A study makes me wonder about androst-5-ene-3β,7β,17β-triol (βAET) effectiveness (Discuss?)

weltweite

weltweite

New member
Awards
0
There was a thread posted by Nostrum with several studies on the benefits of androst-5-ene-3β,7β,17β-triol (βAET), which is found in the product Invictus, and other products like from Prototype Nutrition, Iconic Formulations, etc.

I noticed that one of the studies posted seemed to be very concerning for those with visceral fat, chronic inflammation, high cholesterol, and triglycerides.

7. Phase I and Phase II clinical trials of androst-5-ene-3β,7β,17β-triol
Phase I and Phase II clinical trials of androst-5-ene-3
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3102572/

I want to discuss this study in depth and nitpick at it. I find this especially important because I have used two bottles of transdermal (βAET) and plan to get more... but having a good amount of visceral fat makes me wonder if it is effective based on what the authors of this study concluded.

I will post up my summary of the study and if anyone wants to correct what I write, add to it, or discuss why it is not applicable because there were some methodological flaws in their trials, please do. I want BAET to work since there are very few products that target visceral fat effectively.


My notes on this study:

In healthy people BAET lowered cholesterol. It did not lower cholesterol in elderly people though.

In people that had lots of fat in the blood (triglycerides or cholesterol) there was NO cholesterol lowering effect. It didn’t matter if it was a healthy person or elderly.

BAET didn’t raise Hepatitis B antibodies in old people, which is surprising because it does in old mice.

The study authors think that both of these failures is because BAET was inactivated somehow by pro-inflammatory cytokines in chronic situations. Basically BAET doesn’t seem to work if there is chronic inflammation.

(My thought: High levels of visceral fat is definitely a chronic inflammatory situation that has a pro-inflammatory cytokine profile)

Measurements suggest BAET may become inactivated due to rapid metabolism as seen in primate studies.
This seems consistent because it happens when 17B-HSD is up-regulated (oxidative form of it) and this happens with low-grade systemic inflammation.

The study suggests that BAET may be effective in normal people who do not have chronic inflammation, but in people who do have chronic inflammation, there may need to invent/use a pharmaceutical derivative of BAET that doesn’t degrade and is more stable.

The drug was metabolized rapidly when sublingually administered and also when injected subcutaneously repeatedly, it still did not build up to significant levels in the blood, and was metabolized rapidly.

The study also says BAET may have different disposition in target tissues when comparing normal people with those who have higher lipids, older, or have chronic low-grade inflammation. (Very interesting)

Their data suggests that in inflammatory situations, anti-inflammatory androstenes like BAET may be locally inactivated by perturbation of the otherwise homeostatic in-tracrine network. (Very interesting)

For example, up-regulation of oxidative forms of 17B-HSD would inactivate anti-inflammatory adrenal androgen metabolites such as BAET, while expression and function of the steroid dehydrogenases themselves are regulated by inflammatory cytokine signal transduction pathways and intracellular oxidative potential.

(My thought: So they are saying that these messed up inflammatory signal transduction pathways may resist becoming normal and healthy in their function by the DHEA metabolites.)

They further support their theory by saying that the potent anti-inflammatory activity of 17a-ethynyl-BAET in situations where there is higher inflammation (also has a stronger potency than BAET) , and identification of 17-keto-BAET as a major metabolite support the hypothesis that oxidative 17B-HSD is an important influence. (Interesting)

In their Phase II trials, oxidative steroidogenic enzymes may have reduced exogenous BAET concentrations below therapeutic levels.
They reason that with advancing age, chronic inflammation conditions will not respond to DHEA treatment. This may explain why DHEA and BAET fail to provide any benefit in the context of chronic inflammatory conditions associated with hyperlipidemia and advanced aging.


Tying in with the phase II trials, there was a company that was working on a BAET drug, but appears to have given up on it when I tried to investigate where they were all these years later. That could be for many reasons (funding, politics, economy, new strategies, etc.)

Copy of their conclusion:
In summary, short-term administration of βAET was safe in humans, but the drug appeared to be rapidly metabolized and pharmacokinetics were poor, even with parenteral administration. Cholesterol lowering was observed in normal but not hyperlipidemic subjects, and βAET treatment failed to enhance the response to HBsAg vaccine in elderly subjects. These divergent activities that are reported between rodents and primates may in part be attributed to chronic inflammation, which in addition to differential metabolism provides a basis for the longstanding disparity between these species and the emergence of the “DHEA conundrum” [42]

These observations suggest that natural anti-inflammatory C-19 steroids may be useful to maintain health in healthy individuals, but tissue specific inactivation of natural androstenes in the context of chronic inflammation can result in treatment failure. In these situations metabolically resistant derivatives may be necessary to successfully treat disease.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
lol...all I know is b-AET works and works well. Invictus has treated me well the 17 times I have used it.
 
