Cistanche negative impact on the androgen receptor?

[Madevilz]

Saw this post on reddit, some people are questioning the negative impact cistanche might have on muscle growth from reading this study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22211-1

Because I am in no way qualified to interpret a study, I'd like to hear from more educated people on the subject in here. Can the impact on the androgen receptor affect muscle hypertrophy in any way?

Here's the reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/NootropicsDepot/comments/z0x4uy

 

[Resolve10]

I am going to say this as politely as I can.

I'd be very careful of a couple things.

1) Trying to extrapolate extremely specific biological happenings in studies with broad physiological endpoints.

2) I'd be careful with the reddit nootropic rabbit holes. It seems to be extremely populated by people who focus on the bugs on the leaves of the trees rather than focusing on the forest. There seems to be some deep rooted (poor forest pun still going) issues with people trying to look for the most obscure reasonings to use and not use something whenever I see supplement talk on reddit.

OP of that thread made some pretty big leaps and then literally tried to say taking that (plus some other stuff) literally made him lose a ton of strength and his physique. Anyone who talks like that probably doesn't have the right training and nutrition dialed in and isn't worth bothering to listen to.

FWIW I feel agitated just reading this so sorry if I came off as rude, not directed at you!

 

[Madevilz]

OP of that thread made some pretty big leaps and then literally tried to say taking that (plus some other stuff) literally made him lose a ton of strength and his physique. Anyone who talks like that probably doesn't have the right training and nutrition dialed in and isn't worth bothering to listen to.

Yeah, totally ignore the OP from the reddit post. The guy makes LCLT sound like tren, and blaming Cistanche for looking like ****. Literally face palmed while reading him.

 

[Resolve10]

Ya I’m not saying question like these are bad or we can’t try to look at studies like this etc

just that Reddit for this kind of stuff always feels like it’s driven by a lot of fear mongering.

Im probably a bit biased as I’m a fan of cistanche from personal use.

 

[Jeremyk1]

I can take a look at that study later, but in the Olympus Labs PCT product, they say cistanche antagonizes androgen receptors in the brain to inhibit negative feedback.

 

[Smont]

You lost me at reddit

 

[Irishobrien]

Echinacoside is a massive structure which would have no way of interacting with the nuclear AR in skeletal muscle. The study postulated that the compound appeared to cross the BBB via specific endocytosis. Keep in mind the hypothalamus is designed for “blood sampling” for hormonal homeostasis and thus has cytoplasmic receptors present for this purpose. This study actually showed benefit for hindering testosterones negative feedback as demonstrated by increased LH.

 

[Jeremyk1]

Echinacoside is a massive structure which would have no way of interacting with the nuclear AR in skeletal muscle. The study postulated that the compound appeared to cross the BBB via specific endocytosis. Keep in mind the hypothalamus is designed for “blood sampling” for hormonal homeostasis and thus has cytoplasmic receptors present for this purpose. This study actually showed benefit for hindering testosterones negative feedback as demonstrated by increased LH.

This study did talk about how they inferred docking on the AR, which i really didn’t understand. So in skeletal muscle, that works differently than in the hypothalamus?

 

[Jstrong20]

If some guy is claiming it made him lose massive amounts of strength I'd doubt it. I found nothing that will do that. I used to drink everyday and even with alchohol I was able to build muscle. Even coming off a cycle I don't lose massive amounts of strength. Oh wait I did find one thing. Ha being injured and sitting on your couch for 20 hours a day with your legs propped up. Do that for a month and you will lose strength. Lol I'd say worse case scenario would be you don't build muscle any faster then normal. My point is alchol is obviously a hinderance and I still was able be a lean 200l+ pounds so no way some plant will have such negative consequences to actually make you weaker

 

[Irishobrien]

This study did talk about how they inferred docking on the AR, which i really didn’t understand. So in skeletal muscle, that works differently than in the hypothalamus?

SM AR is nuclear and there’s no way a molecule of this complexity would make it past the cytoplasm in order to interact with the AR. The study noted that it was able to pass the BBB by specific carrier in order to interact with cytoplasm AR.

