[HN Gopher] Scientists discover a new hormone that can build str...
___________________________________________________________________
Scientists discover a new hormone that can build strong bones in
mice
Author : gmays
Score : 420 points
Date : 2024-07-22 16:42 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ucsf.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ucsf.edu)
| jl6 wrote:
| > To test the ability of the hormone to assist in bone healing,
| the researchers created a hydrogel patch that could be applied
| directly to the site of a bone fracture, where it would slowly
| release CCN3 for two weeks. In elderly mice, bone fractures don't
| usually heal well. However, the CCN3 patch spurred the formation
| of new bone at the site of the fracture, contributing to youthful
| healing of the fracture.
|
| So, uh, did this research involve breaking mice bones?
| sva_ wrote:
| You know when they kill a mouse in the lab they call it a
| 'sarcrifice'. There's some harrowing stuff and I personally
| would probably not be able to do it.
|
| I think most ppl who do it just happened to find themselves in
| a part of their academic career where they have little choice
| if they want to proceed.
| Thorrez wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monument_to_the_laboratory_mou.
| ..
| amelius wrote:
| Where is the monument to the Beef Cow?
| snakeyjake wrote:
| Kansas City, MO, USA
|
| https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1003469,-94.5952033,3a,56
| .6y...
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| What is the backstory to that monument?
|
| Here is another:
|
| https://chicagostudies.uchicago.edu/back-yards/back-
| yards-un...
| pvaldes wrote:
| > Where is the monument to the Beef Cow?
|
| With or without monument, It always will have a very
| special place on my stomach.
| krisoft wrote:
| Everywhere. Cattle is a very popular topic of sculptures.
| Just to mention two from the top of my head:
|
| This one is in Oxford: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki
| /File:Bull_statue,_outside...
|
| This one is in Budapest:
| https://www.kozterkep.hu/1005/boci-szobor
|
| And of course there is that swiss artist who creates
| parades of cows around cities:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CowParade
| saintfire wrote:
| Basically the entire United States.
| sleepydog wrote:
| I knew someone who had to conduct dozens of these
| "sacrifices" as part of her neuroscience PhD. She used a
| mouse-sized guillotine like this one:
|
| https://www.wpiinc.com/var-2645-rodent-guillotine.html
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Naw, they found mice that tripped while running, it's that
| simple man.
| jaggs wrote:
| Oh thank you, thank you...
| greenchair wrote:
| key word elderly provides an alibi.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| Absolutely, there is probably some jig to hold the mouse and do
| the break reliably in the same way each time. I knew a
| researcher that did research that involved killing newborn baby
| rabbits and he said that he hated that part of the job but kept
| reminding himself that he is working on a cure for very sick
| human children that currently had no hope of treatment. It was
| exploratory research so there was only a small chance of
| success and many years later there was success in a unrelated
| field so in the end his work was redundant - but he couldn't
| have known that at the time.
|
| By my morals it's ok to kill animals for the benefit of humans,
| animals kill animals for sustenance and for now we are still a
| part of nature. In the future perhaps we won't need to and I'll
| happily support that. For now in order to get to that future we
| must do the unpleasant thing with an understanding that it
| should be not be done egregiously, gratuitously, or needlessly.
| Not for the sake of the animals, although that is a given, but
| for the sake of the humans involved in harming those animals as
| I think doing such things does take it's toll.
| amelius wrote:
| But, were the animals at least unconscious when the
| experiments (and preparations thereof) took place?
|
| Anyway, if you've ever seen a cat play with a half-dead mouse
| you might change your previous opinion on these experiments.
|
| On the other hand, this research might lead to people putting
| patches on their jaws to stop the cosmetic effects of ageing.
|
| Ethics is a difficult discipline ...
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| Unfortunately they were conscious, they were painful deaths
| and it was the experiment that killed them. They were not
| euthanized after the experiment which is more the norm. I
| was told there was no viable alternative to obtaining the
| data. I only found out because I was helping process the
| data and I asked where the data was from.
|
| What I don't like is that the inefficiencies in science
| means that many, and perhaps most, of the experiments that
| are being done are probably unnecessary and only being done
| due to bureaucratic inertia. I lament the horrible state of
| science and the needless suffering that causes both humans
| and animals.
|
| So on one hand I think it's possible to justify the what is
| in effect torture of animals if a case can be made that the
| science obtained from it could be worth it. On the other
| hand I don't think it's normally the case that this is true
| and science should do a better job in justifying this
| torture. If unable to then it should stop.
| cheeseomlit wrote:
| Stories of mice being used in gruesome experiments always give
| me a bit of moral outrage, but when there's one in my house I
| have no qualms about killing it with extreme prejudice. So,
| they should just round up all the home-invader mice for
| experimentation- my conscious would rest easier knowing they're
| all just repaying their debt to society
| themaninthedark wrote:
| My recollection is that laboratory mice are a very tight
| family line with very well understood DNA (and behavior?
| maybe), so you would gain a lot of variability and thus lose
| scientific rigor and may need longer, more complicated tests.
| pvaldes wrote:
| Probably. And then giving the mice the superpowers of
| wolverine.
|
| Everybody loves this when it happens to a human in a film, no
| matter how much radioactive spiders will be crushed. If this
| makes you feel better while watching your plaster dry, I would
| bet my money on that sedation was applied and, if that old mice
| is still alive, it feels now like a two months old heartthrob.
| bregma wrote:
| Tell me about the rabbits again George.
| bulbosaur123 wrote:
| The billion dollar question: can this somehow help develop
| treatment for making bones longer?
| isoprophlex wrote:
| I'm missing something, what good are long bones, specifically?
| Seems to me strength is the most important parameter,
| especially in aging populations..?
