our
champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts,
thusly ...

> It means that there is MISSING CHMISTRY in one's skin..that
> shows more
> on and n the skin of the hair follicles in the "pate".skin.
> B-0b1

I always knew that Ob-1 was out to lunch!

You have my condolences.

[Keith F. L]

"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> What does baldness have to do with health?

B-Ob1 <sos@Grandecom.net> wrote:
> It means that there is MISSING CHMISTRY in one's skin..that
> shows more on and n the skin of the hair follicles in the
> "pate".skin.

Please be more specific. Does baldness correlate with cancer?
With heart disease? Stroke? Pneumonia? AIDS? Or any other
cause of death or disability?
--
Keith F. Lynch - kfl@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/ I
always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages,
but unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please
do not send me HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such
email is discarded unread.

[Tim Tyler]

In sci.life-extension Keith F. Lynch <kfl@keithlynch.net>
wrote or quoted:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote: B-Ob1
> <sos@Grandecom.net> wrote:
>> What does baldness have to do with health?

>> It means that there is MISSING CHMISTRY in one's skin..that
>> shows more on and n the skin of the hair follicles in the
>> "pate".skin.
>
> Please be more specific. Does baldness correlate with
> cancer? With heart disease? Stroke? Pneumonia? AIDS? Or any
> other cause of death or disability?

Baldness correlates with age, and with testosterone levels.

Neither are very good signs if you are looking for health
correlates.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove
lock to reply.

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Tim Tyler rambled on about "Re:
Science sells the Sizzle; Quackery sells the Steak!." Our
champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts,
thusly ...

>Baldness correlates with age, and with testosterone levels.
>
>Neither are very good signs if you are looking for health
>correlates.

Beyond the fact that baldness has *nothing* to do with
anything, baldness is genetic. My television set tells me
that fairly young men go bald at a fairly young age for
genetic reasons. Ergo, Tim Tyler doesn't know all that much
about aging.

Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!

Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons!
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of
the biomedical model of natural health. Weighing in at 17
webpages, Nutrition
(http://www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/) is now with
more documentation and sharper terminology than ever before.

[Rk]

John 'the Man' <DeMan@fruitloop.com> wrote in message
news:<18inov846l7i8pim05pslqko3udvv1f7lv@4ax.com>...
> Once upon a time, our fellow Tim Tyler rambled on about "Re:
> Science sells the Sizzle; Quackery sells the Steak!." Our
> champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts,
> thusly ...
>
> >Baldness correlates with age, and with testosterone levels.
> >
> >Neither are very good signs if you are looking for health
> >correlates.
>
> Beyond the fact that baldness has *nothing* to do with
> anything, baldness is genetic. My television set tells me
> that fairly young men go bald at a fairly young age for
> genetic reasons. Ergo, Tim Tyler doesn't know all that much
> about aging.
>
> Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!
>
> Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons!

Baldness correlates with (the genetically determined) presence
of di-hydro testosterone (DHT) receptors in the scalp. The
cummulative binding of DHT to these receptors results in
baldness; hence the correlation.

FWIW, DHT receptors in scalp correlate with DHT receptors in
prostate tissue, which results in enlargement of the gland;
hence baldness may be a marker for risk of prostatitus and
perhaps of prostate cancer.

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow RK rambled on about "Re: Science
sells the Sizzle; Quackery sells the Steak!." Our champion
De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nursing retorts, thusly ...

>> >Baldness correlates with age, and with testosterone
>> >levels.
>> >
>> >Neither are very good signs if you are looking for health
>> >correlates.
>>
>> Beyond the fact that baldness has *nothing* to do with
>> anything, baldness is genetic. My television set tells me
>> that fairly young men go bald at a fairly young age for
>> genetic reasons. Ergo, Tim Tyler doesn't know all that much
>> about aging.
>>
>> Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!
>
>Baldness correlates with (the genetically determined)
>presence of di-hydro testosterone (DHT) receptors in the
>scalp. The cummulative binding of DHT to these receptors
>results in baldness; hence the correlation.
>
>FWIW, DHT receptors in scalp correlate with DHT receptors in
>prostate tissue, which results in enlargement of the gland;
>hence baldness may be a marker for risk of prostatitus and
>perhaps of prostate cancer.

As long as middle age men and even men in their late 20's go
completely and partially bald, baldness has nothing to do with
aging unless you are a brain dead science geek.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Laughing at you, with a full set of hair. :)
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and fitness,
today. http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering 14 easy to understand lessons that will change
your life.

[Keith F. L]

"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Please be more specific. Does baldness correlate with
> cancer? With heart disease? Stroke? Pneumonia? AIDS? Or any
> other cause of death or disability?

Tim Tyler <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote:
> Baldness correlates with age, and with testosterone levels.
> Neither are very good signs if you are looking for health
> correlates.

Yes, baldness very loosely correlates with age. And so does
ill health. But is there any association *beyond* this loose
correlation? If not, it's about as useful as knowing that in
children shoe size correlates with reading ability. (Which is
also entirely due to both correlating with age.)

Is testosterone supposed to be good or bad?
--
Keith F. Lynch - kfl@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/ I
always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages,
but unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please
do not send me HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such
email is discarded unread.