 

[Resolve10]

Echinacoside is a massive structure which would have no way of interacting with the nuclear AR in skeletal muscle. The study postulated that the compound appeared to cross the BBB via specific endocytosis. Keep in mind the hypothalamus is designed for “blood sampling” for hormonal homeostasis and thus has cytoplasmic receptors present for this purpose. This study actually showed benefit for hindering testosterones negative feedback as demonstrated by increased LH.

Thanks. I'll admit I didn't even bother to look at the study so I appreciate the insight.

 

[sns8778]

Saw this post on reddit, some people are questioning the negative impact cistanche might have on muscle growth from reading this study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22211-1

Because I am in no way qualified to interpret a study, I'd like to hear from more educated people on the subject in here. Can the impact on the androgen receptor affect muscle hypertrophy in any way?

Resolve gave a great answer below and I pretty much agree with everything he said.

I have found that anytime I try to read almost anything on Reddit designed to be a serious discussion that it makes me want to laugh, cry, throw my laptop down the hall, and beat my head into my desk.

I think that there is far more information that shows that Cistanche has a positive impact on hormone levels and building muscle than a negative one.

I've mentioned this in other posts sometimes, but we live in a world now where it can be easy to find studies to support almost any argument that someone wants to make, especially when taken out of context; and many times people do intentionally take things out of context to create conversation and make themselves 'e-popular'. And then there are times where people mean well but legitimately don't understand the full details of a study or they look at one study that says something and ignore the 100 that say something different.

Your question is perfectly legit - any negative tone form me is related to the misinformation on the topic and confusion, not at you at all.

I am going to say this as politely as I can.

I'd be very careful of a couple things.

1) Trying to extrapolate extremely specific biological happenings in studies with broad physiological endpoints.

2) I'd be careful with the reddit nootropic rabbit holes. It seems to be extremely populated by people who focus on the bugs on the leaves of the trees rather than focusing on the forest. There seems to be some deep rooted (poor forest pun still going) issues with people trying to look for the most obscure reasonings to use and not use something whenever I see supplement talk on reddit.

OP of that thread made some pretty big leaps and then literally tried to say taking that (plus some other stuff) literally made him lose a ton of strength and his physique. Anyone who talks like that probably doesn't have the right training and nutrition dialed in and isn't worth bothering to listen to.

FWIW I feel agitated just reading this so sorry if I came off as rude, not directed at you!

I agree completely. Great post.

I absolutely agree with your statement about it seeming like people focusing on the bugs on the leaves of the trees rather than focusing on the forest - it's like they nit pick every little thing on there - and a lot of times it seems like common sense and logic just don't apply at all.

Yeah, totally ignore the OP from the reddit post. The guy makes LCLT sound like tren, and blaming Cistanche for looking like ****. Literally face palmed while reading him.

I didn't read the Reddit part of it honestly bc I know it would just frustrate me; but I would have to say that anyone that blames a supplement or ingredient for the way that they look is not doing something right to begin with.

Ya I’m not saying question like these are bad or we can’t try to look at studies like this etc

just that Reddit for this kind of stuff always feels like it’s driven by a lot of fear mongering.

Im probably a bit biased as I’m a fan of cistanche from personal use.

I'm a fan of Cistanche myself from personal use and its an ingredient that we've had a lot of requests to do a single ingredient products of.

If some guy is claiming it made him lose massive amounts of strength I'd doubt it. I found nothing that will do that. I used to drink everyday and even with alchohol I was able to build muscle. Even coming off a cycle I don't lose massive amounts of strength. Oh wait I did find one thing. Ha being injured and sitting on your couch for 20 hours a day with your legs propped up. Do that for a month and you will lose strength. Lol I'd say worse case scenario would be you don't build muscle any faster then normal. My point is alchol is obviously a hinderance and I still was able be a lean 200l+ pounds so no way some plant will have such negative consequences to actually make you weaker

Yeah, even if the hypothetical argument were true, which it isn't, then the real world result wouldn't be it making someone lose muscle and strength, it would just be that it wouldn't be helping a person gain new muscle and strength.