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Height, dating marketplace. Status in general.
|
| https://english.elpais.com/culture/2022-07-19/dating-apps-
| an...
|
| https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/miriamfauzia/height-
| dat...
|
| https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/only-15-women-
| interest-58-...
|
| https://theblog.okcupid.com/the-big-lies-people-tell-in-
| onli...
| isoprophlex wrote:
| Okay wow that's immediately obvious. Thanks... My mind got
| stuck at octogenarians growing absurdly long bones in the
| autumn of their lives
| magnetowasright wrote:
| Picturing octogenarians with disproportionately long arms
| and legs is hilarious. Beats shrinking in height from
| bone loss and the impacts of having a fall in your 80s.
| hooverd wrote:
| Online dating seems miserable! Although the misery makes
| sense to me. It's a highly competitive arena with very low
| friction. It reminds me of using Facebook Marketplace vs
| Craigslist. FBM is full of the worst, flakiest people to
| coordinate a transaction with. The added friction from CL
| cuts down of the number of drive-bys and lowballers
| somewhat.
|
| * I met my first real partner online- but that was on
| MySpace pre-appification of everything. I haven't dated
| anyone I met online since, so maybe I'm just talking out of
| my ass here.
| shiroiushi wrote:
| >It reminds me of using Facebook Marketplace vs
| Craigslist. FBM is full of the worst, flakiest people to
| coordinate a transaction with. The added friction from CL
| cuts down of the number of drive-bys and lowballers
| somewhat.
|
| Totally opposite of my experience when I was last using
| them. CL was absolutely full of scammers trying to send
| me cashier's checks for stuff. FBM had people who were
| real people, who actually came with cash to buy my stuff.
| FBM's UI was absolutely terrible, but it was worth it to
| avoid all the scamming on CL.
|
| >Online dating seems miserable!
|
| I met all my girlfriends on there in the past couple of
| decades. The latest one is working out wonderfully. Sure,
| there were some bad dates and some not-so-great people,
| but you'll get that anywhere.
| Wohlf wrote:
| If everyone is 6 foot no one is. 7 foot would just become
| the new baseline.
| gffrd wrote:
| Reminds me of this article from a few years ago about guys
| getting leg-lengthening surgery: https://www.gq-
| magazine.co.uk/lifestyle/article/leg-lengthen...
| rideontime wrote:
| This is getting downvoted, but they only need to find one
| short, insecure billionaire to make this comment come true.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Bezos and Zuckerberg are both 5' 7" (170cm), interestingly
| enough.
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| Tom Cruise, too (or shorter... allegedly)
| shermantanktop wrote:
| Unfortunately (or fortunately?) the track record of
| billionaires throwing money at problems unrelated to how they
| made their billions is not great. Yachts are easy to buy,
| cancer cures and life extension technologies are not so easy
| to buy.
| YurgenJurgensen wrote:
| This becoming viable would do to high-status men what white
| lead makeup did to high status women in the 19th century.
| Being tall isn't as important as being taller than average,
| so you'd create an arms race among those who could afford the
| treatment. Which itself would strengthen the association
| between being short and being poor. And we all know how this
| ends, with a 7 foot tall millionaires dying of heart attacks
| as their circulatory system doesn't naturally scale with
| their height.
| AprilArcus wrote:
| No, once the epiphyseal plates close further growth of long
| bones is impossible. Only intervention during puberty can
| influence final adult height.
| rjurney wrote:
| So feed it to kids!
| moffkalast wrote:
| Smh, these slenderman cosplayers are really going too far.
| bregma wrote:
| According to the unsolicited email I regularly receive, there
| are already products on the market for making bones longer. And
| lasting all night, which would I guess make it significantly
| easier to get out of bed in the morning.
| hzay wrote:
| This is great. My mother had osteoporosis and I hope they come up
| with a therapy she can use!
|
| However as a currently breastfeeding mother, I'm asked by doctors
| to take calcium supplements every day (I only remember it once a
| week or so), and they threaten me with future osteoporosis if I
| don't take it. But these researchers are saying that
| breastfeeding mothers' bones aren't affected despite calcium
| depletion?
|
| Fwiw I've also read research that the bones are indeed affected
| (as measured by density) but they rebound after you stop
| breastfeeding. I remember that the most depletion happened in the
| lumbar region, and that the rebound didn't happen fully if there
| was "parity" (multiple kids).
|
| So idk. I hope their premise is correct.
| everybodyknows wrote:
| > (I only remember it once a week or so)
|
| Yikes. How about one of those 7-compartment SMTWTFS pill boxes?
| Store it alongside your morning coffee supply.
| hzay wrote:
| My amnesia is somewhat intentional. Like some of the
| commenters here, I'm doubtful if I should really take it
| everyday. Just seems excessive? Did it during pregnancy ofc,
| and it's not like the early days of breastfeeding when you're
| making almost a liter a day (kiddo is 2.5 so while still
| BFing, it's not an important source of food), so idk. My
| grandmother had like 10 kids, breastfed them all and never
| had bone issues. My mother breastfed us v little (<6 months
| all together) and got osteoporosis. I'm not at all sure how
| well-supported this recommendation is.
|
| I try to eat more yogurt/kefir instead.
| zdragnar wrote:
| The conventional wisdom and common recommendation is to
| supplement with calcium, but I saw at least one study stating
| that it is not necessary:
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9584497/
|
| I rather suspect that if you are already eating a diet
| deficient in calcium, breastfeeding may exacerbate the issue,
| and since the supplements tend to have a poor bioavailability,
| taking them even if you don't need to isn't going to be
| harmful. Eat a healthy balance of foods and you are probably
| fine.
|
| I may have a nurse for a mother, but I am very much not a
| doctor.
| ImHereToVote wrote:
| Meat is a great source of bioavailable calcium.
| jnathsf wrote:
| is this true? Outside of seafood that's not what I'm
| seeing. Mostly dairy and plant-based foods have the most
| calcium [1]
|
| [1] https://www.bonehealthandosteoporosis.org/patients/trea
| tment...
| ImHereToVote wrote:
| That isn't a table of bioavailability.
| jijijijij wrote:
| > taking them even if you don't need to isn't going to be
| harmful
|
| I think, the transporter for calcium is the same used for
| some other minerals. So, if you're not mindful (about
| timing), you may be competitively blocking the absorption of
| e.g. zinc, which is much more precious nutritionally - zinc
| is very important for immune function and healing, while
| deficiency is common.
|
| Calcium supplements can cause constipation, which may be not
| very fun after giving birth... Not to mention the
| implications of (lack of) quality control in the supplement
| market, by proxy, for a rapidly developing human being. Which
| substances are part of the formulation, other than calcium
| salts? Does the adult portion of copper or X accumulate in a
| mother's milk?
