If you didn't knowwe have a PHD Chemist working full time for us...interesting facts

LegalGear · 07-24-2008, 12:18 PM

He just told me that ALL enzymes are bi-directional. Crazy, since the "bro lore" is that there are one way enzymes. How funny, he commonly schools me on "bro-lore" topics and I just have to laugh since all of the "respected" experts seem to think that they know so much. He said "this is basic textbook biochemistry that all enzymes are bi-directional"

So, if you take aromatase and put a bunch of estrogen in with it, some will back convert to testosterone! Weird since the common belief is that is not the case. Who knew!

He has a PHD in micro-biology with a specialization in Microbial Physiology. Pretty interesting guy!

Aggravated · 07-24-2008, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegalGear

He just told me that ALL enzymes are bi-directional. Crazy, since the "bro lore" is that there are one way enzymes. How funny, he commonly schools me on "bro-lore" topics and I just have to laugh since all of the "respected" experts seem to think that they know so much. He said "this is basic textbook biochemistry that all enzymes are bi-directional"

So, if you take aromatase and put a bunch of estrogen in with it, some will back convert to testosterone! Weird since the common belief is that is not the case. Who knew!

He has a PHD in micro-biology with a specialization in Microbial Physiology. Pretty interesting guy!

That is really interesting! I love this guy!

**Jayhawkk** · 07-24-2008, 02:19 PM

Wow, what a angry sounding thread. A lot of insulting type of text when it sounds like you didn't know either. If that's the case, is it possible that you could get schooled by someone who may make mistakes? Even if they have a PHD?

Now, I don't have a clue on whether he's right or wrong but damn what a ****ed up way of putting across information...

Aggravated · 07-24-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayhawkk

Wow, what a angry sounding thread. A lot of insulting type of text when it sounds like you didn't know either. If that's the case, is it possible that you could get schooled by someone who may make mistakes? Even if they have a PHD?

Now, I don't have a clue on whether he's right or wrong but damn what a ****ed up way of putting across information...

I wouldn't say it was an angry statement. He just sounded excited to find out that what he had been hearing was false. In a sense that this may lead to something greater!

**Jayhawkk** · 07-24-2008, 02:42 PM

I actually came in on the thread because of the title and hopes of learning something new. I'm all for knowledge but to use that kind of format makes itsound like he's calling everyone stupid who didn't know basic biochem or had previously believed something false. All I know is i didn't have an opinion on the subject and still felt insulted. Maybe i'm just overly sensitive

**bioman** · 07-24-2008, 02:50 PM

It could have been worded better. I basically took it as a jab at PA et al that LG has battled with before.

Either way, I don't view the misconception that enzymes are unidirectional as "bro-lore" when most of the medical and academic establishment thinks the same. Also, there is likely to be degrees of "bi-directionality" if you will, meaning that something like aromatase is probably more prone to working one way then another...more likely to convert test to estro than the other way around.

hardknock · 07-24-2008, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegalGear

He just told me that ALL enzymes are bi-directional. Crazy, since the "bro lore" is that there are one way enzymes. How funny, he commonly schools me on "bro-lore" topics and I just have to laugh since all of the "respected" experts seem to think that they know so much. He said "this is basic textbook biochemistry that all enzymes are bi-directional"

So, if you take aromatase and put a bunch of estrogen in with it, some will back convert to testosterone! Weird since the common belief is that is not the case. Who knew!

He has a PHD in micro-biology with a specialization in Microbial Physiology. Pretty interesting guy!

The only thing you'd have to worry about is controlling the percentage of conversion...I would not say that it would be worth it. Taking aromatase and bonding with estrogen in an attempt to get a sufficient conversion, well even when it's true, there's pretty low odds of usability/efficient/sufficient

Aggravated · 07-24-2008, 03:30 PM

Same here lol.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bioman

I basically took it as a jab at PA et al that LG has battled with before.

Aggravated · 07-24-2008, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hardknock

The only thing you'd have to worry about is controlling the percentage of conversion...I would not say that it would be worth it. Taking aromatase and bonding with estrogen in an attempt to get a sufficient conversion, well even when it's true, there's pretty low odds of usability/efficient/sufficient

Well, you could almost guarantee that some sort of balance in the conversion would occur when letting the body do it's job. However, if something else were to be added to the equation to combat the balance, it might produce awesome results. Hopefully this will be the case.

Grunt76 · 07-24-2008, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bioman

It could have been worded better. I basically took it as a jab at PA et al that LG has battled with before.

Either way, I don't view the misconception that enzymes are unidirectional as "bro-lore" when most of the medical and academic establishment thinks the same. Also, there is likely to be degrees of "bi-directionality" if you will, meaning that something like aromatase is probably more prone to working one way then another...more likely to convert test to estro than the other way around.

Yeah the ENZYME might be bi-directional but what good is that when your test to estrogen ratio is 100 to one? More importantly who CARES?

Oooooh the enzyme is bidirectional. Yay. That's like saying you are bisexual but there are 99% men around you. You might be bi, but in this case, you are GAY. A simple analogy...

It's not BEHAVING bidirectionally unless your test to estrogen ratio are near 1:1 in the case of aromatase.

Know anyone like that, legalgear? I don't.

**Mass_69** · 07-24-2008, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hardknock

Taking aromatase and bonding with estrogen in an attempt to get a sufficient conversion, well even when it's true, there's pretty low odds of usability/efficient/sufficient

I'll get some transdermal estradiol and rub it on my aromatase-dense chest fat & love handles, and let everyone know how it works out...

LegalGear · 07-24-2008, 06:43 PM

No, you are right on! It was a jab at Pat Arnold. I hate that ****er... He preports to be an expert on everything and I hate the way everyone sucks him off on bb.com.

The best though is that everyone is so "sure" about their "facts" when almost everything is open to theories. I just hate that part of the boards that people can't change their mind, re-evaluate their position or learn something new without someone giving them **** for it.

Anyway, you are kind of sensitive dude.

Certainly I am sure there is preferential conversion one way or the other...so I wouldn't suggest you run estrogen on your chest.

**Jayhawkk** · 07-24-2008, 08:24 PM

Hey, that hurt my feelings! :P

ozarkaBRAND · 07-24-2008, 08:28 PM

Wait, so let's clarify.. estrogen on my chest is NOT the cure for gyno?

.... crap

LegalGear · 07-24-2008, 09:18 PM

Code name "The Snuggler" what did you expect?