Anti-aging medicine is a recent breakthrough in biotechnology that has been very controversial. This process works to slow down and reverse the aging progression. While we know that healthy lifestyle choices like diet and exercise are some of the main factors for sustaining longevity, hormones, genes, and drug supplements can be just as important. Anti aging, which has been popular since the seventies, is the use of these drugs and hormones to repair and regenerate the body in order to allow people to live longer.
Multiple anti-aging techniques have been proven to be effective and many more are being researched presently. One way to slow the aging process is gene replacement therapy. As we age, our bodies produce less of these hormones, which speeds up the aging process and weakens the immune system. This is why HGH, Human Growth Hormone, and DHEA, Dehydroepiandrosterone replacement have produced such positive results in the anti-aging field. Another technique used in anti-aging therapy is the enhancement and protection of the brain. Certain nutrients and drugs have proven to correct and prevent brain deterioration.
As mentioned previously, anti-aging is highly controversial and usually receives very negative press. There is a immense debate over the hazards and effectiveness of anti-aging treatments. Some people believe that the human aging process is not even an appropriate target for biomedical intervention.
In the future, it is expected that scientists will be able to increase the replication of DNA. This is very significant because as we age, DNA fails to replicate correctly causing decline in organ function, which eventually leads to total organ failure. While anti-aging has been most popular in the US, it has the potential to be a very successful technique due to the fact that aging is something that happens to everyone no matter where they live or who they are. The future for anti aging medicine looks very promising despite all of the criticisms it undergoes.
http://www.antiaging-systems.com/aamintro.htm
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
So you want to live forever...
There is a immense debate over the hazards and effectiveness of anti-aging treatments. A major question included in this dispute is whether the human aging process is an appropriate target for biomedical intervention or not.
A strong argument made in this article is that our society is not “designed to optimize the role of the elderly”. If this were changed and quality of life for the elderly were improved, would less people opt to receive anti-aging medication?
In our society today, the side effects and natural changes bodies undergo during the aging process have been given a negative connotation. They are and have been the source of much worry and resentment because they are considered losses by the people who are undergoing these changes. Some people argue that doctors are supposed to protect people from harms including aging and its effects. But critics of anti-aging medicine say that the negativity associated with the changes the body undergoes is influenced too much by the opinions of younger people who have not experienced them and for that matter, never want to. They also argue that by using anti-aging techniques, doctors are keeping people from experiencing the benefits of aging.
The article states that, “Public attitudes towards the enhancement technologies already available suggest that the demand for truly effective anti-aging interventions will be so substantial that legal prohibition would simply produce robust domestic or off-shore black markets.” This implies that there really is no point in trying to keep people from seeking these treatments because some way or another, they are going to find a way to get them.
So, who is right when it comes to this argument? Personally, I believe that if the anti-aging treatments are safe and effective, people should have the right to decide whether or not to take advantage of them. I understand both sides of the argument and recognize that each side presents valid points. I feel that people should have the freedom to control their own bodies. We are not talking about children here. We are talking about adults who have been making their own decisions regarding themselves and their bodies for many years. Especially when the adults are informed and knowledgeable about the procedure, others should not have the right to stop them from receiving these treatments. I believe that anti-aging treatments have a promising future and I think that if they are out there, we should take advantage of them. If we have the tools to improve the quality of peoples’ lives as they age, shouldn’t we use them?
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/109454502317629318
A strong argument made in this article is that our society is not “designed to optimize the role of the elderly”. If this were changed and quality of life for the elderly were improved, would less people opt to receive anti-aging medication?
In our society today, the side effects and natural changes bodies undergo during the aging process have been given a negative connotation. They are and have been the source of much worry and resentment because they are considered losses by the people who are undergoing these changes. Some people argue that doctors are supposed to protect people from harms including aging and its effects. But critics of anti-aging medicine say that the negativity associated with the changes the body undergoes is influenced too much by the opinions of younger people who have not experienced them and for that matter, never want to. They also argue that by using anti-aging techniques, doctors are keeping people from experiencing the benefits of aging.
