Does finasteride block dht or cause the body to produce less dht?

I have been on finasteride now for about a year, though I lowered my dosage to .05mg about 4 months ago when the sides were getting bad. Things have improved slightly since then. I have read that finasteride is only in the system for a matter of hours and in that time it blocks dht production. What I am curious about is why it takes a matter of months to see improvement from side effects were one to stop taking the drug? If it takes months this leads me to believe that not only does finasteride block dht when taken it also causes the body to produce less dht whilst on the drug. Am I correct in assuming this? Blocking dht and causing the body to produce less dht are two different things, are they not?

Good question. I await a response from everyone who promotes the safety of Propecia, as I assume they wouldn't do so without knowing the answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisis

Good question. I await a response from everyone who promotes the safety of Propecia, as I assume they wouldn't do so without knowing the answer.

---

By the same token, you rail against the dangers so shouldn't you know the answer to this yourself. If you do, just answer the question without the diatribe and passive aggressive attacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by philippe

I have been on finasteride now for about a year, though I lowered my dosage to .05mg about 4 months ago when the sides were getting bad. Things have improved slightly since then. I have read that finasteride is only in the system for a matter of hours and in that time it blocks dht production. What I am curious about is why it takes a matter of months to see improvement from side effects were one to stop taking the drug? If it takes months this leads me to believe that not only does finasteride block dht when taken it also causes the body to produce less dht whilst on the drug. Am I correct in assuming this? Blocking dht and causing the body to produce less dht are two different things, are they not?

---

The body does not produce DHT directly, really. Basically, testosterone in your bloodstream is binded to a substance that prevents it's breakdown. This allows testosterone to get to androgen receptors in a functional state. Once unbinded though (as it must be to bind to receptor sites and enzymes), substances can convert testosterone into other hormones. You're probably familiar with the fact that test converts to estrogen. It also converts to DHT though, once combined with a particular enzyme. Fin, however, is more competative in reacting with this enzyme. Thus, fin sort of uses up all of that substance by binding with it instead of test, allowing testosterone to remain as testosterone. It doesn't do anything to DHT itself.

So the answer to your question is that yes, those are different processes. Fin does the stop production one.

(A substance that "blocked" DHT would instead be more competative in binding with the receptor site. But as the site in question is the androgen receptor site, I'd imagine blocking that would be bad news bears even harder than fin is already sometimes bad news bears.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MackJames

By the same token, you rail against the dangers so shouldn't you know the answer to this yourself. If you do, just answer the question without the diatribe and passive aggressive attacks.

---

If describing my experience with finasteride openly and honestly is "railing against the dangers" then yeah, I rail.

Also, the onus is on the drug pusher to prove its safety, not the patient or victim. That's why we have clinical trials. The fact Merck and the FDA have been backtracking recently is cause for concern. Clearly not enough is known about how finasteride interacts with the male hormonal system resulting in side effects in an unknown number of men. I believe finasteride promoters ought to act with conscience and consider that fact, and I believe more investigations are needed.

I maintain that questions like this should be answered by those who promote the safety of finasteride. The brutal fact is no one knows why there are so many reports of side effects and why there's so much variation in terms of when they kick in, whether they're temporary or permanent and the degree of severity. This is undeniably a matter of great concern for all of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisis

If describing my experience with finasteride openly and honestly is "railing against the dangers" then yeah, I rail.

Also, the onus is on the drug pusher to prove its safety, not the patient or victim. That's why we have clinical trials. The fact Merck and the FDA have been backtracking recently is cause for concern. Clearly not enough is known about how finasteride interacts with the male hormonal system resulting in side effects in an unknown number of men. I believe finasteride promoters ought to act with conscience and consider that fact, and I believe more investigations are needed.

I maintain that questions like this should be answered by those who promote the safety of finasteride. The brutal fact is no one knows why there are so many reports of side effects and why there's so much variation in terms of when they kick in, whether they're temporary or permanent and the degree of severity. This is undeniably a matter of great concern for all of us.

---

Once again, I agree. Hormones have so many feedback loops based around various levels of the hormones themselves and other compounds. The endocrine system is so ridiculously complicated that it damn near defies reason. If people would be a little more critical of finasteride and admit "Okay, so it is a little bad," there could be a lot more research into what levels actually cause variations in symptoms and the particular feedback loops and levels could be controlled for.

Unrestrained defense of a drug is not a good way to handle things.

thanks davey for your response--unfortunately what is still unclear is how the body seems to change when on finasteride, i.e., the whole question of why it takes months to get sides to go away (if they do go away at all). clearly there is too little information. i am not a finasteride basher--i, like many of us on this forum, want to know as much as possible about the substances i put into my body to combat hairloss. i do wish the fda would be more forthcoming with finasteride's potential "dark side."

And for those who think side effect reports are constrained to these forums.

You're wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Davey Jones

The body does not produce DHT directly, really. Basically, testosterone in your bloodstream is binded to a substance that prevents it's breakdown. This allows testosterone to get to androgen receptors in a functional state. Once unbinded though (as it must be to bind to receptor sites and enzymes), substances can convert testosterone into other hormones. You're probably familiar with the fact that test converts to estrogen. It also converts to DHT though, once combined with a particular enzyme. Fin, however, is more competative in reacting with this enzyme. Thus, fin sort of uses up all of that substance by binding with it instead of test, allowing testosterone to remain as testosterone. It doesn't do anything to DHT itself.

So the answer to your question is that yes, those are different processes. Fin does the stop production one.

(A substance that "blocked" DHT would instead be more competative in binding with the receptor site. But as the site in question is the androgen receptor site, I'd imagine blocking that would be bad news bears even harder than fin is already sometimes bad news bears.)

---

Nicely said, and the enzyme which finasteride works on is 5alpha-reductase. Also, used for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia.

The bodys naturally produced enzyme, 5 Alpha-Reductase, binds to Testosterone and in that binding process it "pulls" apart what it has bound and creates other hormones such as Allopregnanolone (a neurological hormone) and Dihydrotestosterone. DHT does not exist in the body, at all, unless 5AR creates it.