|
| Not saying, you shouldn't take calcium supplements. But
| really, _any_ supplement can be harmful, if consumed without
| need or consideration. (Fun fact: Vitamin A supplementation
| increases lung cancer risk!)
| DidYaWipe wrote:
| You still need to provide calcium to the body to deploy to
| one's own bones. This hormone apparently directs that process.
| It can't do that in the absence of sufficient calcium, of
| course, so supplements still seem like a good idea.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| My water supply appears to be flush with calcium - I have to
| poke my shower head's holes out every few months. I wonder if
| it's good for me or if it's in too large of excess. Would
| probably help if I remembered the vitamin D more often, since
| you need that to absorb the calcium.
| bornfreddy wrote:
| Tip: vinegar does wonders (for shower heads, not absorption).
| ck2 wrote:
| This will incidentally be helpful to space travel to Mars and
| living there.
|
| Among the dozen other serious health problems with zero/low
| gravity like oh serious eye problems, humans sadly aren't going
| to Mars anytime soon.
|
| Then again this would need to be tested on the moon or in orbit
| first, might not make a difference even with the hormone.
|
| (vitamin K2 might help too)
| cactusfrog wrote:
| Bone density loss in space is estimated at a loss of 1-2% of
| total bone density per month of microgravity exposure. The
| worst cases of terrestrial bone loss are around 5% of total
| bone mineral density per year.
| DennisP wrote:
| We know microgravity is terrible for us but we don't have data
| on 1/3 gravity. We might be fine. Or maybe we'd be fine if we
| took this drug, did some weight training, and added twenty
| minutes of centrifuge every day.
|
| For the trip, there are several ways we could set up spin
| gravity.
| Terr_ wrote:
| For more on this "we don't really have the data for anything"
| problem, a humorously approachable read is "A City On Mars"
| [0]. Also the "nobody knows how laws would work" and other
| interesting complications.
|
| [0] https://www.acityonmars.com/
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| One step closer to being able to make Belters.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| If you lose 10 per cent of your bone density on the way to
| Mars, but then live in the conditions of 0.33 G, doesn't it
| cancel out?
|
| The real nasty problem would be getting back to Earth.
| snewman wrote:
| In many ways it doesn't cancel out. On Mars, things weigh
| less but their mass is the same. So, for example, if you are
| walking on Mars at a normal Earth walking speed, and you bump
| your shin on something, the inertia of your leg as it hits
| the obstacle is just as great as the inertia of your leg on
| Earth. In general, a lot of the little physical interactions
| that you rely on bone strength to get through scale according
| to mass / inertia (and muscle strength), not weight.
| jijijijij wrote:
| I just wanted to say, I really appreciate your tangent here.
| Space travel didn't come to my mind at all and your comment
| made me feel the tiny things contributing to larger stories,
| for a moment. Caught me weirdly off-guard.
| shiroiushi wrote:
| You're ignoring the prime reason humans aren't going to travel
| to Mars anytime soon: radiation. Good luck getting there
| without accumulating a huge dose of hard radiation that gives
| you cancer. This is why we should be worrying about building
| human settlements on the Moon first: we can put them
| underground (for radiation shielding, plus other benefits like
| avoiding meteorites), and the travel time is so short that the
| cumulative radiation exposure is very low. 3 days of exposure
| to cosmic rays is very low compared to a year or so, or at best
| 6 months.
|
| Once we have manufacturing capability on the Moon, we can build
| much larger ships that have some decent radiation shielding.
|
| Of course, the low gravity causes a bunch more problems. But
| here again, with significant space- and Moon-based industry, we
| could build much larger ships with spin gravity. This doesn't
| help the people working on the Moon though, but at least here
| we could cycle them on and off the Moon every 6 months or so,
| since the trip is only 3 days, so they could come back to Earth
| and re-acclimate to 1g periodically.
|
| https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/explorers-will-fac...
| nakedneuron wrote:
| I'm expecting mice will do the job. Why else is research
| centered about them?
| ImHereToVote wrote:
| By all accounts seems like this is a cure to age related bone
| loss. Almost everyone suffers from age related bone loss of some
| degree. Would like love to hear news about commercialisation of
| this.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| In my 20 mins of searching; it looks like it's CCN3 is produced
| by humans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOV_(gene)) and
| presumably humans have the receptors for it as well - though
| I'm uncertain if the same effect in mice will translate to
| humans. Since naturally occurring genes and genetic sequences
| are not patentable even if they don't commercialize you could
| probably get a 3rd party to make it reasonably cheaply. So if
| it is found to work I wouldn't even worry about
| commercialization.
| ImHereToVote wrote:
| I just want to buy it once by bones start to get retarded.
| rjurney wrote:
| So long as its safe. Almost always, these things don't pan
| out... or at least the first molecular iteration. That's the
| primary reason medicine is so expensive.
| nextos wrote:
| Yes, the trick will be to prevent too much growth and
| therefore the appearance of rogue mutants that may lead to
| e.g. osteosarcoma.
|
| Lots of organs in the body lack regeneration capabilities
| once you age as an evolutionary mechanism to avoid tumors.
|
| Uri Alon's book _Systems Medicine_ has lots of models to
| explain those differences depending on e.g. organ size.
| Qem wrote:
| I was wondering just about this, if hormone replacement
| therapy is really that safe, as one can imagine the natural
| drop in its levels with age may not necessarily be
| pathological itself, but a protection mechanism. Like the
| ageing body were an old boiler you can't just do a
| overhaul, so as the pipes rust, you turn the pressure down,
| to keep it operating it within a safe envelope. HRT then
| would be like an unwitting intern trying to improve the
| system by cranking the settings up back to the level of a
| brand new one.
| kridsdale1 wrote:
| Evolution doesn't work this way. Everything that happens
| to an organism past the standard age range of
| reproduction has 0 effect on natural selection. There is
| no system affecting "graceful decline" of body systems in
| some protective way for things that happen past 35 in
| women and maybe 45 in men.
|
| But yes, as a HRT user myself (age 38), I do see it as
| replacing the fluids in my car to make it operate like
| when it was peak tuned at age 22.