[Pf Riley]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:13:22 GMT, Tim Tyler
<tim@tt1lock.org> wrote:

>In sci.life-extension Keith F. Lynch <kfl@keithlynch.net>
>wrote or quoted:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote: B-Ob1
>> <sos@Grandecom.net> wrote:
>>> What does baldness have to do with health?
>
>>> It means that there is MISSING CHMISTRY in one's
>>> skin..that shows more on and n the skin of the hair
>>> follicles in the "pate".skin.
>>
>> Please be more specific. Does baldness correlate with
>> cancer? With heart disease? Stroke? Pneumonia? AIDS? Or any
>> other cause of death or disability?
>
>Baldness correlates with age, and with testosterone levels.
>
>Neither are very good signs if you are looking for health
>correlates.

Well, I would say it's a safe bet that Patrick Stewart is
sexier than you, regardless of age or testosterone levels.

PF

[Tim Tyler]

In sci.life-extension PF Riley <pfriley@watt-not.com> wrote
or quoted:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:13:22 GMT, Tim Tyler
> <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote:

>>Baldness correlates with age, and with testosterone levels.
>>
>>Neither are very good signs if you are looking for health
>>correlates.
>
> Well, I would say it's a safe bet that Patrick Stewart is
> sexier than you, regardless of age or testosterone levels.

I made no claim about particular individuals - or sexual
attractiveness for that matter. However, if you set up the
lek, I'll be there ;-)
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove
lock to reply.

[Rk]

John 'the Man' <DeMan@tc.com> wrote in message
news:<ci0oovgd1bsfqcvq62hecnnfkho87m3v5e@4ax.com>...
> Once upon a time, our fellow RK rambled on about "Re:
> Science sells the Sizzle; Quackery sells the Steak!." Our
> champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nursing retorts,
> thusly ...
>
> >> >Baldness correlates with age, and with testosterone
> >> >levels.
> >> >
> >> >Neither are very good signs if you are looking for
> >> >health correlates.
> >>
> >> Beyond the fact that baldness has *nothing* to do with
> >> anything, baldness is genetic. My television set tells me
> >> that fairly young men go bald at a fairly young age for
> >> genetic reasons. Ergo, Tim Tyler doesn't know all that
> >> much about aging.
> >>
> >> Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!
> >
> >Baldness correlates with (the genetically determined)
> >presence of di-hydro testosterone (DHT) receptors in the
> >scalp. The cummulative binding of DHT to these receptors
> >results in baldness; hence the correlation.
> >
> >FWIW, DHT receptors in scalp correlate with DHT receptors
> >in prostate tissue, which results in enlargement of the
> >gland; hence baldness may be a marker for risk of
> >prostatitus and perhaps of prostate cancer.
>
> As long as middle age men and even men in their late 20's go
> completely and partially bald, baldness has nothing to do
> with aging unless you are a brain dead science geek.
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Laughing at you, with a full set of
> hair. :)

Does your full set of hair know the difference between
correlation and causation?

With a full set of hair? You mean full head of hair,no?

I remain, with a fill head of hair, full set of teeth, and the
cardio-vascular system of a 29-year old, laughing at you.

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow RK rambled on about "Re: Science
sells the Sizzle; Quackery sells the Steak!." Our champion
De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nursing retorts, thusly ...

>I remain, with a fill head of hair, full set of teeth, and
>the cardio-vascular system of a 29-year old, laughing at you.

Be sure to mail me a post card on your 120th birthday. :)

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Falling down on the floor ... Busting my guts out laughing.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

[Kathy Cole]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 05:25:12 GMT, pfriley@watt-not.com (PF
Riley) wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:13:22 GMT, Tim Tyler
> <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote:
> >Baldness correlates with age, and with testosterone levels.
> >
> >Neither are very good signs if you are looking for health
> >correlates.
>
> Well, I would say it's a safe bet that Patrick Stewart is
> sexier than you, regardless of age or testosterone levels.

Geez, PF, I didn't think you swung that way :).

[Rk]

John 'the Man' <DeMan@tc.com> wrote in message
news:<bu3pov8p58p285rt9bkoip2lns7gbl90h4@4ax.com>...
> Once upon a time, our fellow RK rambled on about "Re:
> Science sells the Sizzle; Quackery sells the Steak!." Our
> champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nursing retorts,
> thusly ...
>
> >I remain, with a fill head of hair, full set of teeth,
> >and the cardio-vascular system of a 29-year old, laughing
> >at you.
>
> Be sure to mail me a post card on your 120th birthday. :)
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
> Falling down on the floor ... Busting my guts out laughing.
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

What makes you think I practice caloric restriction? You do
seem to be exhibiting early signs of alzheimers.

[William A.]

"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
news:bmiebm$a2l$1@panix1.panix.com...
> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> > Please be more specific. Does baldness correlate with
> > cancer? With heart disease? Stroke? Pneumonia? AIDS? Or
> > any other cause of death or disability?
>
> Tim Tyler <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote:
> > Baldness correlates with age, and with testosterone
> > levels. Neither are very good signs if you are looking for
> > health correlates.
>
> Yes, baldness very loosely correlates with age. And so does
> ill health. But is there any association *beyond* this loose
> correlation? If not, it's about as useful as knowing that in
> children shoe size correlates with reading ability. (Which
> is also entirely due to both correlating with age.)
>
> Is testosterone supposed to be good or bad?

Good. Low levels are associated with heart disease and
osteoporosis.

Don't worry about going bald. Some fools take Propecia to
preserve their hair and become permanent impotent. Which would
you rather have hair or the ability to have sexual intercourse
with a lover??

[William A.]