And yeah, anyone trying to make out like any supplement can cause more strength loss than coming off a cycle or an injury layoff seems to have an agenda of some type - whether its a negative one towards an ingredient or something as simple as trying to put the blame for their results or lack thereof off on something out.

I can relate to your post so much haha. I rarely ever drink now, but when I was younger and going out almost every night, I was out drinking and still in the best shape of my life - so like you said, if that didn't wreck gains, no way an ingredient is going to to that degree.

But its all a mute point bc there is so much positive information on Cistanche and real world results to back it up.

 

[Jeremyk1]

SM AR is nuclear and there’s no way a molecule of this complexity would make it past the cytoplasm in order to interact with the AR. The study noted that it was able to pass the BBB by specific carrier in order to interact with cytoplasm AR.

Yeah I caught that it passed the BBB, but not the testes. Thank you for the info!

 

[Madevilz]

Just saw this video pop up on cistanche :

Mentions the androgen receptor blocking at 13:25

 

[Smont]

I'm gonna continue off of some of the things said above.

You literally can find a study on anything to back up anything on either side of the fence.

But studies don't actually prove anything, not a thing. There just a piece of evidence to shift your opinion in a certain direction based off the information provided.

If you wanna be a whore for studies then here's what I think ppl should do.

Look who the study was done on.

I'm a 37 year old man, I still compete in athletics, I lift weights, I use anabolics.

If the studies are not done on men under 50 who are either athletes or bodybuilders or power lifters that also use anabolics then the study does not apply to me.

See if the study has relevance to you and then dive deeper.

Too often ppl just read something and run with it

 

[Madevilz]

I'm gonna continue off of some of the things said above.

You literally can find a study on anything to back up anything on either side of the fence.

But studies don't actually prove anything, not a thing. There just a piece of evidence to shift your opinion in a certain direction based off the information provided.

If you wanna be a whore for studies then here's what I think ppl should do.

Look who the study was done on.

I'm a 37 year old man, I still compete in athletics, I lift weights, I use anabolics.

If the studies are not done on men under 50 who are either athletes or bodybuilders or power lifters that also use anabolics then the study does not apply to me.

See if the study has relevance to you and then dive deeper.

Too often ppl just read something and run with it

Sure, I do the same to body composition, performance or health markers studies. But even if the study says that it negatively impact the androgen receptor on a 60yo sedentary old man, I am pretty sure it should also apply to a 37yo active man on anabolics.

 

[Smont]

Sure, I do the same to body composition, performance or health markers studies. But even if the study says that it negatively impact the androgen receptor on a 60yo sedentary old man, I am pretty sure it should also apply to a 37yo active man on anabolics.

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't apply. The anabolics are going to completely overpower any of those minuscule negative effects on The receptors.

This reminds me of how everyone is afraid of metformin because it has a negative impact on muscle growth, but guess what, it doesn't apply to steroid users. all of the biggest most muscular guys you know in the bodybuilding world use metformin

 

[Smont]

So far, the only things I've seen that has the ability to put the brakes on someone's steroid cycle besides a crappy diet is t3, once you get over that 50mcg mark it's like kryptonite against your muscle gains

 

[Madevilz]

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't apply. The anabolics are going to completely overpower any of those minuscule negative effects on The receptors.

This reminds me of how everyone is afraid of metformin because it has a negative impact on muscle growth, but guess what, it doesn't apply to steroid users. all of the biggest most muscular guys you know in the bodybuilding world use metformin

True that AAS should overpower any negative impact on muscle growth.
But then again, why would you use Cistanche while on AAS

 

[Smont]

True that AAS should overpower any negative impact on muscle growth.
But then again, why would you use Cistanche while on AAS

You would use it for the exact same reasons you would use it if you're not on AAS, boosting your immune system, brain function, higher libido ect.

Being on steroids is irrelevant to the reasons someone would use it.

You completely lost me

 

[sns8778]

You would use it for the exact same reasons you would use it if you're not on AAS, boosting your immune system, brain function, higher libido ect.