5-AR Type II is the primary enzyme that creates DHT, though Type I is being found to have some effect on hair loss as well (due to dustasteride being found to also help).

Finasteride basically sticks itself in between 5-AR and Testosterone. Finasteride has binding receptacles that 5-AR Type II binds to so it effectively prohibits a large portion of the conversion of T to DHT.

Dutasteride has receptacles for 5-AR Type I and Type II and thusly has a greater effect. One could almost say the use of Dut would simulate a 5-AR deficiency.

Finasteride has a half life of I believe it was 8 hours. So 1mg is .5mg after 8 hours and .5mg would be .25mg after 8 hours etc etc.


Why a reduced dosage has the potential to lessen side effect symptoms is that the body will have what amounts to a mostly clear period after 8 hours. .5 to 1mg Finasteride "blocks" approximately 70% of 5AR conversions, and it parabolically drops off below .5mg.

Quote:

---

Finasteride has a half life of I believe it was 8 hours. So 1mg is .5mg after 8 hours and .5mg would be .25mg after 8 hours etc etc.

---

If that's the case, it means after 3 months I should be fine, unless something else is going on. Any ideas on what the "something else" is? Then we can figure out how to resolve it.

Well apparently some people believe side effects are in peoples heads.....but to be honest I have never heard so much tosh in all my life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotBelievingIt

Finasteride basically sticks itself in between 5-AR and Testosterone. Finasteride has binding receptacles that 5-AR Type II binds to so it effectively prohibits a large portion of the conversion of T to DHT.

Finasteride has a half life of I believe it was 8 hours. So 1mg is .5mg after 8 hours and .5mg would be .25mg after 8 hours etc etc.

---

Finally some biological mechanism. I always thought fin was a competitive inhibitor to 5-AR (enzyme) that catalyzes testosterone to DHT. So by increasing the substrate levels [concentration], it would have a better chance in binding to the enzyme and preventing further increase in DHT levels.

What is an competitive inhibitor? Binds substrate that competes for the binding at the active site of the enzyme where the reaction occurs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_inhibition

But from what your saying, it looks like an uncompetitive inhibitor which binds to the enzyme and testosterone. Meaning you slow down the production of DHT but not as effective as competitive inhibitors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncompetitive_inhibitor

Most of the drugs out there are competitive inhibitors, and are more effective in preventing reactions from occuring than uncompetitive.

http://www.drugs.com/pro/propecia.html

The link above claims fin is a competitive inhibitor.....so it doesnt bind to testosterone at all. Just the 5-AR.

I also have a B.S in Biological Sciences.

Isnt the FDA medication approval process a pretty thorough way of determining if a medication is fit for public consumption or not? even if it isnt, there have been a ton of studies done on finasteride after the fact that all show it is tolerated well and I don’t think any permanent or severe side effects resulted from those... the fact that all this talk of severe side effects is so recently compared to how long the medication has been on the market really shows how very rare this is!

of course after a drug is released and millions of people start taking it, you will start to see very rare side effects that weren’t found initially. This isn’t unique to finasteride and it happens with literally any prescription medication out there. Merck and the FDA aren’t backtracking like you are saying, if anything it shows they continue to monitor adverse side effects to watch for these rare events and updates their labels to warn of these changes. Just like how they noticed in extremely rare cases it can cause male breast cancer or prostate cancer or depression.

finasteride isn’t perfect, I don’t even think its near perfect. but it is a very effective treatment for hair loss but you risk some very rare symptoms if you take it. On the other side of the coin, there isn’t much else to treat hair loss right now, and hair loss itself can be extremely hard on some people, so anyone thinking about taking it really needs to weigh out the pro’s and con’s.

everyone seems to make propecia out to be some sort of horrible devil drug, but has anyone ever looked at antidepressants? sexual side effects from antidepressants effect somewhere around 20% of all users, and this is very well documented. Not to mention about another dozens of common side effects. Just to name a few: nausea, vomiting, headache, fatigue, dizziness, insomnia, diarrhea, weight loss, weight gain, mania, tremors, cardiovascular problems, severe withdrawal symptoms, and even sexual dysfunction that can last years after stopping the treatment. And MILLIONS of people take these treatments, usually without a second thought. Whats worse is kids are getting treated with antidepressants more and more often. I think I read that over 50 million people have taken or are currently taking antidepressants! Its weird to me that

So yeah, finasteride isn’t perfect, and it can cause very rare and severe symptoms. But when you put it into perspective and compare it to other drugs like antidepressants, which are one of the most commonly prescribed types of medications, finasteride isn’t really that bad. Unfortunately this doesn’t help the people that ended up with bad side effects.. Hopefully we can get some better studies that give us a full understanding of whats happening and how these people can be treated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisis

Also, the onus is on the drug pusher to prove its safety, not the patient or victim.

---

But since finasteride did pass the required safety protocols of those clinical trials, the onus is really now upon those who claim it is unsafe to prove their case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_charger

everyone seems to make propecia out to be some sort of horrible devil drug, but has anyone ever looked at antidepressants?

---

That's because for some of us it has been a horrible devil drug!

And if, as you suggest, "everyone" is suggesting so, then perhaps it's time to start questioning the validity and integrity of the studies! There have actually been very few reliable trials. The biggest ones were either funded by Merck - no potential bias there then! :rolleyes: And another was comprised entirely of Japanese men - which can at most only document how safe the drug is for Japanese men!

Let the men on these forums speak the truth. Let the FDA and Merck's revised positions and label-changing antics speak the truth. Let the fact that Propecia is designed to literally **** with your testosterone levels speak for itself.

It's time to face facts and for people to talk about this drug responsibly and safely.

No more "it's in your head".

No more "it only affects 2%".

I call bullshit on both of those statements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gmonasco

But since finasteride did pass the required safety protocols of those clinical trials, the onus is really now upon those who claim it is unsafe to prove their case.

---

Never heard of Accutane?