| nextos wrote:
| That is absolutely not true. Even genetic variants from
| your father that are not inherited by you still influence
| your chances of survival and how likely you are to pass
| your genes to an offspring. Imagine your dad has a rare
| genetic variant, which you don't inherit, that means he
| is likely to be dead by age 50. Your fitness will be
| lower as you will lack a father during your childhood.
|
| See this famous study: The nature of nurture: Effects of
| parental genotypes. _Science_ , 359, 424-428 (2018).
| doi:10.1126/science.aan6877. The summary literally
| states:
|
| _" Genetic variants in parents may affect the fitness of
| their offspring, even if the child does not carry the
| allele. This indirect effect is referred to as genetic
| nurture. Kong et al. used data from genome-wide
| association studies of educational attainment to
| construct polygenic scores for parents that only
| considered the nontransmitted alleles."_
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| What are your tested free-T levels after HRT? 500, 800,
| 1000? Age 38: That is pretty early, in my experience,
| unless you are using it as "HET" (hormone enhancement
| therapy) for bodybuilding -- basically, medical doctor-
| approved anabolic steroids.
| fuzztester wrote:
| >Lots of organs in the body lack regeneration capabilities
| once you age as an evolutionary mechanism to avoid tumors.
|
| why is this so?
| nextos wrote:
| Simplifying a lot, once you age, your cells have
| accumulated lots of genetic and epigenetic defects, so
| they are more likely to become cancerous if you let them
| divide quickly.
|
| Besides, you have less lymphocytes looking for
| carcinogenic cells, as your immune system is older.
| fuzztester wrote:
| thanks
| smolder wrote:
| > That's the primary reason medicine is so expensive.
|
| My aim isn't to make a long thread out of the topic but:
| while I'd agree it's one reason, I'd dispute it's primary.
| Demand for medicine is pretty inelastic, meaning there is
| generally a lot of power on the supply side to set high
| prices. Then you have the dynamics between health insurers
| and providers, the burdens of regulation and liability for
| adverse effects, the tendency to focus research and marketing
| on novel [patentable] remedies over potentially cheaper ones,
| and the tendency to focus on remedy over prevention. It's
| fairly difficult to pick a primary reason.
| rjurney wrote:
| The reason they have so much power on the supply side is
| that what they do is incredibly painstaking and expensive.
| I agree the system sucks.
|
| Sublingual Toradol is available from pharmacies in Mexico.
| I fly to San Diego every five years, take the tram to the
| border and walk across to Tijuana to stock up. Toradol is
| an NSAID they give you via injection in the emergency room
| for chronic pain and headaches. By mouth it tends to cause
| GI bleeding worse than any other NSAID. A number of people
| died before they restricted the pill to five days
| consecutive use. Dissolving Toradol under your tongue
| bypasses the GI tract, making sublingual Toradol much
| safer. I carry a pill pack of four pills in my wallet, and
| having a pain medication as effective as morphine without
| sedation in my pocket at all times seriously improves my
| quality of life. There is something I can DO when my
| chronic pain flares up enough that it starts to get to me.
|
| In the US the Sprix nasal inhaler is the functional
| equivalent of sublingual Toradol. I've read the research
| papers on both medications and I compared the charts for
| pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics and... the curves are
| virtually identical. They have the same impact on the body,
| both delivery mechanisms are equally effective in safety
| terms.
|
| Sublingual Toradol is generic - the original papers on it
| are from the 80s. The Sprix is a patented delivery
| mechanism... wait for it...
|
| * A dose of subligual Toradol in a Tijuana pharmacy: $0.25
|
| * A single dose Sprix nasal inhaler from a US pharmacy: $25
| last I checked. Only indicated for severe migraines.
|
| That's a price multiple of 100x, as in one hundred times
| for a functionally equivalent medication. Last time I went
| to Tijuana the murder rate had multiplied by 10x since the
| last time I was there, so I went to the pharmacy right at
| the border. The price per dose was $0.50 there, but its
| cheaper if you go downtown. It isn't a counterfeited
| medication, so you don't have to worry about that. I wish
| more pain patients had access to sublingual Toradol. If a
| drug company wanted to improve chronic pain care, they
| could fund clinical trials in the US and get the medication
| approved. It will never happen in the states. Pure greed is
| the ONLY reason.
|
| Actually, there's a lot more research on sublingual Toradol
| since I last checked: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term
| =%22sublingual+toradol%... See the sublingual film work? No
| reason for that instead of a pill except you can patent it.
| BOOM. BURN IT ALL DOWN.
| unaindz wrote:
| I don't think we disagree but I find it interesting that
| you state: "...what they do is incredibly painstaking and
| expensive"
|
| And later proceed to explain an example of two different
| patents based on a drug from the 80s improving nothing
| but changing just enough to patent it and sell it for
| 100x the generic.
| lacrosse_tannin wrote:
| Does it do anything for connective tissue?
| MrDrMcCoy wrote:
| According to the article, that's the next thing they're going
| to test for.
| Brechreiz wrote:
| It's ok if you drink plenty of malk.
| qwertox wrote:
| Never heard of malk. Googling it just yields a brand.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| A little of the Moloko Plus
|
| "The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or
| synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking."
| aspenmayer wrote:
| https://simpsonswiki.com/wiki/Malk
|
| https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/Malk
|
| https://frinkiac.com/caption/S06E21/319051
| pixl97 wrote:
| It's got vitamin R
| tbirdny wrote:
| This is great. But, the root of the problem for most
| postmenopausal women is simply the lack of estrogen. You need
| estrogen to make bone. Men and women do. Men are mostly protected
| from osteoporosis because they convert testosterone to estrogen.
| Elderly men have more estrogen than postmenopausal women. Their
| levels go to near zero. It's a tragedy that more doctors don't
| recommend HRT for older women, at least some level of
| replacement, maybe not up to peak levels when they were younger.
| The lack of estrogen causes a lot of suffering.
| a2tech wrote:
| I sit in a lot of doctor training sessions and the feelings on
| hrt have changed a lot in the last 5-10 years. It's now well
| thought of and an acceptable risk. Apparently the quality of
| life improvement is huge compared to the relatively minor risk
| adamc wrote:
| Although I knew a woman who had breast cancer and a
| consequence was taking her off HRT. Which she was dreading.
