Men experiencing a pronounced, age-related decline in testosterone level are more likely to die of any cause during a 15-year period vs. men who have testosterone levels in the 10th to 90th percentile, according to findings reported in the European Journal of Endocrinology.

Stine A. Holmboe, MSc, a doctoral student in the department of growth and reproduction at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, and colleagues analyzed data from 1,167 men aged 30 to 60 years participating in the Danish Monitoring Trends and Determinants of Cardiovascular Disease (MONICA1) study, conducted between November 1982 and February 1984, as well as the follow-up examination 10 years later (MONICA10), conducted between 1993 and 1994. Researchers measured levels of testosterone, sex hormone-binding globulin and luteinizing hormone at baseline and follow-up, and then followed the cohort for up to 18 years (mean, 15.2 years) using data from national mortality registries. Researchers used Cox proportional hazard models, with age as the underlying time scale, to assess the association between intra-individual hormone changes and all-cause, CVD and cancer mortality.

During follow-up, 421 men (36.1%) died (106 cancer-related deaths; 119 CVD-related deaths). The estimated mean intra-individual percentage change in hormone levels per year for the cohort were –1.5% for total testosterone, 0.9% for SHBG, –1.9% for free testosterone and 1% for luteinizing hormone. When estimated cross-sectionally, however, mean percentage changes in hormone levels per year were –0.4% for total testosterone, 1.2% for SHBG, –1.1% for free testosterone and 1.1% for luteinizing hormone, according to researchers.

Researchers observed that men who experienced the most pronounced decline in total testosterone — men in the lowest 10th percentile — saw the greatest increased risk for all-cause mortality (HR = 1.6; 95% CI, 1.08-2.38) vs. the reference category. The risk corresponded with an annual total testosterone decline of at least –0.6 nmol/L.

Across tertiles of SHBG levels, researchers found no significant differences in all-cause mortality; however, there was a U-shaped trend observed, with increases in all-cause mortality for those with a change in SHBG levels below the 10th percentile (< –0.7 nmol/L per year) or above the 90th percentile (> 1.1 nmol/L per year) vs. the middle group.

Men with the most pronounced decline in free testosterone also saw an increased risk for all-cause mortality; however, this was significant only in the tertile model (HR = 1.45; 95% CI, 1.09-1.92), according to researchers. There were no disease-specific associations observed, and associations were independent of age, baseline hormone levels and lifestyle factors.

“A possible causal link between an increased tempo in age-related [testosterone] decline and subsequent health is unknown and remains to be investigated,” the researchers wrote. – by Regina Schaffer

Article Source: https://www.healio.com/endocrinology/reproduction-androgen-disorders/news/in-the-journals/%7Bb9ffabec-a385-4c19-b01b-4981f05e01d1%7D/testosterone-decline-associated-with-increased-mortality-risk

“The Greatest Health of Your Life”℠

Boston Testosterone Partners
National Testosterone Restoration for Men
Wellness & Preventative Medicine

http://www.BostonTestosterone.com

http://www.BTPWellness.com

http://www.facebook.com/corenewengland
855-617-MEDS (6337)

With increasing age comes many wonderful things, including hard-learned wisdom, better sex, and cold, hard cash. But since life is a total bitch, aging also flings some serious horse shit our way, too, namely in the form of achy knees, the ‘dad bod,’ and baldness. Oh, that darn male pattern baldness.

Statistics show that by the age of 35, around 66 percent of men lose a considerable amount of hair, and by 55, 85 percent of men have significant hair loss. And by significant hair loss, I mean bald, just like Mr. Clean.

Sure, having a gorgeous head of hair is a blessing, but hey, no shame in being a baldie. There’s no use fighting it if your hair is falling out. Plus, if you just shave off any remaining tufts of hair instead of combing it over like a dweeb, and just go for the clean bald look, think of all the time and money you’ll save! And not to mention how badass you’ll look.

And guess what? Going bald (or just shaving all your hair off) is actually one of the greatest things that can happen to you, because apparently, bald dudes are perceived as more intelligent, dominant, and overall sexier than men who have a full head of hair. Or so says Dr. Frank Muscarella from Barry University in Florida.