Quote:

---

In 2009, Roche decided to pull Accutane off the US market after juries had awarded millions of dollars in damages to former Accutane users over inflammatory bowel disease claims. Among others, actor James Marshall sued Roche for $11 million in damages over Accutane-related disease that resulted in removal of his colon.

---

Accutane was cleared by the FDA, until people started killing themselves and reporting depression.

I got this from elsewhere and I can't improve on the wording so I quote:

"Don't take something as gospel just because "science" tested it and the FDA approved it. Scientists can lie just like everyone else. The FDA isn't some superhuman infallible agency. Biotechnology is INCREDIBLY competitive and a huge portion of companies are living month to month and/or barely making it on angel funding. The pressure to prove efficacy and publish good results can be incredible. I admire your faith and I do think the FDA does a good job. But blind faith will kill you."

Also the very fact that the FDA and Merck are in "reverse" position on side effects should be enough to cast doubt on those initial trials that passed the FDA.

Would the drug be approved if the potential for permanent side effects was known then? Unfortunately we find ourselves in a position where there is too much money involved and there are too many reputations at stake.

Quote:

---

That's because for some of us it has been a horrible devil drug!

---

I think people with peanut allergies have the same viewpoint about peanuts. again its really horrible that anyone has to deal with bad side effects.. I can totally understand your viewpoint here, but rare reactions to happen on all medications.

Quote:

---

And if, as you suggest, "everyone" is suggesting so, then perhaps it's time to start questioning the validity and integrity of the studies! There have actually been very few reliable trials. The biggest ones were either funded by Merck - no potential bias there then! :rolleyes: And another was comprised entirely of Japanese men - which can at most only document how safe the drug is for Japanese men!

---

Why does it matter that they are japanese men? if you are saying that severe side effects are race specific?

I saw this mentioned in the big thread with spencer and Dr.Wasserbauer, but the biggest and long term study of finasteride for like 18,000 men (half on placebo) for 7 years was done by a university and not funded by Merck. The only thing I saw that Merck funded was providing Proscar tablets for the patients to take during the study. Whats wrong with this one then?

Quote:

---

Let the men on these forums speak the truth. Let the FDA and Merck's revised positions and label-changing antics speak the truth. Let the fact that Propecia is designed to literally **** with your testosterone levels speak for itself.

It's time to face facts and for people to talk about this drug responsibly and safely.

No more "it's in your head".

No more "it only affects 2%".

I call bullshit on both of those statements.

---

You are saying to listen to guys on forums that are basing their opinion on their own bad experience instead of these studies that involve thousands of men in a controlled environment? How does propecia literally **** with your testosterone levels? doesnt your testosterone levels rise when you take finasteride? If my testosterone levels are so ****ed right now, how is it possible I havent had any side effects? I have made almost 20lbs in gains at the gym in the last year. How could be this possible with "****ed" testosterone levels?

you can call bullshit all you want, but you havent really provided a good argument for any of this. you are telling everyone to ignore studies (proof) and instead listen to all the guys on forums that have bad experiences, and then you say in the same post that we should talk "responsibly"?

I’m sorry dude but your reality is a little skewed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_charger

I think people with peanut allergies have the same viewpoint about peanuts. again its really horrible that anyone has to deal with bad side effects.. I can totally understand your viewpoint here, but rare reactions to happen on all medications.

---

Your thinking is so flawed that I don't know where to begin, but I'll attempt to dissect your points one by one.

You simply cannot compare a hypersensitive reaction to nuts, to a drug that is prescribed to intentionally alter the biochemistry of the male hormonal system. Peanuts aren't a medication for a start, peanut allergic reactions affect between 0.4-0.6% of the population, and sufferers can avoid symptoms by simply avoiding peanuts. Let's hope that stops the peanut analogy right there!

Quote:

---

Why does it matter that they are japanese men? if you are saying that severe side effects are race specific?

---

As someone who publicly defends Propecia and is thereby charged with demonstrating that it's safe, can you rule out that side effects aren't race specific? I'm sure you know for instance that many people of Asian descent can't tolerate alcohol because of a genetic mutation that other races don't have.

Quote:

---

I saw this mentioned in the big thread with spencer and Dr.Wasserbauer, but the biggest and long term study of finasteride for like 18,000 men (half on placebo) for 7 years was done by a university and not funded by Merck. The only thing I saw that Merck funded was providing Proscar tablets for the patients to take during the study. Whats wrong with this one then?

---

Source the trial.

Quote:

---

You are saying to listen to guys on forums that are basing their opinion on their own bad experience instead of these studies that involve thousands of men in a controlled environment?

---

Yes. If Merck and the FDA are backtracking on their warnings, then there's clearly something that concerns them - no doubt for legal and financial reasons. As I mentioned earlier, it wouldn't be the first time that a drug has been withdrawn because the original trials that cleared the FDA were proven to be unreliable. Reasons why that happen are numerous! It's naive to think that the FDA are infallible and that Merck aren't operating solely with regard to commercial interest.

Quote:

---

How does propecia literally **** with your testosterone levels? doesnt your testosterone levels rise when you take finasteride? If my testosterone levels are so ****ed right now, how is it possible I havent had any side effects? I have made almost 20lbs in gains at the gym in the last year. How could be this possible with "****ed" testosterone levels?

---

Where to begin with this? Literally sighing here. For a start, you're inferring that Propecia is totally safe because of your single, anecdotal, positive experience (thus far). Are we meant to be surprised at your account that it's safe?! It should be! Probability ought to be in your favour! The real question is how many people is the drug NOT safe for? Your positive experience tells us absolutely nothing of any value!!!

Next, it's got nothing to do with testosterone levels. The issue is DHT. DHT is what causes you to bald, and the interactions of DHT is what Propecia basically blocks.

"DHT has approximately three times greater affinity for androgen receptors than testosterone and has 15-30 times greater affinity than adrenal androgens."

DHT is a primary sex hormone involved in regulating libido is both men and women, so if there is no DHT in the body, your libido will be effected.