Being on steroids is irrelevant to the reasons someone would use it.

You completely lost me

I can't speak for him, but I think he's probably meaning bc a lot of people think of it as a natural testosterone booster and overlook the other great benefits to it.

For me, I can't believe out of all things, Cistanche is getting nit picked now - an ingredient that's been used for centuries, has quite a few studies supporting it, great real world feedback, etc.

 

[Smont]

I can't speak for him, but I think he's probably meaning bc a lot of people think of it as a natural testosterone booster and overlook the other great benefits to it.

For me, I can't believe out of all things, Cistanche is getting nit picked now - an ingredient that's been used for centuries, has quite a few studies supporting it, great real world feedback, etc.

I kinda assumed it was something like that. When I hear cistanche, my first thought is brain and seccond is immune system. The testosterone booster or aphrodisiac type stuff is like the last thing I think of, but I had to kinda figure that's where he was going

 

[Smont]

I can't speak for him, but I think he's probably meaning bc a lot of people think of it as a natural testosterone booster and overlook the other great benefits to it.

For me, I can't believe out of all things, Cistanche is getting nit picked now - an ingredient that's been used for centuries, has quite a few studies supporting it, great real world feedback, etc.

I'm gonna dm you in 2 min, I need a couple details from you on another topic

 

[Irishobrien]

Not sure why people are dismissing this study. The study is exceptionally positive for cistanche - in fact it argued that the compound acted as a selective androgen receptor modulator. It has no capacity to interact with literally any other androgen receptor and doesn’t even have a theoretical negative interaction. Blocking steroidal receptor translocation from the cytoplasm membrane isn’t even relevant for skeletal muscle.

 

[sns8778]

Not sure why people are dismissing this study. The study is exceptionally positive for cistanche - in fact it argued that the compound acted as a selective androgen receptor modulator. It has no capacity to interact with literally any other androgen receptor and doesn’t even have a theoretical negative interaction. Blocking steroidal receptor translocation from the cytoplasm membrane isn’t even relevant for skeletal muscle.

It's interesting that you point that out because I was waiting to see if anyone was going to mention anything positive about the study and you are absolutely correct, in that the study is an extremely positive one for Cistanche.

Unfortunately, because of the way the study was presented - by focusing on one perceived negative that 99% of people reading it don't understand the context of, it divided people into two groups - people that want to bash and put down Cistanche and focus on that one thing out of context and ignore how positive the study is; and people that like Cistanche and want to defend it and have focused on replying to how BS the negative aspect being harped on is.

The real casualty in all of that is that the study showed a lot of positive benefits of Cistanche and also that the perceived negative really isn't a negative, its people either intentionally trying to bash an ingredient by taking things out of context or people that legitimately don't understand what they're reading and taking it wrong; which is then being played off of by the people that initially started the negativity towards it to begin with.

You yourself have a very good knowledge of the terminology and mechanisms involved in the study and know how to understand it in context. However, the average person knows very little to nothing about the terminology used in most studies and most don't even try to read them or understand them; which is perfectly understandable. But then in cases like this, someone jumps on a negative and presents it as fact, and the above mentioned persons unfortunately believe it bc they don't know any better.

And it is hard to understand, especially for the average person - and props to @Madevilz for acknowledging in his original post that he didn't know how to interpret it so he was asking a question without making an assumption. And in that post, he says that he was questioning it because he saw other people questioning it - but in his case, he asked a question whereas most just believe the negative assumptions stated and restated in the link he read on it. And if it was confusing to him (I feel that he has a well above average understanding of things like this compared to the average general consumer), then it has to be super confusing to the average person.

You've done a great job of posting relevant information and trying to help people understand and put it in proper context and realize that this was not a study with a bad or negative outcome; it was actually one with a positive one and that the thing that some people misunderstood and were worried about is not even relevant.

 

[barische]

Same as everyone stated x2, nothing but positive effects from cistanche. Multitude of negative effects of serms doesnt stop BBers from abusing them.. cistanche is similar but weaker in action without any sides. Fadogia can be compared to HCG (Yes, fadogia toxicity is overblown)