Interested in why baldness is still a thing, even though it’s seen as such a horribly negative thing, Muscarella set out on a noble quest to find out why the baldness trait hasn’t been bred out of humans yet.

In his study, Muscarella and his team asked participants to rate a selection of men in four domains: physical attractiveness, aggressiveness, appeasement, and social maturity, which included factors like honesty, intelligence, and social status.

Once he crunched the numbers, he found that generally, people perceive bald dudes as more honest, intelligent, and dominant, which are obviously all good things. However, there is one bit of bad news – baldness decreases perceived physical attractiveness just a touch, but no matter. The increase in the other domains cancels that out.

Besides, look at Jason Statham. He’s on the short side of the height spectrum and he’s bald, but he’s one of the sexiest dudes in Hollywood. Just look at how badass he is!

“It could be speculated that although the characteristic of baldness decreases a man’s perceived physical attractiveness, it increases his perceived social dominance,” Muscarella told Daily Mail.

“Studies have shown baldness in men is seen as a non-threatening form of social dominance. There is a large body of literature that shows that although women like physically attractive men, they are also very attracted to signs of high social dominance.”

“Consequently, it could now be explained how the characteristic was passed on. My speculation is that as humans evolved and the group became increasingly important for survival, males played a more integral role in the family group, and it may have been adaptive to evolve a morphological sign of this dominance-related role and one that made the adult males appear less threatening and more approachable to facilitate interactions with them.”

Well, damn. That’s what I like to hear. That said, if you’re struggling with the psychological trauma of hair loss, just remind yourself: Would you rather be a pretty boy with a head of hair? Or would you rather be a highly intelligent, sexy, dominant goddamn boss who everyone respects?

I think the answer is clear.

Written By: ZEYNEP YENISEY

Article Source: https://www.maxim.com/maxim-man/bald-men-are-sexier-2017-1

“The Greatest Health of Your Life”℠

Boston Testosterone Partners
National Testosterone Restoration for Men
Wellness & Preventative Medicine

http://www.BostonTestosterone.com

http://www.BTPWellness.com

http://www.facebook.com/corenewengland
855-617-MEDS (6337)

A widening waistline may make for shrinking numbers of sperm, new research suggests. Indian scientists studied more than 1,200 men and found that too much extra weight was linked to a lower volume of semen, a lower sperm count and lower sperm concentration.

“The Greatest Health of Your Life”℠

Boston Testosterone Partners
National Testosterone Restoration for Men
Wellness & Preventative Medicine

http://www.BostonTestosterone.com

http://www.BTPWellness.com

http://www.facebook.com/corenewengland
855-617-MEDS (6337)

“The Greatest Health of Your Life”℠

Boston Testosterone Partners
National Testosterone Restoration for Men
Wellness & Preventative Medicine

http://www.BostonTestosterone.com

http://www.BTPWellness.com

http://www.facebook.com/corenewengland
855-617-MEDS (6337)

Men with hypogonadism treated long-term with testosterone therapy experience improvements in sexual and urinary function compared with men who are not treated, according to findings published in The Journal of Urology.

Abdulmaged M. Traish, PhD, of the department of biochemistry and department of urology at Boston University School of Medicine, and colleagues evaluated data on men with total testosterone levels of 12.1 nmol/L or less and symptoms of hypogonadism assigned to parenteral testosterone undecanoate 1,000 mg for 12 weeks (n = 360; mean age, 57.4 years) or no testosterone (n = 296; mean age, 64.8 years) for up to 10 years to determine the effect of long-term testosterone therapy on urinary and sexual functions and quality of life. Follow-up was a mean of 6.5 years.

Total testosterone levels were restored to the physiological range (500 ng/dL) in the treated group during the first year and the levels remained stable through follow-up; however, mean testosterone levels remained less than 300 ng/dL in the untreated group.

The untreated group experienced increases in the international prostate symptom score during follow-up compared with decreases in the treated group. At baseline, 50% of the treated group reported mild symptoms and 50% reported moderate symptoms, and 91.5% of the untreated group reported mild symptoms and 8.5% reported moderate symptoms. At the last visit, all the treated group had mild symptoms, and 61% of the untreated group reported mild symptoms and 39% reported moderate symptoms.