Quote:

---

As someone who publicly defends Propecia and is thereby charged with demonstrating that it's safe, can you rule out that side effects aren't race specific? I'm sure you know for instance that many people of Asian descent can't tolerate alcohol because of a genetic mutation that other races don't have.

---

Fair enough, yes many conditions are race specific. but my problem is you are saying an entire study is BS because there *might* be a chance it only affects certain races? what you are doing is trying to get me to prove a negative (basically evidence of absence) by asking me to rule out the possibility that it’s race specific. This is a really, really weak argument. It’s the type of argument people use when they don't have a leg to stand on (yes I took a debate course last semester and am quite familiar with techniques people often try to use to win an argument). Its just like if we were arguing about the color of the sky: I think its blue and you think its red. You tell me “okay smart ass, prove to me that the sky ISN’T red!”

Quote:

---

Source the trial.

---

Took a while, but found it! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12824459

Quote:

---

Yes. If Merck and the FDA are backtracking on their warnings, then there's clearly something that concerns them - no doubt for legal and financial reasons. As I mentioned earlier, it wouldn't be the first time that a drug has been withdrawn because the original trials that cleared the FDA were proven to be unreliable. Reasons why that happen are numerous! It's naive to think that the FDA are infallible and that Merck aren't operating solely with regard to commercial interest.

---

Okay again, how *exactly* are they “backtracking” on their warnings? Look up the definition of that word please, just so you understand it’s the complete opposite of what you are trying to explain. You might want to use the word "revising" because it makes much more sense and is completely accurate.

OK so if the FDA is as unreliable as you say then should we just ignore this new warning they released? Okay lets just do that, it will save a lot of time arguing!

Quote:

---

Where to begin with this? Literally sighing here.

---

LOL!! you are the one sighing? You made so many contradictory remarks in this next statement. I have a paper due tomorrow, but I just have to point out how many blatant mistakes you have made here:

Quote:

---

For a start, you're inferring that Propecia is totally safe

---

So this is exactly what I said a few posts back: “finasteride isn’t perfect, I don’t even think its near perfect. but it is a very effective treatment for hair loss but you risk some very rare symptoms if you take it.”

You read that statement and then somehow take my meaning to be “Propecia is totally safe”. You are clearly pulling things out of your ass here… Try to remember that posts are saved on this thread and very easy for everyone to confirm!

All I was trying to show is that propecia is *relatively* safe, when you compare to other common prescription medications. In all honesty, no prescription medication is or ever will ever be completely safe.. But its all a matter of weighing out risk versus benefit

Quote:

---

because of your single, anecdotal, positive experience (thus far)

---

Okay, just a few posts back you said, and I quote “Let the men on these forums speak the truth” meaning we should stop listening to the fda and merck and studies, and start listening to the individual, anecdotal stories that people have to tell. So my experience, because it is good, should be ignored, yes? But yours and others because they are bad should be listened to? How ass backwards is that?

Quote:

---

Next, it's got nothing to do with testosterone levels. The issue is DHT. DHT is what causes you to bald, and the interactions of DHT is what Propecia basically blocks.

---

and again a few posts back you said this “Let the fact that Propecia is designed to literally **** with your testosterone levels speak for itself”

I'm sorry but when you said the word "testosterone" I thought you might have been talking about testosterone.. not sure how I ****ed that one up, apologies.

Quote:

---

DHT is a primary sex hormone involved in regulating libido is both men and women, so if there is no DHT in the body, your libido will be effected.

---

Im going to call you out on this and ask for a source also, please. The Wikipedia article says nothing about DHT regulating libido, so can you show me a source that says that? You are just jumping to conclusions, unless you have a better source. the wikipedia article actually kinda supports what I thought, that DHT is really only important during development, and after puberty it doesnt do much of anything except make people bald.

You might possibly be right that if there is no DHT in the body whatsoever, it could affect the libido. But finasteride only inhibits like 60% of DHT right? So it’s pretty obvious that the remaining 40% is more than enough for most men to get along great without problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_charger

Fair enough, yes many conditions are race specific. but my problem is you are saying an entire study is BS because there *might* be a chance it only affects certain races? what you are doing is trying to get me to prove a negative (basically evidence of absence) by asking me to rule out the possibility that it’s race specific. This is a really, really weak argument.

---

How is it a weak argument? Clearly the participants were all Japanese. How can the trial prove safety in men who aren't Japanese in that case? There is a high likelihood in my view that there is a genetic basis to whether someone suffers side effects, just as there is a genetic basis as to whether a man suffers from MPB at all!!

Quote:

---

Took a while, but found it! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12824459

---

You've cited two trials. In one all of the participants were Japanese, in the other all of the men were 55 years of age or older.

Do you SERIOUSLY not see any problem with the methodology of these trials despite the fact no men under 55 of caucasian descent were involved? I'm not sure whether you're a troll, an idiot or a Merck employee.

Quote:

---

Okay again, how *exactly* are they “backtracking” on their warnings? Look up the definition of that word please, just so you understand it’s the complete opposite of what you are trying to explain. You might want to use the word "revising" because it makes much more sense and is completely accurate.

---

They changed the labeling to expand the list of sexual adverse events and suggest a possibility that they may be permanent in some men. Whether it's a "revision" or "backtracking" is mere semantics.

Quote:

---

OK so if the FDA is as unreliable as you say then should we just ignore this new warning they released? Okay lets just do that, it will save a lot of time arguing!

---

I did not suggest we should ignore them, simply acknowledge they are not infallible, as demonstrated by their "revised" (happy?) stance on Propecia.

Quote:

---

All I was trying to show is that propecia is *relatively* safe, when you compare to other common prescription medications.

---

"Relatively" safe just does not cut it! Who are you kidding? We have a right to know exactly how safe. This is not a prescription medicine to treat a disease, it is purely a vanity drug; men deserve to know the full risks before opting into a drug they don't necessarily need.