The article states that, “Public attitudes towards the enhancement technologies already available suggest that the demand for truly effective anti-aging interventions will be so substantial that legal prohibition would simply produce robust domestic or off-shore black markets.” This implies that there really is no point in trying to keep people from seeking these treatments because some way or another, they are going to find a way to get them.
So, who is right when it comes to this argument? Personally, I believe that if the anti-aging treatments are safe and effective, people should have the right to decide whether or not to take advantage of them. I understand both sides of the argument and recognize that each side presents valid points. I feel that people should have the freedom to control their own bodies. We are not talking about children here. We are talking about adults who have been making their own decisions regarding themselves and their bodies for many years. Especially when the adults are informed and knowledgeable about the procedure, others should not have the right to stop them from receiving these treatments. I believe that anti-aging treatments have a promising future and I think that if they are out there, we should take advantage of them. If we have the tools to improve the quality of peoples’ lives as they age, shouldn’t we use them?
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/109454502317629318
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Anti-aging begins with vitamin supplements just don't get ripped off!
Advertisements are everywhere for the latest medical breakthrough: a pill, supplement, injection and/or treatment that will keep you looking and feeling young! Our world sometimes is shallow; companies will chose the better-looking person for the job even though both applicants have the same qualifications. Good looks, staying young, active and free of medical problems are essential in peoples developing careers and success rates. But have companies and avid businessmen taken this too far? Have they found a gateway to make quick money? It only makes since that people will go to all measures to buy pills that just might work, not taking into account that the ingredients might be the same as a multi-vitamin a hundred dollars cheaper in the grocery store or potentially harmful to their body. Many vitamin companies depend on the average consumer to not be well informed and they'll take billions of dollars from them each year. But let us first start to slow the aging process down with simple supplements you can take within your home, that DO NOT rip you off.
We know that scientists are discovering certain remedies to the aging process. We also know that there are some things we can do to slow down aging, but there still is not a cure to stay young forever. This article discusses the free radical theory and how aging results from oxidation due to free radical damage to genes, cells, membranes, blood vessels and organs. The article also suggests what can cure this degenerative disease; specifically with supplements that can be taken and which are knock-offs and which ones actually work. Antioxidants are good for us so we want to eat lots of colorful fruits and vegetables because they contain phytochemicals like carotenoids and flavonoids, which neutralize the free radicals that cause the age-related degenerative diseases. Additionally supplements like Vitamin C and Vitamin E and quasi-vitamins like CoQ10 and Alpha Lipoic Acid are very important in slowing the free-radical aging process and combating degenerative diseases like cancer, heart disease, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimers, diabetes, hypertension, cataracts and macular degeneration. All which normally appear in the older generations. And all which may be prevented, starting with vitamin supplements.
Make sure to consult a physician before relying on a specific supplement. Be careful not to believe all vitamin companies' advertisements that are vague and may potentially rip you off. Recently a TV news program showed two vitamin supplements found in a hospital bed-pan that were not digested at all. At the time this specific brand was one of the leading drug store supplements sold on America! However, not all vitamins are bed-pan bullets, the right supplements are essential to stop free radicals and slow down the aging process.
http://www.benefits-of-antioxidants.com/anti-aging.html (link on website: http://www.benefits-of-antioxidants.com/Articles/15-choosing-vitamin-supplements.htm)
We know that scientists are discovering certain remedies to the aging process. We also know that there are some things we can do to slow down aging, but there still is not a cure to stay young forever. This article discusses the free radical theory and how aging results from oxidation due to free radical damage to genes, cells, membranes, blood vessels and organs. The article also suggests what can cure this degenerative disease; specifically with supplements that can be taken and which are knock-offs and which ones actually work. Antioxidants are good for us so we want to eat lots of colorful fruits and vegetables because they contain phytochemicals like carotenoids and flavonoids, which neutralize the free radicals that cause the age-related degenerative diseases. Additionally supplements like Vitamin C and Vitamin E and quasi-vitamins like CoQ10 and Alpha Lipoic Acid are very important in slowing the free-radical aging process and combating degenerative diseases like cancer, heart disease, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimers, diabetes, hypertension, cataracts and macular degeneration. All which normally appear in the older generations. And all which may be prevented, starting with vitamin supplements.