Post-voiding bladder volume and score on the Aging Males’ Symptoms scale decreased in the treated group but increased in the untreated group.

Among the treated group, 17.1% had no erectile dysfunction, 30.5% had mild erectile dysfunction, 20.7% mild to moderate, 25.6% moderate and 6.1% severe. At the last visit, the proportion of treated participants without erectile dysfunction increased to 74.4%, 17.1% had mild, 7.3% had mild to moderate and 1.2% had moderate. Among the untreated group, 1.2% had no erectile dysfunction, 31.7% had mild, 52.4% had mild to moderate and 14.6% had moderate. The severity of erectile dysfunction increased in the untreated group through follow-up to 51.2% having moderate and 48.8% having severe.

Prostate volume remained stable in the untreated group but increased from 31.4 mL to 33.2 mL in the treated group.

Article Source: https://www.healio.com/endocrinology/hormone-therapy/news/in-the-journals/%7B0c2f828d-0812-42fa-8f66-181eb9a8ee0f%7D/testosterone-therapy-improves-sexual-urinary-function-in-men

“The Greatest Health of Your Life”℠

Boston Testosterone Partners
National Testosterone Restoration for Men
Wellness & Preventative Medicine

http://www.BostonTestosterone.com

http://www.BTPWellness.com

http://www.facebook.com/corenewengland
855-617-MEDS (6337)

HAIR loss – or alopecia – affects half of men over the age of 30 in the UK, but using certain medications to counteract it could cause erectile dysfunction – which is the inability of a man to get and maintain an erection.

By the time they reach their fifties, over 50 per cent of men will experience some degree of baldness, according to the NHS.

The most common type of hair loss is male-pattern baldness, where sufferers often experience a receding hairline followed by thinning of hair on the crown and temples.

However, there are now a number of treatment options, and the Alopecia Treatment Market Size is set to see sustained growth between now and 2022.

These include hair transplants and medications, but experts are warning of the risks involved.

Doctors at the International Andrology London have warned that men undergoing a hair transplant could suffer erectile dysfunction as a result.

They are raising awareness of a condition called post-Finasteride Syndrome which is caused by a drug called 5-alpha reductase type II enzyme inhibitor or Finasteride.

The medication works by halting hair loss in men with thinning hair.

It also assists hair transplant treatment by stopping the body from rejecting new hair.

However, it can cause some worrying side-effects.

These include neurological and physical symptoms such as muscle atrophy, chronic fatigue and depression.

Such is their prevalence that the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation has been created to boost awareness.

Dr Amr Raheem at International Andrology said: “Erectile dysfunction, loss of libido, reduction of semen creation and curvature of the penis (known as Peyronie’s) are all part of this disturbing reaction.

“Hair transplant clinics are aware of the issue and have an obligation to explain the risks to patients while the drug itself is becoming more clearly labelled.

“However, understand that investment into finding alternatives to this drug, which can provide results without compromising patients’ health, are ongoing.

“At International Andrology London, we encourage men who are developing a serious hair condition such as alopecia and know that they will need hair replacement to make a pre-emptive move, seeking out treatment for erectile dysfunction, such as shockwave therapy, before they experience the problem.

“This builds up muscle resistance and manages the condition through the hair treatment.

“An alternative option is to take Minoxidil spray which improves the circulation to the scalp and has been proven to help without the same side effects.”

Written By LAUREN CLARK

Article Source: http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/841366/hair-loss-erectile-dysfunction-transplant-treatment-medication-finasteride-alopecia-bald

“The Greatest Health of Your Life”℠

Boston Testosterone Partners
National Testosterone Restoration for Men
Wellness & Preventative Medicine

http://www.BostonTestosterone.com

http://www.BTPWellness.com

http://www.facebook.com/corenewengland
855-617-MEDS (6337)

People with high cholesterol live the longest.

This statement seems so incredible that it takes a long time to clear one´s brainwashed mind to fully understand its importance.