Quote:

---

Okay, just a few posts back you said, and I quote “Let the men on these forums speak the truth” meaning we should stop listening to the fda and merck and studies, and start listening to the individual, anecdotal stories that people have to tell. So my experience, because it is good, should be ignored, yes? But yours and others because they are bad should be listened to? How ass backwards is that?

---

You miss my point. I will try to spell it out one more time. Your experience is supposed to be good - probability is supposed to be strongly in your favour; you are in the 97%. I (and many others) are in the 3%, so my experience is far more important in terms of determining the safety of Propecia. It's not a matter of bias, it's a matter of statistics.

Quote:

---

I'm sorry but when you said the word "testosterone" I thought you might have been talking about testosterone.. not sure how I ****ed that one up, apologies.

---

I messed up there. I was referring to a comment I read elsewhere and "****ing up testosterone levels" is a casual and inaccurate way of describing what happens. I described the actual interactions of finasteride and DHT in my follow-up post and either way, the truth is finasteride impairs hormones in the body which can subsequently impair sexual health. That is undeniable - it's how the drug works.

Quote:

---

Im going to call you out on this and ask for a source also, please. The Wikipedia article says nothing about DHT regulating libido, so can you show me a source that says that? You are just jumping to conclusions, unless you have a better source.

---

Sure took me 30 seconds!

"DHT's status as a highly active androgen hormone causes an increase in sex drive, especially in individuals using supplemental amounts of it. Its inhibition of estrogen in the body also causes the increase in sexual desire."

Quote:

---

You might possibly be right that if there is no DHT in the body whatsoever, it could affect the libido. But finasteride only inhibits like 60% of DHT right? So it’s pretty obvious that the remaining 40% is more than enough for most men to get along great without problems.

---

Are you kidding me? You think it's ok that finasteride might only mess up 60% of a hormone that is crucial for good sexual health? Sure some men might get along with 40%, but the question remains how many men? How safe is this drug? Nobody knows!!!.

Im in a bit of a hurry and will respond to the rest of your post a bit later, but I just wanted to comment on that source you provided:

Quote:

---

Sure took me 30 seconds!

"DHT's status as a highly active androgen hormone causes an increase in sex drive, especially in individuals using supplemental amounts of it. Its inhibition of estrogen in the body also causes the increase in sexual desire."

---

maybe, you should spend a bit more than 30 seconds to find me a source on this. First, this is an article written by "Chris Stee" (not a doctor) on eHow.. a website that also shows how to change the oil in my car.

His first 2 references link to www.thinksteroids.com, the articles are written by "Patrick Arnold" (not a doctor). Even worse, this website actually SELLS anabolic steroids including DHT boosting products. that directly shows they have a clear bias in promoting their products.

The third reference (Cleveland clinic) is actually a pretty legit website, but doesn't even mention the word DHT. It just says androgen deficiency brought on by age can cause sexual problems, which is 100% true! Testosterone is very closely linked to sexual desire, but says nothing about DHT.

Find me a study, preferably written by a doctor, with a conclusion that says something along the line of "DHT is directly responsible for maintaining libido or erections". If this is such a well known fact like you say, it shouldnt be hard to find a good study (written and conducted by DOCTORS!) that concludes what you are saying. of course I could be wrong about all this because I havent completely soured the internet to research this stuff, but form what ive seen you are wrong.. But bringing me to the second point really nails my point home




so have you ever heard of the drug dutasteride? apparently it also acts same as finasteride and lowers DHT, but it actually lowers it by over 95% instead of only 60% like finasteride. So if we go by what you are sayin, every single guy that takes this dustateride has to have almost 100% sexual side effects.. But when I looked at these side effects for that drug, they are just slightly higher than finasteride. if what you are saying is true, how on earth do you explain this???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_charger

maybe, you should spend a bit more than 30 seconds to find me a source on this. First, this is an article written by "Chris Stee" (not a doctor) on eHow.. a website that also shows how to change the oil in my car.

---

Fine! My point was (aside: you seem to consistently miss these!) that it isn't difficult to establish how important DHT is in male sexual health, but within a few minutes I've found two reliable sources from different academic backgrounds which will hopefully meet the extraordinary high standards you set for arguments against what you believe!

"DHT is responsible for the formation of male primary sex characteristics during embryonic life and responsible for the development of most secondary sex characteristics in males at puberty, and it continues to be important to male sexual function throughout adult life."
by Ron Kennedy, M.D., Santa Rosa, CA
http://www.medical-library.net/content/view/1527/41/

Without adequate DHT men have no body hair at all (which is why companies that make hair removal products for men love DHT) and, more importantly, without adequate DHT the male sexual organs (including the prostate) fail to fully mature. This bad condition is compounded by low sex drive and impaired sexual function.
Mike Mahler, stength coach and author
http://www.mikemahler.com/online-lib...androgens.html

Quote:

---

Find me a study, preferably written by a doctor, with a conclusion that says something along the line of "DHT is directly responsible for maintaining libido or erections".

---

This is ridiculous. You want a study that proves a basic biological function? Studies are for proving medications. The function of DHT is known. If you want to study it read some medical literature.

Quote:

---

so have you ever heard of the drug dutasteride? apparently it also acts same as finasteride and lowers DHT, but it actually lowers it by over 95% instead of only 60% like finasteride. So if we go by what you are sayin, every single guy that takes this dustateride has to have almost 100% sexual side effects.. But when I looked at these side effects for that drug, they are just slightly higher than finasteride. if what you are saying is true, how on earth do you explain this???

---

Data on dutasteride is even less comprehensive than studies on finasteride. The only study I know of was performed by GlaxoSmithKline who chose not to even bother taking it to the FDA.

My previous points stand, whether you find the time to reply or not.

Quote:

---

Fine! My point was (aside: you seem to consistently miss these!) that it isn't difficult to establish how important DHT is in male sexual health, but within a few minutes I've found two reliable sources from different academic backgrounds.......