| mrmuagi wrote:
| I saw this recent video on a similar topic (prostate cancer
| and testerone/TRT considerations) [1], and bookmarked it
| for later. Not knowledgeable to speak further on it though.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiVCsm4dNh0
| apwell23 wrote:
| If testosterone causes PC then men in their teens and 20s
| would be the most likely candidates to suffer from it.
| But PC is almost always a disease of old age .
| tum92 wrote:
| Estrogen exposure is a _significant_ risk factor for
| endometrial cancer, which most commonly occurs in post-
| menopausal women. It's a cumulative effect, as are many
| other things.
|
| Not a comment on the parent post, just highlighting that
| biology is not so straight forward.
| adrianN wrote:
| It is my understanding that excess testosterone can take
| prostate cancer from ,,it grows so slowly you'll die of
| something else first" to something that kills you
| quickly.
| gavinmckenzie wrote:
| What my doctor has told me, after attending a urology +
| prostate cancer conference, is to think of the prostate
| as a sponge that absorbs testosterone. And once the
| sponge overflows, prostate cancer can be triggered.
|
| But once cancer has occurred, adding more testosterone
| doesn't matter because the sponge is already super-
| saturated.
|
| In fact, doctors who have this perspective will permit
| men with prostate cancer to continue testosterone
| therapy.
| unaindz wrote:
| My father was recently diagnosed with prostate cancer and
| the first treatment was eradicating all testosterone from
| his body as the affected cells were "feeding" from it.
| It's not a cure as they tend to find other ways to grow
| with time but testosterone does make it faster.
|
| Of course there are many types of cancer so this may not
| be true for all prostate cancers.
| RoyalHenOil wrote:
| When I reach my elder years, I would happily undergo a
| preemptive mastectomy in exchange for stronger bones that
| would let me stay mobile for longer.
| ravenstine wrote:
| Men are also more likely to do strength training, which also
| helps build bone density. Women are also more likely to
| regularly perform cardio/aerobic exercises, which can reduce
| bone density when done in excess and without adequate
| nutrition. Lack of estrogen is of course the root, but I think
| we can't dismiss behavior differences contributing to the
| effect. In my experience, many women do minimal to no strength
| training because they're worried that muscle tone will make
| them look masculine. Maybe this is a really bad idea to live
| by.
| amelius wrote:
| > Women are also more likely to regularly perform
| cardio/aerobic exercises, which can reduce bone density when
| done in excess and without adequate nutrition.
|
| What is the biological mechanism behind this statement?
| ravenstine wrote:
| Elevated cortisol (in response to the stress of running or
| whatever) increases bone resorption and inhibits bone
| growth. This isn't necessarily an issue for anyone doing
| lots of cardio, but it's an increase in risk. It also
| reduces protein synthesis, which is important for both
| muscle and bone (it isn't just calcium).
| magicalist wrote:
| > _Elevated cortisol (in response to the stress of
| running or whatever) increases bone resorption and
| inhibits bone growth_
|
| Cortisol is also released during strength training,
| though.
|
| Seems like a real issue is _low impact_ cardio, which isn
| 't negative for bone density (as far as I can tell) but
| does have a theoretical opportunity cost when you could
| be doing weight-bearing cardio, which does improve bone
| density.
|
| Agreed with littlestymaar's comment higher up, though,
| that exercise rates being what they are, the theoretical
| opportunity cost may be quite theoretical.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| > Cortisol is also released during strength training,
| though.
|
| more than compensated for by the compressive loading
| signals from lifting heavy.
| ambicapter wrote:
| How do compressive loading signals compensate for
| cortisol production? Seems like one is a nerve signal and
| the other is a hormone?
| digdugdirk wrote:
| The previous post was referring to the overall bone
| density change. The skeletal loading from strength
| training is a stronger signal for bone density increase
| vs the negative impact on bone density from increased
| cortisol production.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Elevated cortisol ... increases bone resorption and
| inhibits bone growth
|
| Would that also be true for caffeine consumption? IIRC it
| increases cortisol levels, but I don't really know much
| about what else it does, I've only read the Wikipedia
| page and gone "Wow, I'm _really_ glad I 've already cut
| back".
| hilbert42 wrote:
| _" "Wow, I'm really glad I've already cut back"."_
|
| What you said about caffeine worried me somewhat, so I
| looked it up on Wiki and what I found about it was mostly
| innocuous and some properties are even beneficial, it's
| even on WHO's list of essential medicines.
|
| Many vegetables have much more dangerous compounds and
| toxins: oxalic acid (a rust remover and bleach that can
| rot your kidneys) in rhubarb and Popeye's spinach and
| many other green-leaf vegies, solanine in potatoes, and
| very dangerous cancer-causing aflatoxins in peanut
| butter, and that's just the beginning, there are many
| dozens more! Now you know, are you going to starve?
|
| And to boot, caffeine is a nice looking heterocyclic
| purine-like molecule with a six and a five-member ring
| both heavily laden with nitrogen, so what's the worry
| about? What's not to like about it?
| ben_w wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#Overdose
|
| """Consumption of 1-1.5 grams [...] per day is associated
| with a condition known as caffeinism.[141] Caffeinism
| usually combines caffeine dependency with a wide range of
| unpleasant symptoms including nervousness, irritability,
| restlessness, insomnia, headaches, and palpitations after
| caffeine use."""
|
| """cases of very high caffeine intake (e.g. > 5 g) may
| result in caffeine intoxication with symptoms including
| mania, depression, lapses in judgment, disorientation,
| disinhibition, delusions, hallucinations or psychosis,
| and rhabdomyolysis."""
| hilbert42 wrote:
| 1-1.5g. Who do you know consumes 10 to 15 cups of coffee
| per day consistently? I'd suggest very few.
|
| >5g. Now, who do you know consumes more than 50 cups of
| coffee per day consistently? I'd suggest none.
|
| If you scaled up oxalic acid daily doses in the same
| ratio as for the caffeine example then in the first
| instance the person would almost undoubtedly have kidney
| stones. In the second example the person would be dead.
| Right, at that dose Popeye's spinach meal would almost
| certainly have killed him.