Yet the fact that people with high cholesterol live the longest emerges clearly from many scientific papers.

Consider the finding of Dr. Harlan Krumholz of the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine at Yale University, who reported in 1994 that old people with low cholesterol died twice as often from a heart attack as did old people with a high cholesterol.

Supporters of the cholesterol campaign consistently ignore his observation, or consider it as a rare exception, produced by chance among a huge number of studies finding the opposite.

But it is not an exception; there are now a large number of findings that contradict the lipid hypothesis.

To be more specific, most studies of old people have shown that high cholesterol is not a risk factor for coronary heart disease.

This was the result of my search in the Medline database for studies addressing that question.

Eleven studies of old people came up with that result, and a further seven studies found that high cholesterol did not predict all-cause mortality either.

Now consider that more than 90 % of all cardiovascular disease is seen in people above age 60 and that almost all studies have found that high cholesterol is not a risk factor for women.

This means that high cholesterol is only a risk factor for less than 5 % of those who die from a heart attack.

But there is more comfort for those who have high cholesterol; six of the studies found that total mortality was inversely associated with either total or LDL-cholesterol, or both.

This means that it is actually much better to have high than to have low cholesterol if you want to live to be very old.

High Cholesterol Protects Against Infection

Many studies have found that low cholesterol is in certain respects worse than high cholesterol.

For instance, in 19 large studies of more than 68,000 deaths, reviewed by Professor David R. Jacobs and his co-workers from the Division of Epidemiology at the University of Minnesota, low cholesterol predicted an increased risk of dying from gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases.

Most gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases have an infectious origin.

Therefore, a relevant question is whether it is the infection that lowers cholesterol or the low cholesterol that predisposes to infection?

To answer this question Professor Jacobs and his group, together with Dr. Carlos Iribarren, followed more than 100,000 healthy individuals in the San Francisco area for fifteen years.

At the end of the study those who had low cholesterol at the start of the study had more often been admitted to the hospital because of an infectious disease.

This finding cannot be explained away with the argument that the infection had caused cholesterol to go down, because how could low cholesterol, recorded when these people were without any evidence of infection, be caused by a disease they had not yet encountered?

Isn´t it more likely that low cholesterol in some way made them more vulnerable to infection, or that high cholesterol protected those who did not become infected? Much evidence exists to support that interpretation.

Written By: Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD

Article Source: https://www.functionalmedicineuniversity.com/public/924.cfm

“The Greatest Health of Your Life”℠

Boston Testosterone Partners
National Testosterone Restoration for Men
Wellness & Preventative Medicine

http://www.BostonTestosterone.com

http://www.BTPWellness.com

http://www.facebook.com/corenewengland
855-617-MEDS (6337)

Actor Ben Stiller was as surprised as anyone when he heard these words: “So yeah, it’s cancer.”

After all, he was only 48 and had no real reason to suspect that he had cancer, especially prostate cancer, which many people think of as an older man’s disease.

“I have no history of prostate cancer in my family and I’m not in the high-risk group,” he wrote in a public posting detailing his experience. “I had no symptoms.”

So how did the star of movies including There’s Something About Mary , Meet the Parents , and Zoolander end up getting diagnosed in the first place? And what does his case have to say about the way we diagnose and treat prostate cancer in the United States?

Stiller’s story began two years before the day in June 2014 when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. This is when his doctor, a “thoughtful internist”, gave him a simple and inexpensive PSA screening test. This was the first of many PSA tests over the next few years.

A one-time modest elevation of PSA blood levels can be explained by several factors that are often correctable. So the best course of action is to have follow-up PSA tests to monitor what direction the PSA is moving in.

As follow-up PSA tests were performed, Ben Stiller’s doctor noted a gradual rise in Stiller’s PSA over his earlier baseline. These rising levels triggered a referral to a urologist, who did further testing, including a digital rectal exam, an MRI, and finally a biopsy that confirmed the diagnosis.

Three months after his diagnosis, Stiller had undergone treatment—in his case a robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy , or removal of his prostate gland during a minimally invasive surgery—and was cancer free. That could have been the end of it, but after doing his research into prostate cancer screening and diagnosis, Stiller realized he couldn’t be silent about his experience. He’s been spreading the same message ever since: “Taking the PSA test saved my life.”