........... "DHT is responsible for the formation of male primary sex characteristics during embryonic life and responsible for the development of most secondary sex characteristics in males at puberty, and it continues to be important to male sexual function throughout adult life."
by Ron Kennedy, M.D., Santa Rosa, CA
http://www.medical-library.net/content/view/1527/41/

---

this is a slightly better source because it is at least written by a doctor, but still a very bad one. I completely agree DHT is very important for embryonic development and for puberty. This is why there is a very explicit warning saying that pregnant women should stay far away from finasteride, and the reason why only fully matured men (only older than 18) should ever take it.

but this isnt a study. its not even an article! it's a small sentence written by a doctor that practices very questionable treatments. For the first two examples I found on his webpage, he treats patients with Photoluminescence Therapy and Intravenous Hydrogen Peroxide Therapy, both regarded as complete quackery. that wouldnt matter at all if he actually had a source for his statements but he doesnt.

Quote:

---

Without adequate DHT men have no body hair at all (which is why companies that make hair removal products for men love DHT) and, more importantly, without adequate DHT the male sexual organs (including the prostate) fail to fully mature. This bad condition is compounded by low sex drive and impaired sexual function.
Mike Mahler, stength coach and author
http://www.mikemahler.com/online-lib...androgens.html

---

Please don't cite any more studies unless they at least are written by a (non-quack) doctor. "Mahler's aggressive strength" doesnt exactly scream professional of medicine to me. and yet again, no sources to be found.

Quote:

---

which will hopefully meet the extraordinary high standards you set for arguments against what you believe!

---

Lets just get this straight so that everyone reading can understand whats really going on here. you have outright rejected the 3 largest finasteride studies i've posted because the studies werent conducted in the exact methods that you would feel live up to your standards (ill expand on this next time I post to reply to your other statemnts). These studies were done by universities, medical agencies, were placebo controlled, were done on thousands of patients, took place over the course of years, showed all data, and were conducted by groups of dozens of medical professionals.


the sources you provided, that you believe are completely relevant, consist of:

1. An article written by 'Chris Steel' on www.ehow.com. Sources are provided, link to articles written by other non-doctors on a website that sells DHT supplements and steroids. The only somewhat legit source linked to a page with irrelevant information.

2. A short sentence posted on the website of a very questionable Dr. Kennedy. No citations for any of his statements. He also sells treatments that are supposed to boost or regulate hormones.

3. An article written by a strength coach. No sources cited.


and just to stress this again, just so everyone can very plainly see this, you told me that I have "extraordinary high standards" when it comes to sources and studies. I think actually I have very reasonable standards. Your standards appear to be very lacking, in that basically you will believe almost anything you read on the internet, as long as it directly supports your theories....that about right?

please take some time to read up on what is considered a good source or study. If you cant figure this out, let me know and ill be happy to explain the "extraordinary high standards" that is shared by almost every professional out there.

Quote:

---

This is ridiculous. You want a study that proves a basic biological function? Studies are for proving medications. The function of DHT is known. If you want to study it read some medical literature.

---

okay ill say this again, if it is such a basic and fundamental biological function, the internet must be overflowing with very strong studies that show without a doubt that this is the case. why havent you been able to show me anything even passable?

Quote:

---

Data on dutasteride is even less comprehensive than studies on finasteride. The only study I know of was performed by GlaxoSmithKline who chose not to even bother taking it to the FDA.

---

What are you talking about? just look at the wikipedia article, dutasteride IS FDA approved for BPH in north america! If you are saying its not approved for hair loss, yes this is true, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what I am saying. Men could be taking the drug for a runny nose for all I care, it doesnt matter because it still has the exact same effect on the body.


I really want to understand what your problem with this is, so i'll break it down, and please answer each statement im making here:


1. dutasteride lowers dht by about 95%. Do you agree? If not, why?

2. You are saying that DHT is largely responsible for libido, therefore if DHT is lowered to a significant degree, the vast majority of people will have sexual problems. Do you agree? If not, why?

3. Studies of dutasteride on average show side effects similar to what studies of finasteride show. side effects like loss of libido and ed occur slightly more frequently in men taking dutasteride, but not by much. certainly, not every test subject is experience complete impotence or loss of libodo. Do you agree? If not, why?

Quote:

---

My previous points stand, whether you find the time to reply or not.

---

Don't think I am trying to get out of responding to your other points, but I am currently juggling some other important tasks. I just wanted to conclude this discussion about DHT because I am so utterly convinced you are wrong. Ill respond to your other points later if not tonight if I can.

BTW thank you for challenging me, honestly. A week ago I didnt really know much about any of this stuff, but ever since we started debating ive spent a lot of time searching google and reading a lot of these studies, and understanding finasteride much better.

Double post

Before we go any further, I want you to digest this. Do you accept these definitions of DHT used by health professionals from medical literature? Is there anything more you need before I actually pull my hair out?

dihydrotestosterone /di·hy·dro·tes·tos·te·rone/ (DHT) (-tes-tos´tĕ-rōn) an androgenic hormone formed in peripheral tissue by the action of 5 on testosterone; thought to be the androgen responsible for development of male primary sex characters during embryogenesis and of male secondary sex characters at puberty, and for adult male sexual function.
Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers.

dihydrotestosterone (DHT)
[di-hi′drōtestos′terōn]
an androgenic hormone formed in peripheral tissue from testosterone. It is thought to be the androgen responsible for development of the male primary sex characters during embryogenesis and of male secondary sex characters at puberty and for adult male sexual function.
Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition

dihydrotestosterone (DHT) [di-hi″dro-tes-tos´tĕ-rōn]
an androgenic hormone formed in peripheral tissue from testosterone; thought to be the androgen responsible for development of the male primary sex characters during embryogenesis and of male secondary sex characters at puberty, and for adult male sexual function.
Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health, Seventh Edition

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/DHT

I will take a look at these links you provided. I take your response to mean you wont respond to the very good points I made in my previous post?