"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
news:bmiebm$a2l$1@panix1.panix.com...
> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> > Please be more specific. Does baldness correlate with
> > cancer? With heart disease? Stroke? Pneumonia? AIDS? Or
> > any other cause of death or disability?
>
> Tim Tyler <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote:
> > Baldness correlates with age, and with testosterone
> > levels. Neither are very good signs if you are looking for
> > health correlates.
>
> Yes, baldness very loosely correlates with age. And so does
> ill health. But is there any association *beyond* this loose
> correlation? If not, it's about as useful as knowing that in
> children shoe size correlates with reading ability. (Which
> is also entirely due to both correlating with age.)
>
> Is testosterone supposed to be good or bad?

Good. Low levels are associated with heart disease and
osteoporosis.

Don't worry about going bald. Some fools take Propecia to
preserve their hair and become permanent impotent. Which would
you rather have hair or the ability to have sexual intercourse
with a lover??

[Keith F. L]

"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Is testosterone supposed to be good or bad?

William A. Noyes <no.address@ctc.net> wrote:
> Good. Low levels are associated with heart disease ...

Then why do women live longer than men and get less
heart disease?

> Don't worry about going bald.

I'm not.

> Some fools take Propecia to preserve their hair and become
> permanent impotent.

I doubt that. For one thing, it only blocks
dihydrotestosterone, not testosterone itself. Some men have no
dihydrotestosterone receptors. They can't grow beards or chest
hair, but they're potent and fertile.

And even if someone does take a drug that blocks testosterone,
potency would be restored as soon as they stopped using it.

The main concern with Propecia is that if you take it you
won't be allowed to donate blood. And blood donation is
good for you.
--
Keith F. Lynch - kfl@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/ I
always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages,
but unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please
do not send me HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such
email is discarded unread.

[William A.]

"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
news:bmnf5p$8rm$1@panix3.panix.com...
> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> > Is testosterone supposed to be good or bad?
>
> William A. Noyes <no.address@ctc.net> wrote:
> > Good. Low levels are associated with heart disease ...
>
> Then why do women live longer than men and get less heart
> disease?

To start with they have two X chromsomes and females have
higher estrogen levels among other things. That doesn't make T
bad. "The traditional view of androgens and heart diease seems
valid for athletes who use HUGE androgen doses over prolonged
periods............... Conversely, these long held views of
the role of endogenous androgens in the pathogenesis of heart
disease are notonly incorrect but are DIAMETRICALLY opposed to
the TRUE role that these anabolic agents play."

"It is now well understood that the available
evidence-based studies support the modern concept that
age-related hypoandrogenemia is CLOSELY linked with
incidence of CHD in BOTH genders. Recent studies have
linked hypoandrogenemia and hyposomatomedinema with
coronary heart disease (CHD), congestive heart failure
(CHF), angina pectoris (AP), hypertension, and increased
risks for these diseases. Recent studies, supported by
older studies, have also indicated that correcting
hypoandrogenemia and hyposomatomedinemia with anabolic
therapies has protective and beneficial effects. Therefore,
it has become more apparent that anabolic therapy should be
considered as cardioprotective and therapeutic for a number
of cardiovascular related conditions, including cardiac
rehabilitation."

The above was a quote from William N. Taylor M.D. book,
Anabolic Therapy in Modern Medicine (2002).

I quoted part of the intro as it was short.

Taylor cites numerous studies and papers in the body of
the chapter.

One of the weight lifters got a irritated with me for
mentioning Taylor as he used his prominence in that field to
support more laws and regulations.

>
> > Don't worry about going bald.
>
> I'm not.

Good for you.
>
> > Some fools take Propecia to preserve their hair and become
> > permanent impotent.
>
> I doubt that. For one thing, it only blocks
> dihydrotestosterone, not testosterone itself. Some men have
> no dihydrotestosterone receptors. They can't grow beards or
> chest hair, but they're potent and fertile.
>
> And even if someone does take a drug that blocks
> testosterone, potency would be restored as soon as they
> stopped using it.
>
> The main concern with Propecia is that if you take it you
> won't be allowed to donate blood. And blood donation is good
> for you.

Medscape says mentions gynecomastia. It claims 3.7% have
decreased impotence.
3.3% have decreased libido.
4.8% have decreased semen volume. The problems occurred over
the span of a year.

I was pretty sure, that I'd seen worse results in a bar chart
in new paper very recently but I haven't found it.

Even if the risk is only one chance in 27, I prefer my potency
and libido.

So all I am left with are anecdotal comments by persons on the
alt.support.impotence forum. At least one of whom claimed that
adverse effects to be more lasting.

Maybe I dreamt it........my dream life is about that
strange................wine glass in hand .......William A.
Noyes

.

[William A.]

"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
news:bmnf5p$8rm$1@panix3.panix.com...
> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> > Is testosterone supposed to be good or bad?
>
> William A. Noyes <no.address@ctc.net> wrote:
> > Good. Low levels are associated with heart disease ...
>
> Then why do women live longer than men and get less heart
> disease?
>
> > Don't worry about going bald.
>
> I'm not.
>
> > Some fools take Propecia to preserve their hair and become
> > permanent impotent.
>
> I doubt that. For one thing, it only blocks
> dihydrotestosterone, not testosterone itself. Some men have
> no dihydrotestosterone receptors. They can't grow beards or
> chest hair, but they're potent and fertile.

Yeah, after medical interventions with supra-physiological
levels of testosterone or DHT if the patient doesn't lives
under the thumb of some big mama government. Such patients
have been lucky if the damned doctors didn't perform an
orchiectomy and apply estrogen treatment. Those with this
condition are born with ambiguous genitalia and a blind
vaginal pouch. As the text says, "early diagnosis of this
condition is critical."

A male needs their DHT for maintenance as well as development.

Still erect.................William A. noyes

[Mike Leake]

"William A. Noyes" <no.address@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:3f9007c1$0$26355$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com...