This might not seem like a controversial statement—after all, it might seem hard to argue against a simple blood test that can identify prostate cancer early enough to treat it before it spreads and without major side effects. But in fact, due to recent chaos in the official recommendations for PSA blood testing , tens of thousands of American men are skipping the very test that possibly saved Stiller’s life on the advice of their doctors and with potentially devastating consequences.

History of Screening Recommendations

The PSA test is used to measure prostate-specific antigen , a protein that is produced by the prostate gland.

PSA levels rise in aging men and can be the first signal of underlying prostate cancer. So the PSA blood test is used to identify men who may have prostate malignancy and need further evaluation.

This simple blood test was approved by the FDA in 1994 , allowing men to begin monitoring their PSA levels and identify possible tumors long before they become dangerous. ¹

Since PSA testing was introduced, the risk of dying from prostate cancer among men who were regularly screened declined by as much as 42% . ^2,3

Despite this drop, widespread PSA screening remained controversial in the medical community.

Prostate cancer is typically a slow-growing cancer, and the current biopsy and treatment methods, including the kind of less-invasive surgical removal that Stiller underwent, carry risks such as pain, incontinence and impotence. Some doctors worried that the PSA test, which can detect very slight increases in PSA levels, might be causing men with low-risk cancers to undergo biopsies and possibly unnecessary treatment.

Based on these concerns, in 2012 , the US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) issued a stunning update to prostate screening recommendations. Drawing its conclusions from the results of a $400 million federal study, the USPSTF advised against PSA screening for healthy men, saying that PSA screening has “no net benefit.” ^4-6 The American Cancer Society soon revised its recommendations, steering healthy, average-risk men away from PSA screening until age 50, with revised recommendations for men with a family history of prostate cancer. ⁷

These guidelines caused immediate uproar in the medical community, including rebuttals from Life Extension ® urging men over age 40 to continue having annual PSA blood tests. By 2016 , the USPSTF announced it was reconsidering its prior recommendations against PSA screening .

In 2017 , a new draft recommendation was released for public input. This time, the USPSTF slightly backtracked, saying that the risks and benefits of PSA screening are “closely balanced” in men between the ages of 55 and 69 and they should seek their doctor’s advice on PSA screening. Men aged 54 and under and those over the age of 70 would still be counseled to avoid PSA screening. These new, slightly softer guidelines were still not finalized as of May 2017 , and the agency was soliciting public input. ⁸

In Stiller’s case, following even the updated guidelines might have meant disaster—he was still too young to be screened according to the USPSTF (United States Preventive Service Task Force).

“If he [Ben Stiller’s doctor] had waited, as the American Cancer Society recommends, until I was 50, I would not have known I had a growing tumor until two years after I got treated,” he wrote. “If he [Ben Stiller’s doctor] had followed the US Preventive Service Task Force guidelines, I would never have gotten tested at all , and not have known I had cancer until it was way too late to treat successfully.”

The USPSTF’s original recommendations against screening were partly based on the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial . This huge trial assigned 76,685 men aged 55 – 74 years to one of two study arms. The first group (38,340 men) underwent annual PSA testing for 6 years and an annual digital rectal exam for 4 years. The control group (38,345 men) underwent normal care, with occasional “opportunistic screening” but no regular PSA monitoring. At the end of the 13-year follow-up period, researchers announced there was “no evidence of a mortality benefit” for annual PSA screening. ⁹ The USPSTF recommendation against PSA screening soon followed.

Life Extension , which has long supported PSA screening, issued a detailed rebuttal challenging the findings of this study. In fact, the study was deeply flawed thanks to widespread “contamination” of the control arm.