|
| At least the 'caffeinated' person, whilst off his head,
| would likely be still alive.
|
| Even water has a LD50 rating. As millions attest,
| caffeine is one of the safer less harmful chemicals that
| plants use to defend themselves with. Almost every other
| organic molecule that plants use to ward off insects is
| more toxic.
|
| Here's a few we actually eat:
| www.mashed.com/1299947/most-dangerous-vegetables/ There
| are tens of thousands of others that you'd want to keep
| well away from, Nux vomica, Manchineel, Death caps,
| Atropa belladonna, etc. By comparison, in the danger
| stakes, caffeine doesn't even get off the starting block.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Who do you know consumes 10 to 15 cups of coffee per
| day consistently? I'd suggest very few.
|
| Me in 2009, by dose, as a result of constantly increasing
| my consumption and ending up at multiple tablespoons (not
| teaspoons) of instant per cup and nothing else but coffee
| as daily fluid intake.
|
| Hence being glad I'd already cut back by the time I'd
| read about the impact of too much.
|
| They warned us in school about the dangers of tobacco and
| alcohol (and all the illegal drugs*), but nobody ever
| said "there is such a thing as too much caffeine".
|
| There is, and the unlimited free coffee in most
| workplaces turns out to be a problem for me.
|
| * regarding your point about LD50 water, school also lied
| about the dangers of Ecstasy. Leah Betts' actual cause of
| death was water overdose, but she was the literal poster-
| child for the anti-drugs campaign in my time.
| lupusreal wrote:
| 1 gram of caffeine is 10 to 20 caffeine pills. Nobody
| does this without knowing they've got a problem.
| hilbert42 wrote:
| No doubt! 10 to 20 caffeine pills could be taken at once,
| my example was cups of coffee per day (rough estimate
| [?]100mg/cup). Taken over a day it would be better
| tolerated (but I'd still not consume that amount).
| creata wrote:
| Being on WHO's list of essential medicines is no
| indicator of how innocuous a substance is.
| hilbert42 wrote:
| I'm sorry you missed the point.
| ben_w wrote:
| Re-reading your comment, I think you're the one who
| missed mine.
|
| I said "cut back" not "cut out".
| callalex wrote:
| It's really not indicative of much at all. They also
| spout off about artificial sweeteners despite a complete
| lack of scientific evidence. It's a political
| organization, not a scientific one.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| This may be true, but it's not really relevant. Most people
| don't do training at all, especially past 50 yo, where bone
| density declines in women.
|
| (And that's a significant issue in itself)
| piombisallow wrote:
| Estrogen replacement increases the risk of cancer in women.
| kridsdale1 wrote:
| This is not accurate and is the result of a
| misinterpretation of the Women's Health study of the 2000s.
| It's much more complicated. The specific type of molecule
| matters.
| bsder wrote:
| Citation.
|
| Breast cancer dropped with a _step function_ when HRT was
| stopped in general for meopausal women.
|
| I haven't seen any studies to the contrary.
| digdugdirk wrote:
| Did a quick search and found this one:
| https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/risk-of-breast-cancer-
| with...
|
| Could be worth a look? I didn't dive into the study
| itself, but it seems decent at a glance.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| There are various forms of HRT and not all cause an
| increase in cancer. It's a shame that notion has stuck
| around when it could be so helpful for so many women: bone
| density, hot flashes, vaginal atrophy, etc.
|
| They do tend to cause an increase in blood clots though.
| The risk is manageable in relatively fit women. In
| overweight/sedentary women that gets a bit harder to
| balance out.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| > _They do tend to cause an increase in blood clots
| though._
|
| That risk factor is specific to the oral route, and/or
| conjugated equine oestrogens. Injections, patches etc. of
| synthesised oestrogens don't seem to have that problem.
| https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.k4810
|
| > Transdermal preparations were not associated with risk
| of venous thromboembolism, which was consistent for
| different regimens
|
| Don't eat your HRT: rub it on your gums!
| hyperthesis wrote:
| Read of a study years ago that had postmenopausal wpmen do
| weight training - giving a dramatic 40% increase in bone
| density in 6 weeks IIRC the details.
|
| It's not that frail people need to be inactive, but that
| inactivity causes frailty.
| alecst wrote:
| I'd like to see that, the studies I've seen show around
| 1-5% per year.
| scott_w wrote:
| Is that trained or untrained? "Newbie gains" is a real
| thing, mostly caused by people going from a negative
| health state to a "normal" health state (or inactivity to
| basic activity).
|
| I can see a rapid increase in untrained people but more
| marginal increases in trained people because of this.
| arcticbull wrote:
| I was under the impression newbie gains were more
| attributable to better neuromuscular and connective
| tissue adaptation rather than something that can lead to
| bone growth. You can gain like 2-4lbs of muscle per month
| in that phase, and a disproportionate amount of strength.
|
| A 40% increase in _bone density_ over 6 _weeks_ sounds
| like someone's DEXA scanner is broken. Bones just don't
| change that quickly.
| scott_w wrote:
| Is there a case of bone density being "too low" in some
| sense that can cause it to go up more quickly? Maybe it's
| not the bones themselves but something the DEXA scanner
| picks up that looks like bone growth?
| safety1st wrote:
| > many women do minimal to no strength training because
| they're worried that muscle tone will make them look
| masculine.
|
| I've observed this as being a very widespread belief too, and
| it seems like we need to be giving women a better biology
| education or something, because holy shit is it wrong.
|
| I guess it's more a misconception among the general non
| weight training public that this stuff is so easy you can
| basically develop a muscular, masculine body on accident.
|
| For all but the youngest and most genetically blessed males
| it takes _years_ of very specific diet and exercise regimes.
| Or steroids.
|
| Whereas just adding some weighted squats into her routine
| will have immense health benefits for most women as well as
| making their body look more feminine and attractive.
| sapphicsnail wrote:
| Men could also stop policing women's bodies and activities.
| I have had my doctor tell me to do load-bearing exercises
| but I've also heard men mock not just masculine-looking
| women, but women who are interested in male-coded
| activities like weight lifting.
| lupusreal wrote:
| I wager more men like it than men who mock it. Sports
| Illustrated is popular for a reason, fit women being
| considered attractive is very mainstream. There will
| always be a few assholes that will mock anybody for
| anything, but what can anybody do about that?