*EDIT*

wow that didnt take long.

sigh... Okay you have posted three links to the same website that contains definitions that can be easily added by anyone

NONE OF THESE PROVIDE A SOURCE TO A STUDY THAT SUPPORTS WHAT THEY ARE SAYING

For the third time now: you are saying this is a common, fundamental biological function. If this is really the case, show me a STUDY that supports what you are saying. I dont know how I can explain this any more clearly. Do you know what a medical study is? Im not asking for the world here, and I think im being extremely reasonable.

The reference I supplied sourced 3 definitions of DHT from 3 medical authorities:

Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers.
Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition
Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health, Seventh Edition

Why is this not good enough for you? I've got no idea what your problem is with TheFreeDictionary.com. It's just a website that aggregates information from various sources.

Quote:

---

I will take a look at these links you provided. I take your response to mean you wont respond to the very good points I made in my previous post?

---

I have no interest in debating with an idiot. If you can't accept what the medical literature says about DHT then I give up on this debate.

Here's another medical reference:

"Dihydrotestosterone: A byproduct of the male hormone testosterone. Dihydrotestosterone (DHT) is considered to be the essential androgenic hormone. DHT is responsible for the formation of male primary sex characteristics during embryonic life. It is responsible for the development of most secondary sex characteristics in males at puberty. And it continues to be important to male sexual function throughout adult life. A semisynthetic analog of DHT is called stanolone."

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/...ticlekey=33416

okay my new friend, the fact that you are now resorting to personal insults and refuse to respond to any of the questions I asked you shows me that you have no more sound arguments to make, and are essentially giving up. again, something I also learned in debate class, as soon as someone says something along the lines of "I wont waste my time debating this with an idiot like you" pretty plainly shows they have just admitted defeat.

So if you arent giving up, at the very least, respond to what I said about Dutasteride, because that alone proves that you are completely wrong. I think you know this, you have no idea how to respond to it, so you are now resorting to insults. If im wrong, prove it. respond to it and tell me why its wrong.

you still are unable to provide one study or valid source that supports anything you are saying. I keep asking you for one thing, and you give me the complete opposite. I've given you 3 chances now, and everything you are posting is garbage. your fundamental inability to understand what constitutes a valid source or study makes this all very difficult. And for a fourth time, you post yet another website with a definition and no source.

let me try to explain to you what a study is and maybe you will finally understand something here:

A study will often start when a group of doctors have a hypothesis. If there is not enough existing to reach a sound conclusion based on this hypothesis, a study will usually be conducted. they will set up the study to eliminate biases, and make sure they get some solid usable results. then they get together a group of test subjects, usually with a placebo control, then conduct the study. They monitor the study closely, take tests, then analyze the data afterwards. Then, they look at the data, then conclude whether or not the PROOF supports their hypothesis. the data tells them how and why their hypothesis is true or false. This will be summarized in the conclusion.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?

I AM SAYING THIS FOR THE FOURTH TIME NOW: you said that the fact DHT is critical in maintaining libido, erectile function and general sexual health is fundamental, common medical knowledge. SHOW ME SOMETHING THAT PROVES THIS!

A website with definitions posted by anonmyous authors is not PROOF
An article written by a doctor with no sources is not PROOF
An article written by a non-doctor with no sources is not PROOF



last but not least..

YOUR PERSONAL OPINION AND INABILITY TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT YOU ARE WRONG IS NOT PROOF


Hope to hear from you again :)

i honestly havent looked into this very much because I already know im right, but here is an example of a study I just came across:


http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/91/7/2509.full


just fyi, this is what a study looks like. All those little numbers and graphs are called DATA... pretty arent they? :D


There were over a thousand test subjects. Doctors had a hypothesis, that they thought Testosterone was responsible for libido in men, but didnt have any solid data to prove it.

So they set up a study. they set up test parameters, conducted the study and looked at the data. the data strongly supported their hypothesis that Testosterone IS responsible for libido. Nowhere in this study is DHT even mentioned. You would think maybe if DHT were so crucial for libido that they might have mentioned that?

You refuse to accept the medical definition of DHT.

http://www.bmj.com/content/310/6990/1289

"Conclusions: Differences in concentrations of circulating dihydrotestosterone within the normal range may represent a major predictor of sexual activity in healthy young men."

That should satisfy you.

Also note from the study:

• The hormone that determines sexual behavior has not yet been conclusively identified in healthy adults
• This study shows that dihydrotestosterone is the dominant hormonal determinant of the frequency of orgasms in young healthy adults
• The frequency of orgasms depends not only on psychosocial factors but on variation of dihydrotestosterone concentrations within the normal range

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finaste...nism_of_action

END OF THREAD

Quote:

---

http://www.bmj.com/content/310/6990/1289

"Conclusions: Differences in concentrations of circulating dihydrotestosterone within the normal range may represent a major predictor of sexual activity in healthy young men."

That should satisfy you.

---

by george, you've got it! thank you for finally posting a study! this is very satisfactory!

that being said, this doesnt mean you are right.

Quote:

---

• The hormone that determines sexual behavior has not yet been conclusively identified in healthy adults

---

the much more recent study I posted very conclusively identifies Testosterone as the hormone responsible for sexual behavior in adults. the study you posted is from 1995, and this statement shows its age.

Quote:

---

• This study shows that dihydrotestosterone is the dominant hormonal determinant of the frequency of orgasms in young healthy adults
• The frequency of orgasms depends not only on psychosocial factors but on variation of dihydrotestosterone concentrations within the normal range

---

the problem with this study is they basically took 92 guys, measured their hormone levels, asked them how many orgasms they had every week, and noticed guys with slightly higher blood DHT levels had one more orgasm per week. this is interesting, but it certainly does tell us that DHT is solely responsible for normal sexual functioning in men. all of these guys are sexually active, healthy, and have hormone levels within a normal range. this study does not tell us that when DHT levels are lowered, that libido lowers as a direct result. It also concludes that "DHT may represent a major predictor of sexual activity" which is a far-cry from what you are saying that if there is no DHT in the body, your libido will be directly affected.

this is certainly an interesting study, and like i said before, it opens the door for some further studies, but it does not undoubtably prove what you are saying by any means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisis

You refuse to accept the medical definition of DHT.