<snip>
> > > Some fools take Propecia to preserve their hair and
> > > become permanent impotent.
> >
> > I doubt that. For one thing, it only blocks
> > dihydrotestosterone, not testosterone itself. Some men
> > have no dihydrotestosterone receptors. They can't grow
> > beards or chest hair, but they're potent and fertile.
> >
> > And even if someone does take a drug that blocks
> > testosterone, potency would be restored as soon as they
> > stopped using it.
> >
> > The main concern with Propecia is that if you take it you
> > won't be allowed to donate blood. And blood donation is
> > good for you.
>
> Medscape says mentions gynecomastia. It claims 3.7% have
> decreased impotence.
> 3.3% have decreased libido.
> 2.8% have decreased semen volume. The problems occurred over
> the span of a year.

Several things to bear in mind regarding finasteride. One is
that, for most people, side effects while taking the drug are
transient. The body quickly adapts by elevating testosterone
about 15%. Another is that placebo users in early trials had a
similar (though slightly lower) level of impotence and libido
problems to those taking the drug. Finally, if problems should
manifest and persist with the medication, all one has to do is
stop taking it to have things return to normal fairly quickly.

All finasteride does is tie up a form of 5-aR, the enzyme that
reduces testosterone to DHT. Once finasteride is no longer
present in the body to do this, DHT levels begin to rise again
and soon return to normal. There is nothing "permanent" about
what finasteride does regarding libido or semen. Of course,
it's certainly possible someone could have a problem while
taking finasteride, discontinue it, and later worry about it
and induce a performance problem that way, which would be
purely mental and not physiological--once all had returned to
baseline. But that's another matter altogether.

I've taken low-dose finasteride for 6 years with no problems
(after an initial adjustment period of 2 months or so) and
with very good results. Blood work shows that my testosterone
levels are in the normal, healthy range, DHT is low, and
estradiol is nice and low, so no issues with gynecomastia
here. I hung on to my hair and have no prostate enlargement
problems at age 47. And my libido is just fine.

Mike Leake

[Moosh!]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 17:04:24 -0600, "Mike Leake"
<maleake@aol.com> posted:

>"William A. Noyes" <no.address@ctc.net> wrote in message
>news:3f9007c1$0$26355$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com...
>
><snip>
>> > > Some fools take Propecia to preserve their hair and
>> > > become permanent impotent.
>> >
>> > I doubt that. For one thing, it only blocks
>> > dihydrotestosterone, not testosterone itself. Some men
>> > have no dihydrotestosterone receptors. They can't grow
>> > beards or chest hair, but they're potent and fertile.
>> >
>> > And even if someone does take a drug that blocks
>> > testosterone, potency would be restored as soon as they
>> > stopped using it.
>> >
>> > The main concern with Propecia is that if you take it you
>> > won't be allowed to donate blood. And blood donation is
>> > good for you.
>>
>> Medscape says mentions gynecomastia. It claims 3.7% have
>> decreased impotence.
>> 3.3% have decreased libido.
>> 2.8% have decreased semen volume. The problems occurred
>> over the span of a year.
>
>Several things to bear in mind regarding finasteride. One is
>that, for most people, side effects while taking the drug are
>transient. The body quickly adapts by elevating testosterone
>about 15%. Another is that placebo users in early trials had
>a similar (though slightly lower) level of impotence and
>libido problems to those taking the drug. Finally, if
>problems should manifest and persist with the medication, all
>one has to do is stop taking it to have things return to
>normal fairly quickly.
>
>All finasteride does is tie up a form of 5-aR, the enzyme
>that reduces testosterone to DHT. Once finasteride is no
>longer present in the body to do this, DHT levels begin to
>rise again and soon return to normal. There is nothing
>"permanent" about what finasteride does regarding libido or
>semen. Of course, it's certainly possible someone could have
>a problem while taking finasteride, discontinue it, and later
>worry about it and induce a performance problem that way,
>which would be purely mental and not physiological--once all
>had returned to baseline. But that's another matter
>altogether.
>
>I've taken low-dose finasteride for 6 years with no problems
>(after an initial adjustment period of 2 months or so) and
>with very good results. Blood work shows that my testosterone
>levels are in the normal, healthy range, DHT is low, and
>estradiol is nice and low, so no issues with gynecomastia
>here. I hung on to my hair and have no prostate enlargement
>problems at age 47. And my libido is just fine.
>
>Mike Leake
>

Just curious, Mike. What did you take it for? Or have I missed
your post of this?

[Keith F. L]

"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Some men have no dihydrotestosterone receptors. They can't
> grow beards or chest hair, but they're potent and fertile.

William A. Noyes <no.address@ctc.net> wrote:
> Yeah, after medical interventions with supra-physiological
> levels of testosterone or DHT if the patient doesn't lives
> under the thumb of some big mama government. Such patients
> have been lucky if the damned doctors didn't perform an
> orchiectomy and apply estrogen treatment. Those with this
> condition are born with ambiguous genitalia and a blind
> vaginal pouch. As the text says, "early diagnosis of this
> condition is critical."

I've heard of cases where someone with this condition was
wrongly thought to be female, and brought up as a female,
until they suddenly "turned male" during puberty, much to
everyone's surprise. Sounds like an interesting life.

I've never heard of a case where such a person was castrated.
Perhaps you're thinking of the "As Nature Made Him" case in
which a male infant was castrated, "sexually reassigned," and
raised as a female after a botched circumcision. I agree that
that was not medical science's finest hour.

> A male needs their DHT for maintenance as well as
> development.