Ricky10

Ricky10

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
lol...all I know is b-AET works and works well. Invictus has treated me well the 17 times I have used it.
I agree with that! Incidentally, I abandoned my plan of staying on a 1/2 dose indefinitely a month or so ago, as I was trying out some other products that targeted similar pathways. I have had a few factors going on, but my mental and physical health has been on the decline since I stopped taking this. Physical symptoms have been increased inflammation in my upper back, shoulders, and knees. I can’t be sure that Invictus was responsible for keeping all that at bay, but I’m getting real close to getting back on it to figure that out! I actually kind of miss it regardless, as it’s something I have always enjoyed applying. The scent alone is a treat!
 
weltweite

weltweite

New member
Awards
0
lol...all I know is b-AET works and works well. Invictus has treated me well the 17 times I have used it.
Since your post is anecdotal, I can post my anecdote as well... although that isn't the main point of this thread. Your "lol" indicates a mild defensiveness...

I have used it twice and didn't see anything significant over my regular diet/cardio when it came to visceral fat reduction (I have low subcutaneous fat). Dutch testing showed quite elevated cortisol. I even got a common cold on it at one point. Figured I need to buy more and use it longer. I can attach my Dutch test, and also pictures of my used bottles of Invictus too... but once again, that isn't the point of this thread.

This study has very valid points and may explain why that one biotech company seemingly gave up on producing a drug from this. Modifications need to be made to prevent inactivation/degradation.

My goal is to discuss the study and the mechanisms presented that cause b-AET to become inactivated so quickly in people who have high amounts of visceral fat, inflammation, cholesterol, lipids etc.

Maybe this isn't the right section since there has not been any science discussion yet on this thread..

Also just a side note, but the real "lol" is that this study was posted in that other thread as supporting evidence to the benefits of b-AET, but apparently no one read it... since it is really a negative study for people who have a high degree of visceral fat/inflammation/obesity/cholesterol/lipids, etc.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
It's the right section. I'll have a read through some of the studies to see if I can contribute. Didn't see this thread the first time it was posted
 
nostrum420

nostrum420

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
They administered relatively small doses for a few days in buccal and subcutaneous routes both of which are quite fast acting vs a TD which has an intrinsic time released effect.

The researchers posited that a 17a-alkyl derivative would likely be more effective; we've seen TD application work well as an alternative to 17a-alkylation for hormone bioavailability.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
They administered relatively small doses for a few days in buccal and subcutaneous routes both of which are quite fast acting vs a TD which has an intrinsic time released effect.

The researchers posited that a 17a-alkyl derivative would likely be more effective; we've seen TD application work well as an alternative to 17a-alkylation for hormone bioavailability.
dang, I was just going to say this-beat me to it;)...btw-to the op, 'lol' along with exclamation marks are my trademark, had nothing to do with defensiveness, lol!!!
 

comeback20

New member
Awards
0
This compound is also found on CORE 5-AT
(Caps formula)

Core Nutritionals is reliable brand so it would deserves a try...

Maybe compare to Reduce XT?
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
This compound is also found on CORE 5-AT
(Caps formula)

Core Nutritionals is reliable brand so it would deserves a try...

Maybe compare to Reduce XT?
do your research, td is the way to go with b-aet….and iron legion is a very reliable brand. lots of logs/reviews on Invictus.
 
sns8778

sns8778

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
This compound is also found on CORE 5-AT
(Caps formula)

Core Nutritionals is reliable brand so it would deserves a try...

Maybe compare to Reduce XT?
5-AT and B-Triol are completely different compounds. While they may look similar on paper, the real world results are dramatically different for most people. 5-AT is a lot cheaper of a raw material than B-Triol is and B-Triol needs to be used transdermally for results.
 
sns8778

sns8778

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
When CEL made Suppress-C (td B-Triol) the feedback was excellent and it worked great for me. XPG just recently brought that back using the old CEL carrier. I plan on running that after Thanksgiving myself bc I always responded really well to B-Triol for fat loss.
 

Similar threads


Top