---

I do officially refuse to accept the statement in the link you provided.

to reiterate, the definition you are talking about is this:

Quote:

---

Dihydrotestosterone: A byproduct of the male hormone testosterone. Dihydrotestosterone (DHT) is considered to be the essential androgenic hormone. DHT is responsible for the formation of male primary sex characteristics during embryonic life. It is responsible for the development of most secondary sex characteristics in males at puberty. And it continues to be important to male sexual function throughout adult life. A semisynthetic analog of DHT is called stanolone.

---

found here:

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/...ticlekey=33416



This does not have an author, it does not have a source, and there is no way of verifying anything that is said in that sentence from this website. The statement "And it continues to be important to male sexual function throughout adult life" if you hadn't noticed is what we have been debating for the last 2 pages. are you trying to trick me or something?

If you want to agree on a definition of the words "Dihydrotestosterone" how about we just go directly from the Wikipedia article? at least this is regularly vetted by people that check the sources!!

Quote:

---

Dihydrotestosterone (5α-Dihydrotestosterone, commonly abbreviated to DHT) is an androgen or male sex hormone. The enzyme 5α-reductase synthesizes DHT in the prostate, testes, hair follicles, and adrenal glands

---

since for some reason you want to define the meaning of this word, I think we can both agree this is a very valid and accurate definition.





NOW with respect to our side discussion about DHT, I believe I have answered all of your questions. I responded to your study, I responded above to the definition of DHT, now please answer my questions about dutasteride. I believe the point I have made with it will more or less completely end this discussion. you skirted this and refused to answer twice now, but since I took the time to respond to your demands, i would like you to show the same respect please.

Quote:

---

I do officially refuse to accept the statement in the link you provided.

---

I'm not going any further in this debate until you accept that DHT is a hormone responsible for good male sexual health.

I've provided medical literature and a study. It's there in black and white. Your quote above might as well say "I refuse to accept facts".

Quote:

---

I'm not going any further in this debate until you accept that DHT is a hormone responsible for good male sexual health.

---

translation: "I know I cant win this so maybe I can trick him into admitting hes wrong!!"

I really clearly explained the problems with that definition.... Who wrote it? Where are the sources? How old is that definition? you can probably understand, medicine changes quickly. maybe it was the understanding back in the 1980's was that DHT was very important for sexual functioning in adult men, but a lot can change in 30 years and it really obvious that it has, as the end of this post will really clearly show. even the study you posted said that hormones and the effect on sexual function was very poorly understood.

Quote:

---

I've provided medical literature and a study. It's there in black and white. Your quote above might as well say "I refuse to accept facts".

---

you provided a study from 1995 that shows 93 young, healthy men with slightly higher DHT levels on average have one extra orgasm a week.

Your theory is that DHT is absolutely vital to maintain libido in adult men.

no, the study you posted doesnt even closely show this is "black and white". Please read the following closely and tell me again that im refusing to accept facts.






so im just showing sources to save you time arguing. this is the source for the following setence: http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_avodart.pdf

Quote:

---

After 1 and 2 weeks of daily dosing with dutasteride 0.5 mg, median serum DHT concentrations were reduced by 85% and 90%, respectively. In patients with BPH treated with dutasteride 0.5 mg/day for 4 years, the median decrease in serum DHT was 94% at 1 year, 93% at 2 years, and 95% at both 3 and 4 years.

---

so we can agree dutasteride decreses serum DHT by 90-94%, yes? If you dont agree, please do explain exactly why not.


Side effects taken from here (they are also in the link i provided above but this is a bit neater) http://www.drugs.com/sfx/avodart-side-effects.html

A placebo controlled study with 4300 men showed these effects on decreased libido:

Avodart: 3.0%
Placebo: 1.4%

remember we should always subtract the placebo from the drug group so our real side effect rate for decreased libido is 1.6%.

AND THAT WAS ONLY DURING THE FIRST 6 MONTHS! The remaining 18 months show a difference of only 0.2% in men taking avodart over the men taking placebo. this is almost completely insignificant.


How on earth could you read this and still tell me with a straight fact that DHT is so important for libido? At the very most, it may have a very, very small effect on it... but I wouldnt even say that, because libido side effects on finasteride (which lowers DHT by around 60%) are almost the exact same. even more, you are saying merck has effected the studies and hid the real results, which would mean finasteride side efects are actually HIGHER than dutasteride, which means lowering DHT actually INCREASES your libido?

So have I changed your mind about this yet, and can we return to what we were originally debating? Because I have a LOT of really good stuff to come back to your original comments also!

PLEASE dont keep avoiding this topic (for the 4th time now) because I have responded to EVERYTHING you posted about this debate. If you keep refusing to comment on what I posted about dutasteride, lets just call this what it is and we can return to our original debate about finasteride (if you havent entirely given up yet.)

well i saw you were online when i posted that last one, and the times ive been on here ive seen you go offline, online, offline, I only have to assume you actually read my last post and either

a) are sticking by your completely arbitrary position that if I refuse to accept your 'definition' (admit defeat) that you will no longer debate this. btw thats exactly like saying "okay, admit that you are wrong and then we can keep debating"

b) have absolutely no response to my last post about dutasteride, because it basically proves that you are wrong


I actually think it's b), but you are using a) as an excuse to not have to answer.

but I am completely willing to drop all this talk about DHT if you want to go back to our original debate about how you think that finasteride is so unsafe because the safety hasnt been proven. I came across a LOT of proof that I can post for you to read through. actually i never really realized how safe propecia is until i started looking at all these studies!! I am amazed to find that some studies couldnt even find proof that finasteride caused ANY side effects, and one that actually shows that just knowing that it causes sexual problems can cause these side effects in 3 times as many guys!


so do you want to keep going or are you tapping out? like you said, you are debating with a complete idiot here, so it shouldnt be hard to win! :)

I don't know what is worse, to deal with the side effects or to read these arguments here