You need it to grow a beard and chest hair. But once you
have those, you won't lose them, or anything else, if your
DHT is blocked.

I wonder why the Red Cross won't accept blood from people who
take DHT blockers. Sure, you wouldn't want to give such blood
to pregnant women, but it should be fine for everyone else.
--
Keith F. Lynch - kfl@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/ I
always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages,
but unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please
do not send me HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such
email is discarded unread.

[William A.]

"Mike Leake" <maleake@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0P-dnQCZL_3whQ6iRVn-vw@comcast.com...
> "William A. Noyes" <no.address@ctc.net> wrote in message
> news:3f9007c1$0$26355$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com...
>
> <snip>
> > > > Some fools take Propecia to preserve their hair and
> > > > become permanent impotent.
> > >
> > > I doubt that. For one thing, it only blocks
> > > dihydrotestosterone, not testosterone itself. Some men
> > > have no dihydrotestosterone receptors. They can't grow
> > > beards or chest hair, but they're potent and fertile.

No they are not. Not without medical intervention of high dose
T or T plus DHT!!

> > >
> > > And even if someone does take a drug that blocks
> > > testosterone, potency would be restored as soon as they
> > > stopped using it.
> > >
> > > The main concern with Propecia is that if you take it
> > > you won't be allowed to donate blood. And blood donation
> > > is good for you.
> >
> > Medscape says mentions gynecomastia. It claims 3.7% have
> > decreased impotence.

meant increased impotence.

> > 3.3% have decreased libido.
> > 2.8% have decreased semen volume. The problems occurred
> > over the span of a year.
>
> Several things to bear in mind regarding finasteride. One is
> that, for
most
> people, side effects while taking the drug are transient.
> The body quickly adapts by elevating testosterone about 15%.

Is it an adapation or is it just a result?

> Another is that placebo users in early trials had a similar
> (though slightly lower) level of impotence and libido
> problems to those taking the drug. Finally, if problems
> should manifest and persist with the medication, all one has
> to do is stop taking it to have things return to normal
> fairly quickly.
>
> All finasteride does is tie up a form of 5-aR, the enzyme
> that reduces testosterone to DHT. Once finasteride is no
> longer present in the body to do this, DHT levels begin to
> rise again and soon return to normal. There is nothing
> "permanent" about what finasteride does regarding libido or
> semen. Of course, it's certainly possible someone could have
> a problem while taking finasteride, discontinue it, and
> later worry about it and induce a performance problem that
> way, which would be purely mental and not
> physiological--once all had returned to baseline. But that's
> another matter altogether.
>
> I've taken low-dose finasteride for 6 years with no problems
> (after an initial adjustment period of 2 months or so) and
> with very good results. Blood work shows that my
> testosterone levels are in the normal, healthy range, DHT is
> low, and estradiol is nice and low, so no issues with
> gynecomastia here. I hung on to my hair and have no prostate
> enlargement problems at age 47. And my libido is just fine.
>
> Mike Leake

>
Good for you.

You say good libido....so I ask are you potent.......able to
get and hold an erection?

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow William A. Noyes rambled on
about "Re: Science sells the Sizzle; Quackery sells the
Steak!." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition
retorts, thusly ...

>You say good libido....so I ask are you potent.......able to
>get and hold an erection?

Is that your method of treatment, Noyes?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

[William A.]

"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
news:bn4s67$qs0$1@panix1.panix.com...
> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> > Some men have no dihydrotestosterone receptors. They can't
> > grow beards or chest hair, but they're potent and fertile.
>
> William A. Noyes <no.address@ctc.net> wrote:
> > Yeah, after medical interventions with supra-physiological
> > levels of testosterone or DHT if the patient doesn't lives
> > under the thumb of some big mama government. Such patients
> > have been lucky if the damned doctors didn't perform an
> > orchiectomy and apply estrogen treatment. Those with this
> > condition are born with ambiguous genitalia and a blind
> > vaginal pouch. As the text says, "early diagnosis of this
> > condition is critical."
>
> I've heard of cases where someone with this condition was
> wrongly thought to be female, and brought up as a female,
> until they suddenly "turned male" during puberty, much to
> everyone's surprise. Sounds like an interesting life.
>
> I've never heard of a case where such a person was
> castrated. Perhaps you're thinking of the "As Nature Made
> Him" case in which a male infant was castrated, "sexually
> reassigned," and raised as a female after a botched
> circumcision. I agree that that was not medical science's
> finest hour.

Note again what the textbook said above. Many have been
"sexually reassigned" and suffer in silence. The person should
be given a choice at an an age of understanding.

>
> > A male needs their DHT for maintenance as well as
> > development.
>
> You need it to grow a beard and chest hair. But once you
> have those, you won't lose them, or anything else, if your
> DHT is blocked.

Some on the alt.support.impotence would differ to an extent on
this topic. I've been monitoring the group as some of their
discussion are IMO relevent to sci.med and sci.life-extension.

Another text says that DHT sustains differentiation
granted during the growth phase, but I don't see why this
would also be true in the adult phase also. Perhaps with
your lower estrogen levels it is a wash even if I what I
suspect is right.

>
> I wonder why the Red Cross won't accept blood from people
> who take DHT blockers. Sure, you wouldn't want to give
> such blood to pregnant women, but it should be fine for
> everyone else.

Blood is often fractionated. Tagging blood contaminated with
the drug would just be too much trouble, I suspect. I might
work for whole blood but not with blood fractions as I
suspect there is always some combining of sources aka pooling
of supply.

Thanks Keith.