While Life Extension was early in identifying the obvious flaws with this study, it wasn’t long until astute research groups began to catch up. In early 2016 , a group of urologists from the New York Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medical College in New York published a letter in the New England Journal of Medicine confirming what Life Extension suspected. ¹⁰

The shocking truth was that more than 80% of the men in the control group—which was supposed to only receive “occasional” PSA screening—reported at least one PSA test during the trial. In fact, by some measures, the men in the control group received more PSA screening than men in the PSA screening arm! ¹⁰

Their conclusion? “We’re going to have to reconsider this issue.” ¹¹

Further support for this position was published in another large study, this one called the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer . This study randomized 182,000 men aged 50 to 74 to a “usual care” control group or a group with PSA screening every two to seven years. Spread across seven research centers in Europe, the group tracked prostate cancer mortality in both study arms. At the median follow-up of nine years, researchers reported that PSA screening resulted in a 20% reduction in prostate cancer mortality! ¹²

A study from the Göteborg center, one of the seven participating centers in this study, found that men aged 50 to 64 years of age who had a PSA screening every other year had a 44% reduced mortality risk from prostate cancer. The center used a PSA cutoff of 2.5 ng/mL to 3.0 ng/mL . Men with these cutoff PSA levels and higher were referred for additional testing, including a digital rectal exam, transrectal ultrasound, and prostate biopsy. ¹³

Although it’s too late to help the tens of thousands of men who likely skipped PSA screening, we are grateful the USPSTF is slowly grappling with the well-documented issues in its original guidelines by issuing the new draft recommendations. ¹⁴

The issue was further complicated by results from a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2016 . This trial followed 1,643 men for a decade, each with prostate cancer that was first detected by PSA screening, to see which of the most popular treatment techniques was most effective, including “active waiting” and monitoring the disease, surgery to remove the prostate gland, or external radiation beam therapy to treat the cancer. While the prostate-cancer-specific survival rate was high ( >98% ) in all three groups, researchers found that men in the “active waiting” group were more likely to progress to metastatic disease, and about half of them needed surgery or radiation therapy within the 10-year study period. ¹⁵

These results suggest that men benefit from early detection and early treatment of prostate cancer.

Please note that Life Extension does not recommend “ watchful or active waiting ” in the presence of high PSA and/or low-grade prostate cancer. We instead advise men to follow an aggressive “ active surveillance ” program that involves an anticancer diet along with specific drugs and nutrients that may enable early-stage disease to be contained.

Rise in Metastatic Cancer Rates

While various agencies continue to issue contradictory and confusing advice, men across the country have paid the price. In late 2016 , a research group from Northwestern Medicine released a stunning and tragic finding: diagnoses of metastatic prostate cancer, the worst type, climbed an unbelievable 72% between 2004 and 2013. ¹⁶

To reach these findings, the group studied a database of more than three-quarters of a million men in the National Cancer Data Base. What they found should alarm any man who skips his PSA screening.

“The fact that men in 2013 who presented with metastatic disease had much higher PSAs than similar men in 2004 hints that more aggressive disease is on the rise,” ¹⁷ said study author Dr. Edward Schaeffer, chair of urology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and Northwestern Medicine.

“One hypothesis is the disease has become more aggressive, regardless of the change in screening,” said Dr. Schaeffer. “The other idea is since screening guidelines have become more lax, when men do get diagnosed, it’s at a more advanced stage of disease. Probably both are true. We don’t know for sure but this is the focus of our current work.” ¹⁷

This makes treatment more difficult, and it’s exactly the situation Ben Stiller would have faced if his forward-thinking doctor hadn’t established a PSA baseline early on and tracked it, allowing him to discover Stiller’s troubling increase in PSA levels over time and recommend the movie star for further evaluation and surgery.

It’s important to note that the increase in metastatic, aggressive prostate cancer almost perfectly aligns with the trend away from PSA screening that culminated with the USPSTF 2012 recommendation against any PSA screening.

Stiller’s Happy Ending

The main concern with PSA screening is the potential for overdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment. These are real concerns—PSA screening frequently returns “false positives,” which are stressful for the patients involved and result in unnecessary biopsies and additional tests. ¹⁸

We recommends regular, inexpensive PSA screening to establish a baseline and follow PSA numbers over time. If your PSA level rises above 1.0 ng/mL , there are natural and safe measures you can take to reduce it. Further evaluation may be necessary if your PSA continues to rise over time.