| erklik wrote:
| Far more men like women with good-looking fit bodies.
| It's a statistically insignificant minority that likes
| "fat women", so "men" overall aren't policing women's
| bodies to the point of influencing women to not go to the
| gym. It's largely women who do it to each other.
| DiscourseFan wrote:
| >It's a statistically insignificant minority that likes
| "far women"
|
| Well, I'm not sure if that's true, many men like "curvy"
| women, but generally even they are regularly working out.
| It would be more accurate to say that men dislike
| unhealthy women. But then you could say the same thing
| about men.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > heard men mock.., women who are interested in male-
| coded activities like weight lifting.
|
| This sounds like some really insecure men
| safety1st wrote:
| No one is "policing bodies and activities" here, sounds
| to me like you are just being oversensitive and trying to
| twist the discussion into one that hates on guys. This
| sort of coded misandry doesn't work on me anymore, it's
| so overused, many people have wised up.
|
| So I will say it again: any woman who thinks she will
| accidentally develop a masculine physique is a fool. She
| has a poor understanding of weight training and the human
| body.
|
| Just as any man who thinks he'll get that physique on
| accident is also a fool!
| brezelgoring wrote:
| You must have heard it already but you won't turn into
| Arnold by doing bodyweight squats 3 days a week for a
| year. It will, however, shape your body and rearrange fat
| deposits into more conventionally attractive positions
| and I don't think there's anyone around saying that's not
| attractive.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| > they're worried that muscle tone will make them look
| masculine
|
| Yes, this is a common concern. It would be good to show women
| what it looks like to workout _hard_ six days a week for more
| than one year. (My point: That is an unrealistic weight
| lifting schedule for 99% of women.) They still won 't look
| very masculine. Very well toned, but not very masculine. My
| advice when women raise this concern: "If you get too big,
| just ease off. Maintaining is way easier than growing."
| Beretta_Vexee wrote:
| https://brokenclipboard.wordpress.com/2016/02/08/media-
| cover...
|
| It's been done. It doesn't matter that you can't see the
| abs on 50% of the women on the Olympic team. Some think
| they'll get the physique of a professional body builder
| who's been abusing steroids for a decade anyway.
| cs02rm0 wrote:
| Steroids have a lot to answer for when it comes to
| perceptions around exercise in general.
| drakonka wrote:
| Anecdotally, I have never heard this sentiment from other
| women I know. That doesn't mean they aren't _thinking_
| it, though. Maybe it also depends on location - where I
| live it is very common for both men and women to do some
| form of strength training.
|
| I've been lifting weights on and off for over a decade
| and although I do have visible abs, that's more by nature
| of low body fat percentage than lifting. The point is -
| no matter how hard I train, I've never even gotten close
| to what I would consider as "too big" for my preference.
| Even as your muscle mass increases, the end result just
| seems to be a more _compact_ and efficient look rather
| than "bulky" in any sense of the word.
| Beretta_Vexee wrote:
| The more you get to know athletes, the more you realize
| the reality of the physiques of both strength and
| endurance athletes.
|
| The same applies to cardio, where the general population
| over-estimates the calories burned and imagines that all
| runners will become skeletons.
| apwell23 wrote:
| > . It's a tragedy that more doctors don't recommend HRT for
| older women, at least some level of replacement
|
| Once you get on this your only options are 1. use till you die
| 2. stop and face consequences of suppressed natural estrogen
| production from HRT.
|
| Is that right?
| ambicapter wrote:
| Is their natural estrogen production not already suppressed
| from menopause?
| apwell23 wrote:
| sure but wouldn't HRT suppress whats remanning? Otherwise
| you are just getting free biological lunch.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| I'm no expert but I don't believe it's similar to
| testosterone in that it could be suppressed for life
| after doing replacement therapy.
| landryraccoon wrote:
| "Use it till you die" seems like less and less of a penalty
| the older you get.
| Abishek_Muthian wrote:
| When I was 32 I had a sudden cerebral spine fracture, I was
| diagnosed as having severe Osteoporosis(I was told my bones
| were like that of 80 year old); The doctors didn't bother much
| as I was living with Achondroplasia (Dwarfism) and they
| attributed everything to it.
|
| I'm on bisphosphonate treatment (zoledronic acid), I've already
| had 5 of those injections and I recently learnt that it could
| lead to severe side effects and not that effective for treating
| Osteoporosis.
|
| Meanwhile I underwent a genetic testing and the result came out
| as I have COMP8 mutation which leads to Multiple epiphyseal
| dysplasia or Pseudo-achondroplasia; Both of which affects bones
| to different extent and I have symptoms for both.
|
| I'm now looking for treatments which can help improve my bone
| density or at-least prevent further deterioration, CCN3 looks
| really promising. I even started a project to monitor bone
| health using BMD (Dexa) reports[1] and to submit reports for
| research (I'm looking for researchers in this area).
|
| 1 in 3 women over the age of 50 years and 1 in 5 men will
| experience osteoporotic fractures in their lifetime, According
| to this article more than 200 million people worldwide suffer
| from osteoporosis but I feel investment in bone health research
| is not enough.
|
| [1] https://bonehealthtracker.com/
| kingkawn wrote:
| Triggering Paget's disease in 3, 2,...
| hooverd wrote:
| Ah, bone healing juice.
| manav wrote:
| Is there a good HN equivalent specifically for science/med/bio
| news? I do find interesting papers here on the topic although
| it's not the core focus.
| pps wrote:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/science/ - you can filter it by field
| rednerrus wrote:
| If this sub is the state of modern science, we are in a lot
| of trouble.
| hypeatei wrote:
| Reddit isn't the state of anything in the real world, it's
| a bubble.
| 3abiton wrote:
| Wait till the bots "fully" take over.
| DiscourseFan wrote:
| Pretty big bubble
| ak217 wrote:
| https://www.science.org/
|
| https://www.eurekalert.org/
|
| https://phys.org/
| Sparkyte wrote:
| Can't wait for breaking a hip at 80 to be a thing of the past.
| Bone health is also a contributor in life expectancy and health
| of a person altogether. I read a study if you can assure your
| bones are healthy you can assure your health longterm.