William A. Noyes

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow William A. Noyes rambled on
about "Re: Science sells the Sizzle; Docs sell the Fizzle!."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nursing retorts,
thusly ...

>Many have been "sexually reassigned" and suffer in silence.
>The person should be given a choice at an an age of
>understanding.

Oh! Kinda of what happens on these ngs, ... huh?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

[William A.]

"John 'the Man'" <DeMan@fstudy .com> wrote in message
news:l6uepvgqt1u9mvjs5mjusv8vd1phctnr1f@4ax.com...
> Once upon a time, our fellow William A. Noyes rambled on
> about "Re: Science sells the Sizzle; Docs sell the Fizzle!."
> Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nursing retorts,
> thusly ...
>
> >Many have been "sexually reassigned" and suffer in silence.
> >The person should be given a choice at an an age of
> >understanding.
>
> Oh! Kinda of what happens on these ngs, ... huh?
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Well John, most of us would love to provide you with a free
reassignment operation.

Just thought you needed to know...........
...................William A. Noyes

[Mike Leake]

"Moosh!" <less@even.less> wrote in message
news:q35apvc88g9iltfkhfp8vd3qe8qsmgfa0t@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 17:04:24 -0600, "Mike Leake"
> <maleake@aol.com> posted:
>
> >"William A. Noyes" <no.address@ctc.net> wrote in message
> >news:3f9007c1$0$26355$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com...
> >
> ><snip>
> >> > > Some fools take Propecia to preserve their hair and
> >> > > become
permanent
> >> > > impotent.
> >> >
> >> > I doubt that. For one thing, it only blocks
> >> > dihydrotestosterone, not testosterone itself. Some men
> >> > have no dihydrotestosterone receptors. They can't grow
> >> > beards or chest hair, but they're potent and fertile.
> >> >
> >> > And even if someone does take a drug that blocks
> >> > testosterone,
potency
> >> > would be restored as soon as they stopped using it.
> >> >
> >> > The main concern with Propecia is that if you take it
> >> > you won't be allowed to donate blood. And blood
> >> > donation is good for you.
> >>
> >> Medscape says mentions gynecomastia. It claims 3.7% have
> >> decreased impotence.
> >> 3.3% have decreased libido.
> >> 2.8% have decreased semen volume. The problems occurred
> >> over the span of a year.
> >
> >Several things to bear in mind regarding finasteride. One
> >is that, for
most
> >people, side effects while taking the drug are transient.
> >The body
quickly
> >adapts by elevating testosterone about 15%. Another is that
> >placebo users
in
> >early trials had a similar (though slightly lower) level of
> >impotence and libido problems to those taking the drug.
> >Finally, if problems should manifest and persist with the
> >medication, all one has to do is stop
taking
> >it to have things return to normal fairly quickly.
> >
> >All finasteride does is tie up a form of 5-aR, the enzyme
> >that reduces testosterone to DHT. Once finasteride is no
> >longer present in the body to
do
> >this, DHT levels begin to rise again and soon return to
> >normal. There is nothing "permanent" about what finasteride
> >does regarding libido or
semen.
> >Of course, it's certainly possible someone could have a
> >problem while
taking
> >finasteride, discontinue it, and later worry about it and
> >induce a performance problem that way, which would be
> >purely mental and not physiological--once all had returned
> >to baseline. But that's another
matter
> >altogether.
> >
> >I've taken low-dose finasteride for 6 years with no
> >problems (after an initial adjustment period of 2 months or
> >so) and with very good results. Blood work shows that my
> >testosterone levels are in the normal, healthy range, DHT
> >is low, and estradiol is nice and low, so no issues with
> >gynecomastia here. I hung on to my hair and have no
> >prostate enlargement problems at age 47. And my libido is
> >just fine.
> >
> >Mike Leake
> >
>
> Just curious, Mike. What did you take it for? Or have I
> missed your post of this?

I take it for male pattern baldness. Before it got trolled out
of existence, for many years I wrote and posted the FAQ out at
alt.baldspot, so it's something I'm quite familiar with. Like
a number of other people, I began taking it before it came out
(remarketed as Propecia) as an approved hair loss treatment.
It had already been around for prostate treatment for years,
so the safety/potential side effect profile of a much higher 5
mg dosage was already pretty well known. I take it at the
conservative dosage of 0..625 mg
(1/8th of a Proscar tablet) daily.

Mike Leake

[Mike Leake]

"William A. Noyes" <no.address@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:3f95ecd2$0$61190$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com...
>
> "Mike Leake" <maleake@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:0P-dnQCZL_3whQ6iRVn-vw@comcast.com...
> > "William A. Noyes" <no.address@ctc.net> wrote in message
> > news:3f9007c1$0$26355$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com...
> >
> > <snip>
> > > > > Some fools take Propecia to preserve their hair and
> > > > > become
permanent
> > > > > impotent.
> > > >
> > > > I doubt that. For one thing, it only blocks
> > > > dihydrotestosterone,
not
> > > > testosterone itself. Some men have no
> > > > dihydrotestosterone
receptors.
> > > > They can't grow beards or chest hair, but they're
> > > > potent and
fertile.
>
> No they are not. Not without medical intervention of high
> dose T or T plus DHT!!

You are incorrect on this. I've seen the old study done
(comiplete with photos) of the guys in the Dominican Republic
who are completely deficient in Type II 5a-R. That's the
enzyme that finasteride inhibits. I believe Bryan Shelton, who
used to post on alt.baldspot, has the photos and the entire
text of the study up on his site somewhere. After puberty,
these guys have basically normal hormone levels, just less
DHT--in other words, very similar to finasteride users. They
are very muscular and fit and normal in every way. They need
no special hormonal intervention. If you can find the
following study, it has all the details:

"Male Pseudohermaphroditism Due to Steroid 5a-Reductase
Deficiency", Peterson et al, The American Journal of Medicine
Volume 62, February 1977, pp. 170-191.