Make sure to consult a physician before relying on a specific supplement. Be careful not to believe all vitamin companies' advertisements that are vague and may potentially rip you off. Recently a TV news program showed two vitamin supplements found in a hospital bed-pan that were not digested at all. At the time this specific brand was one of the leading drug store supplements sold on America! However, not all vitamins are bed-pan bullets, the right supplements are essential to stop free radicals and slow down the aging process.
http://www.benefits-of-antioxidants.com/anti-aging.html (link on website: http://www.benefits-of-antioxidants.com/Articles/15-choosing-vitamin-supplements.htm)
Longevity, genes, and aging
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6J-3VTYCC6-1&_user=489286&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1104694202&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000022678&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=489286&md5=baad328e9a9ffc0b54109ce1772d8b37
We all know we age and get older but do we really understand why this is happening? Genetics is one of the two major factors of aging (environment being the other) and has revealed to us through research the importance of metabolic capacity, resistance to stress, integrity of gene regulation, and genetic stability of longevity.
The key gene that creates a balance between these life processes is maintained by the RAS2 gene (which also channels cellular resources among them). This gene not only collaborates with mitochondria and PHB1 in metabolic adjustments for longevity but also regulates stress responses. So one would think that if this RAS2 gene is one of the biggest factors in aging, why not give people more RAS2, resulting in a longer life span? Just like anything else in the world, too much of a good thing results in a bad thing or as the saying goes, “everything in moderation”. Having too much RAS activity abrogates the life extension. There must be an optimal level of RAS2 activity for the maximal life span to occur. Obtaining the optimal level of RAS2 for each individual is determined by the genetic background, epigenetic and environmental demands to which the individual is subjected to.
The RAS2 gene also works alongside with PHB1 gene that is involved with metabolic capacity. Studies have suggested that mitochondria, PHB1, and RAS2 partake in metabolic adjustments that are essential for longevity. These genes work together to signal a decreasing requirement for mitochondrial activity.
The RAS2 gene has been proven to be a main factor in the regulation of stress responses. RAS2 gene is important for the switching between different cellular states, and growth vs. response to stress. Although most people view stress as bad, and in most cases stress is bad, certain kinds of stress actually induce pathways, improving their fitness. Just as said before, too much of anything is a bad thing but everything in moderation is always good.
Other factors in the body also influence aging, such as transcriptional silencing. During aging, transcriptional silencing of heterochromatic regions of the genome is lost suggesting that gene dysregulation accompanies the aging process. Research has found that the gene CDC7 plays a role in silencing but RAS2 modulates it. Aging possesses features of nonlinear processes which RAS2 also has a role in.
Research has shown that much of aging is contributed to the RAS2 gene and its factors. I believe that we have come a long way in technology and research to start figuring out the body’s processes and what genes affect what processes. I find it fascinating that one gene can affect so many different genes and other processes in the body. I believe that we should continue to research the affects of different genes and learn how to influence them into doing what we want them to do, like aging more slowly. Genes are very under developed and I believe with more research and experiments we will learn a lot more about genes and how they can help us in life.
We all know we age and get older but do we really understand why this is happening? Genetics is one of the two major factors of aging (environment being the other) and has revealed to us through research the importance of metabolic capacity, resistance to stress, integrity of gene regulation, and genetic stability of longevity.
The key gene that creates a balance between these life processes is maintained by the RAS2 gene (which also channels cellular resources among them). This gene not only collaborates with mitochondria and PHB1 in metabolic adjustments for longevity but also regulates stress responses. So one would think that if this RAS2 gene is one of the biggest factors in aging, why not give people more RAS2, resulting in a longer life span? Just like anything else in the world, too much of a good thing results in a bad thing or as the saying goes, “everything in moderation”. Having too much RAS activity abrogates the life extension. There must be an optimal level of RAS2 activity for the maximal life span to occur. Obtaining the optimal level of RAS2 for each individual is determined by the genetic background, epigenetic and environmental demands to which the individual is subjected to.