In fact, this is exactly the course Stiller followed, and today he’s alive and grateful for it.

“The bottom line for me: I was lucky enough to have a doctor who gave me what they call a ‘baseline’ PSA test when I was about 46,” he wrote in Medium, a popular blogging platform. “My doctor watched my PSA tests rise for over a year and a half, testing me every six months…I think men over the age of 40 should have the opportunity to discuss the test with their doctor and learn about it, so they can have the chance to be screened.” ¹⁹

More recently, two years after his diagnosis and treatment, Stiller went public with his experience with an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, alongside Dr. Schaeffer. While reporting that he wasn’t experiencing any of the major complications of prostate surgery, Stiller gave a simple reason for going public. He wanted to educate as many men as possible about their options when it came to PSA screening.

“It’s a whole new world,” Stiller said. “You need to educate yourself.”

We at Life Extension commend Bernard M. Kruger, M.D. for having the foresight to test Ben Stiller’s PSA blood levels despite conventional “authorities” advising against PSA screening.

Written By Jon Vanzile

Article Source: http://www.lifeextension.com/Magazine/2017/9/Ben-Stiller-Advocates-Prostate-Cancer-Screening/Page-01

“The Greatest Health of Your Life”℠

Boston Testosterone Partners
National Testosterone Restoration for Men
Wellness & Preventative Medicine

http://www.BostonTestosterone.com

http://www.BTPWellness.com

http://www.facebook.com/corenewengland
855-617-MEDS (6337)

BACKGROUND:

The relation between testosterone (T) plasma concentration and cardiovascular (CV) risk is unclear, with evidence supporting increased risk in men with low and high T levels. Few studies have assessed CV risk as a function of plasma T levels using objective biomarkers.

AIM:

To determine the relation between T levels and high-sensitivity CV risk biomarkers.

METHODS:

Ten thousand forty-one male patients were identified in the database of a commercial clinical laboratory performing biomarker testing. Patients were grouped by total T concentration and associations with the following biomarkers were determined: cardiac troponin I (cTnI), endothelin-1 (ET-1), interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-17A, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NTproBNP), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), hemoglobin A _1c (HbA _1c ), and leptin.

OUTCOMES:

Association of CV risk markers with levels of T in men.

RESULTS:

The median age of the cohort was 58 years (interquartile range = 48-68), and the median plasma T level was 420 ng/dL (interquartile range = 304-565); T levels did not vary with patient age. An inverse relation between plasma T levels and CV risk was observed for 9 of 10 CV markers: cTnI, ET-1, IL-6, TNF-α, NTproBNP, HDL cholesterol, hs-CRP, HbA _1c , and leptin. Even after adjusting for age, body mass index, HbA _1c , hs-CRP, and HDL cholesterol levels, the CV markers IL-6, ET-1, NTproBNP, and leptin were significantly associated with a T level lower than 250 ng/dL.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS:

Men with low T levels could be at increased risk for increased CV disease as seen by increased CV risk markers.

STRENGTH AND LIMITATIONS:

This study was performed in a group of 10,041 men and is the first study to examine CV risk associated with circulating T levels using a large panel of 10 objective biomarkers. This study is limited by an absence of clinical data indicating whether men had pre-existing CV disease or other CV risk factors.

CONCLUSION:

Men with low plasma T levels exhibit increases in CV risk markers, consistent with a potential increased risk of CV disease. Pastuszak AW, Kohn TP, Estis J, Lipshultz LI. Low Plasma Testosterone Is Associated With Elevated Cardiovascular Disease Biomarkers. J Sex Med 2017;XX:XXX-XXX.

Copyright © 2017 International Society for Sexual Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Article Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28757119

“The Greatest Health of Your Life”℠

Boston Testosterone Partners
National Testosterone Restoration for Men
Wellness & Preventative Medicine

http://www.BostonTestosterone.com

http://www.BTPWellness.com

http://www.facebook.com/corenewengland
855-617-MEDS (6337)

http://www.BostonTestosterone.com

http://www.BTPWellness.com

http://www.facebook.com/CoreNewEngland
855-617-MEDS (6337)