Interestingly enough, the five photos showed four pseudos and
the brother of one of the psuedos who was completely normal as
to 5a-R. The only one to have temporal hairline recession in
the group was the normal guy. And--note this--he was also the
*least* muscular guy among them.

The big difference between those who have this complete
deficiency in type II 5a-R and finasteride users, of course,
is that they are that way their whole lives. Also, finasteride
users don't have a total deficiency in type II 5a-R. Instead
the amount is reduced about 60% since finasteride competes
with testosterone for the enzyme.

> > > > And even if someone does take a drug that blocks
> > > > testosterone,
potency
> > > > would be restored as soon as they stopped using it.
> > > >
> > > > The main concern with Propecia is that if you take it
> > > > you won't be allowed to donate blood. And blood
> > > > donation is good for you.
> > >
> > > Medscape says mentions gynecomastia. It claims 3.7% have
> > > decreased impotence.
>
> meant increased impotence.
>
> > > 3.3% have decreased libido.
> > > 2.8% have decreased semen volume. The problems occurred
> > > over the span of a year.
> >
> > Several things to bear in mind regarding finasteride. One
> > is that, for
> most
> > people, side effects while taking the drug are transient.
> > The body
quickly
> > adapts by elevating testosterone about 15%.
>
> Is it an adapation or is it just a result?

The rise in T appears to partially result from unconverted
DHT, leaving more T left over, and also partially from the
hypothalamus desiring a certain level of androgenic signal. I
say this because sometimes guys get an over-androgenic
response as the body increases T levels to compensate for
lowered androgenicity; e.g., they may get a flare-up of
pimples. If the body didn't make hormonal adjustments, the
side effects on things like libido wouldn't be transient.

> > Another is that placebo users in early trials had a
> > similar (though slightly lower) level of impotence
and
> > libido problems to those taking the drug. Finally, if
> > problems should manifest and persist with the medication,
> > all one has to do is stop
taking
> > it to have things return to normal fairly quickly.
> >
> > All finasteride does is tie up a form of 5-aR, the enzyme
> > that reduces testosterone to DHT. Once finasteride is no
> > longer present in the body
to
> > do this, DHT levels begin to rise again and soon return to
> > normal. There is nothing "permanent" about what
> > finasteride does regarding libido or
semen.
> > Of course, it's certainly possible someone could have a
> > problem while taking finasteride, discontinue it, and
> > later worry about it and induce a performance problem that
> > way, which would be purely mental and not
> > physiological--once all had returned to baseline. But
> > that's another matter altogether.
> >
> > I've taken low-dose finasteride for 6 years with no
> > problems (after an initial adjustment period of 2 months
> > or so) and with very good results. Blood work shows that
> > my testosterone levels are in the normal, healthy range,
> > DHT is low, and estradiol is nice and low, so no issues
> > with gynecomastia here. I hung on to my hair and have no
> > prostate enlargement problems at age 47. And my libido is
> > just fine.
> >
> > Mike Leake
>
> >
> Good for you.
>
> You say good libido....so I ask are you potent.......able to
> get and hold an erection?

Absolutely. There are no negative effects on me whatsoever. I
did notice a slight reduction in libido during the first two
months or so. Then it completely normalized as the body made
adjustments to compensate for the reduced DHT level. If there
were any lasting side effects, I simply wouldn't take it. I
would rate the transient side effects that did occur as
minimal in my case. Some people (a very small minority) do
have more significant side effects, and in a few cases they
don't resolve until discontinuation of the medication.

I've also monitored things over the years via blood tests to
see exactly what is going on. My T levels increased slightly
with finasteride (current levels are: total T 875 ng/dL, free
T 190.2 pg/mL, both considered to be in the upper normal
range). My estrogen levels also increased the same percentage,
but still remained low (31 pg/mL). A roughly equal increase in
T and estradiol is to be expected since estradiol is derived
via aromatization from testosterone. My DHT levels are a nice
low 26 ng/dL

All of this said, I doubt I would ever take the newest
anti-DHT treatment, dutasteride (Avodart), which is a far less
conservative treatment than finasteride, as it inhibits both
type I and type II isoenzymes, leading to a much greater
reduction in DHT.

Mike Leake

[William A.]

I checked a different book. You are correct about this
population isolate. They do use high dose T or DHT at some
point to improve phallus size in this type of patients.