| masfuerte wrote:
| Is bone health like grip strength? Grip strength correlates
| with life expectancy because it is a good proxy for overall
| health, but if you just work on your grip strength you won't
| get much healthier.
| ilc wrote:
| No, because if you break a hip, you lose a ton of mobility,
| which will cause an avalanche of problems.
| samatman wrote:
| Not entirely, for a pretty obvious reason: breaking a bone at
| an advanced age is not infrequently the beginning of the end.
| Not enough to make it primary (in other words, your point
| about bone density as a correlate rather than a determinate
| is basically correct), but enough that improving just bone
| health on a widespread basis should help with life expectancy
| as well.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| What is so special about grip strength? I never heard
| anything about this before your post.
| masfuerte wrote:
| It was a thing in the media a couple of years ago.
| Researchers noticed a strong correlation between grip
| strength and healthy life expectancy in the old, so there
| were lots of pointless articles published about improving
| your grip strength.
| tobir wrote:
| Just from memory, but it has a significant correlation to
| testosterone levels. Also, the disparity in grip strength
| is especially large between men and women, when compared to
| other strength indicators.
| Sparkyte wrote:
| Try googling this it is kind of interesting. Link between
| bone density and skin elasticity. You will find that the
| denser the bones the healthier the skin. We may find people
| who are 70 looking like they are 50.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| That sounds like they're both correlated with oestrogen
| levels.
| manmal wrote:
| Wasn't the best contributor to life expectancy vascular &
| endothelial health?
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| Wonder if it would help teeth as well?
| birriel wrote:
| I don't know about this hormone, but human clinical trials for
| a tooth-regrowing drug will begin in September. It was
| successful in animal models.
|
| https://www.engadget.com/the-worlds-first-tooth-regrowing-dr...
| v8xi wrote:
| If this works and becomes a common dental procedure I will be
| soooo happy. Every time I go to the dentist I ask them if
| anything like this is coming down the pipeline and they
| laugh...
| danvoell wrote:
| Amazing! Can anyone hypothesize whether it could have adverse
| effect towards cancer cells? Im dealing with someone who has
| osteoporosis due to cancer treatment.
| cactusfrog wrote:
| Probably promote cancer cell growth as well
| gwerbret wrote:
| @dang or whoever: I want to protest the recent (as in, after it
| was originally posted) addition of "in mice" to the title of this
| thread. It turns a significant scientific discovery into
| something that seems tawdry and meaningless. Discoveries in mice
| involving novel biological mechanisms can be important for at
| least 3 reasons:
|
| - The mechanisms discovered work exactly the same way in humans.
| This is not a long shot at all, as mice aren't that far from
| humans genetically and physiologically.
|
| - The mechanisms work slightly different in humans, pointing us
| to different natural solutions to a problem.
|
| - The mechanisms work entirely different in humans, pointing us
| to potentially-important evolutionary divergences (maybe the
| biology was improved on in humans).
|
| In any of these instances, the findings remain important, and "in
| mice" just cheapens that. After all, this work was published in
| _Nature_ , which is still one of the top journals in any research
| field. The folks running the journal may have their issues, but
| they're not all idiots.
|
| Edit: wording.
| bheadmaster wrote:
| > It turns a significant scientific discovery into something
| that seems tawdry and meaningless.
|
| > Discoveries in mice involving novel biological mechanisms can
| be important [...]
|
| If discoveries in mice can be important, then how does stating
| that they're _in mice_ make them less important?
| gwerbret wrote:
| Because people have a tendency to automatically dismiss
| findings when they're said to be "in mice".
| defrost wrote:
| More to the point, it's a gendered difference, in mice and
| likely in humans also. "One of the
| remarkable things about these findings is that if we hadn't
| been studying female mice, which unfortunately is the norm
| in biomedical research, then we could have completely
| missed out on this finding,"
|
| Many people understand that results in mice _indicate_
| similar results in humans, those that don 't are likely to
| misunderstand or dismiss work in other ways in any case.
| unaindz wrote:
| I'm not sure if they tested on males but my understanding
| is that the hormone is produced by females but arguably
| could work on males too, just like with TRT where being
| biologically female doesn't deprive of the testosterone
| effects.
| bheadmaster wrote:
| That's because people assume that research is done on
| humans, if the sample species is not specified. Wouldn't it
| be dishonest to exploit that assumption?
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| The 'in mice' has become another talking point on 'the
| right', mainly to discredit science and 'studies' in general.
| And that all 'mice' based studies are false.
|
| It is the main talking point of the Weinstein brothers on
| their podcast. But their main thrust is not the reasonable
| list of points by the OP, the Weinstein point is that all
| mice studies are meaningless junk science and don't mean
| anything.
|
| So, the 'in mice' has become a moniker for 'bad science' from
| those on 'the right'.
| Al-Khwarizmi wrote:
| I would say it turns an OK headline into a more precise
| headline.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Yeah, and why do people always add "in mice" after reading a
| fortune cookie? It makes their predictions seem so much less
| serious.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Oh great, just what my cat wants: crunchier mice.
| _visgean wrote:
| Just what we need, super strong mice!
| pfdietz wrote:
| It sounds like CCN3 (NOV) has widespread effects in the body.
| Also, this wikipedia page needs updating for this result.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOV_(gene)
| sharpshadow wrote:
| "One of the remarkable things about these findings is that if we
| hadn't been studying female mice, which unfortunately is the norm
| in biomedical research, then we could have completely missed out
| on this finding..."
|
| Imagine then how much we missed from male mice.
| venkat223 wrote:
| If a person goes on eating mango fruit in the seasons his bones
| get stronger and that calcium harmones are triggered
| venkat223 wrote:
| In young age mango fruit eaters get strong bones till old age or
| even death
| moh_maya wrote:
| Can you please share some evidence (peer-reviewed scientific
| research publications / clinical data) supporting this? Curious
| about the potential mechanisms.
| mynjin wrote:
| So is it reasonable to assume that males who induce lactation
| will also produce this bone building maternal brain hormone?
| m3kw9 wrote:
| In the medical world "Could" means you are step 2 of 100 to a
| released product
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-23 23:16 UTC)