"Mike Leake" <maleake@aol.com> wrote in message
news:DcmdnRjy_fL9FTiiRVn-vg@comcast.com...
> "William A. Noyes" <no.address@ctc.net> wrote in message
> news:3f95ecd2$0$61190$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com...
> >
> > "Mike Leake" <maleake@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:0P-dnQCZL_3whQ6iRVn-vw@comcast.com...
> > > "William A. Noyes" <no.address@ctc.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3f9007c1$0$26355$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com...
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > > > Some fools take Propecia to preserve their hair
> > > > > > and become
> permanent
> > > > > > impotent.
> > > > >
> > > > > I doubt that. For one thing, it only blocks
> > > > > dihydrotestosterone,
> not
> > > > > testosterone itself. Some men have no
> > > > > dihydrotestosterone
> receptors.
> > > > > They can't grow beards or chest hair, but they're
> > > > > potent and
> fertile.
> >
> > No they are not. Not without medical intervention of high
> > dose T or T
plus
> > DHT!!
>
> You are incorrect on this. I've seen the old study done
> (comiplete with photos) of the guys in the Dominican
> Republic who are completely deficient in Type II 5a-R.
> That's the enzyme that finasteride inhibits. I believe Bryan
> Shelton, who used to post on alt.baldspot, has the photos
> and the entire text of the study up on his site somewhere.
> After puberty, these
guys
> have basically normal hormone levels, just less DHT--in
> other words, very similar to finasteride users. They are
> very muscular and fit and normal in every way. They need no
> special hormonal intervention. If you can find the following
> study, it has all the details:
>
> "Male Pseudohermaphroditism Due to Steroid 5a-Reductase
> Deficiency", Peterson et al, The American Journal of
> Medicine Volume 62, February 1977, pp. 170-191.
>
> Interestingly enough, the five photos showed four pseudos
> and the brother
of
> one of the psuedos who was completely normal as to 5a-R. The
> only one to have temporal hairline recession in the group
> was the normal guy.
And--note
> this--he was also the *least* muscular guy among them.
>
> The big difference between those who have this complete
> deficiency in type II 5a-R and finasteride users, of course,
> is that they are that way their whole lives. Also,
> finasteride users don't have a total deficiency in type II
> 5a-R. Instead the amount is reduced about 60% since
> finasteride
competes
> with testosterone for the enzyme.
>
> > > > > And even if someone does take a drug that blocks
> > > > > testosterone,
> potency
> > > > > would be restored as soon as they stopped using it.
> > > > >
> > > > > The main concern with Propecia is that if you take
> > > > > it you won't be allowed to donate blood. And blood
> > > > > donation is good for you.
> > > >
> > > > Medscape says mentions gynecomastia. It claims 3.7%
> > > > have decreased impotence.
> >
> > meant increased impotence.
> >
> > > > 3.3% have decreased libido.
> > > > 2.8% have decreased semen volume. The problems
> > > > occurred over the span of a year.
> > >
> > > Several things to bear in mind regarding finasteride.
> > > One is that, for
> > most
> > > people, side effects while taking the drug are
> > > transient. The body
> quickly
> > > adapts by elevating testosterone about 15%.
> >
> > Is it an adapation or is it just a result?
>
> The rise in T appears to partially result from unconverted
> DHT, leaving
more
> T left over, and also partially from the hypothalamus
> desiring a certain level of androgenic signal. I say
> this because sometimes guys get an over-androgenic
> response as the body increases T levels to compensate
> for lowered androgenicity; e.g., they may get a flare-up
> of pimples. If the
body
> didn't make hormonal adjustments, the side effects on things
> like libido wouldn't be transient.

Very interesting. An androgenic negative feedback to the
hypothalamus as opposed to a testosterone negative feedback.
That makes good sense.

>
> > > Another is that placebo users in early trials had a
> > > similar (though slightly lower) level of impotence
> and
> > > libido problems to those taking the drug. Finally, if
> > > problems should manifest and persist with the
> > > medication, all one has to do is stop
> taking
> > > it to have things return to normal fairly quickly.
> > >
> > > All finasteride does is tie up a form of 5-aR, the
> > > enzyme that reduces testosterone to DHT. Once
> > > finasteride is no longer present in the body
> to
> > > do this, DHT levels begin to rise again and soon return
> > > to normal. There
is
> > > nothing "permanent" about what finasteride does
> > > regarding libido or
> semen.
> > > Of course, it's certainly possible someone could have a
> > > problem while taking finasteride, discontinue it, and
> > > later worry about it and induce a performance problem
> > > that way, which would be purely mental and not
> > > physiological--once all had returned to baseline. But
> > > that's another matter altogether.
> > >
> > > I've taken low-dose finasteride for 6 years with no
> > > problems (after an initial adjustment period of 2 months
> > > or so) and with very good
results.
> > > Blood work shows that my testosterone levels are in the
> > > normal,
healthy
> > > range, DHT is low, and estradiol is nice and low, so no
> > > issues with gynecomastia here. I hung on to my hair and
> > > have no prostate
enlargement
> > > problems at age 47. And my libido is just fine.
> > >
> > > Mike Leake
> >
> > >
> > Good for you.
> >
> > You say good libido....so I ask are you potent.......able
> > to get and hold an erection?
>
> Absolutely. There are no negative effects on me whatsoever.
> I did notice a slight reduction in libido during the first
> two months or so. Then it completely normalized as the body
> made adjustments to compensate for the reduced DHT level. If
> there were any lasting side effects, I simply
wouldn't
> take it. I would rate the transient side effects that did
> occur as minimal in my case. Some people (a very small
> minority) do have more significant side effects, and in a
> few cases they don't resolve until discontinuation
of
> the medication.
>
> I've also monitored things over the years via blood tests to
> see exactly what is going on. My T levels increased slightly
> with finasteride (current levels are: total T 875 ng/dL,
> free T 190.2 pg/mL, both considered to be
in
> the upper normal range). My estrogen levels also increased
> the same percentage, but still remained low (31 pg/mL). A
> roughly equal increase in
T
> and estradiol is to be expected since estradiol is
> derived via
aromatization
> from testosterone. My DHT levels are a nice low 26 ng/dL
>
> All of this said, I doubt I would ever take the newest
> anti-DHT treatment, dutasteride (Avodart), which is a far
> less conservative treatment than finasteride, as it inhibits
> both type I and type II isoenzymes, leading to
a
> much greater reduction in DHT.

Interesting.

>
> Mike Leake
>
>

thanks..............William A. Noyes