The RAS2 gene also works alongside with PHB1 gene that is involved with metabolic capacity. Studies have suggested that mitochondria, PHB1, and RAS2 partake in metabolic adjustments that are essential for longevity. These genes work together to signal a decreasing requirement for mitochondrial activity.
The RAS2 gene has been proven to be a main factor in the regulation of stress responses. RAS2 gene is important for the switching between different cellular states, and growth vs. response to stress. Although most people view stress as bad, and in most cases stress is bad, certain kinds of stress actually induce pathways, improving their fitness. Just as said before, too much of anything is a bad thing but everything in moderation is always good.
Other factors in the body also influence aging, such as transcriptional silencing. During aging, transcriptional silencing of heterochromatic regions of the genome is lost suggesting that gene dysregulation accompanies the aging process. Research has found that the gene CDC7 plays a role in silencing but RAS2 modulates it. Aging possesses features of nonlinear processes which RAS2 also has a role in.
Research has shown that much of aging is contributed to the RAS2 gene and its factors. I believe that we have come a long way in technology and research to start figuring out the body’s processes and what genes affect what processes. I find it fascinating that one gene can affect so many different genes and other processes in the body. I believe that we should continue to research the affects of different genes and learn how to influence them into doing what we want them to do, like aging more slowly. Genes are very under developed and I believe with more research and experiments we will learn a lot more about genes and how they can help us in life.
What Your DNA Can Do For You
Current research in anti-aging medicine is intensifying in the field of genetics. In the early sixties, researchers found that human cells are mortal. This doesn't seem like a ground breaking discovery, but, it most likely can lead to a greater understanding of why cells wither over time, and how we can change that. DNA is the most fragile and important foundation of life. At each of its ends are sequences of non-coding DNA (junk DNA) called telomeres that protect genes from deterioration. In 1990, it was officially proven that as telomeric DNA shortens, aging continues on its inevitable path. Telomerase is the enzyme responsible for the synthesis and sustenance of telomeres. Once the protective DNA is diminished to a certain extent, aging (scientifically known as cellular senescence) begins. From that information alone we know how and why humans grow old. With the technology and resources available today it is possible to determine how to manipulate this enzyme in such a way that immortality isn't out of the question.
The progress already made by geneticists is either scary or amazing, depending on your perspective. hTERT is a type of reverse transcriptase (enzyme that serves as the catalyst for synthesizing DNA) linked to the activity of telomerase. Two studies found that the induced expression of this enzyme indeed lenghtened telomeres swiftly, translating to a longer mitotic cycle. This means that the cells were able to divide for a greater amount of time. These studies confirmed that telomeres are essentially the biological clock for humans.
In the modern world of biogerontology, I consider these advancements to be some of the most valuable to date. Before we can step back and look at the big picture of immortalization, we must thoroughly recognize what is occurring at the cellular level. If scientists were to eventually find the means for immortality, it is not likely be supported by the government or general public. However, solid research such as this deserves credit because it is meaningful. Other examples of anti-aging therapies and drugs which have been hastily released are solely based on profit to be received from naive consumers. Scientists involved in this biomedical field should be receiving funding and encouragement because this research is valid, and can only further our discoveries of the unknown.
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/rej.1.1998.1.125
The progress already made by geneticists is either scary or amazing, depending on your perspective. hTERT is a type of reverse transcriptase (enzyme that serves as the catalyst for synthesizing DNA) linked to the activity of telomerase. Two studies found that the induced expression of this enzyme indeed lenghtened telomeres swiftly, translating to a longer mitotic cycle. This means that the cells were able to divide for a greater amount of time. These studies confirmed that telomeres are essentially the biological clock for humans.
In the modern world of biogerontology, I consider these advancements to be some of the most valuable to date. Before we can step back and look at the big picture of immortalization, we must thoroughly recognize what is occurring at the cellular level. If scientists were to eventually find the means for immortality, it is not likely be supported by the government or general public. However, solid research such as this deserves credit because it is meaningful. Other examples of anti-aging therapies and drugs which have been hastily released are solely based on profit to be received from naive consumers. Scientists involved in this biomedical field should be receiving funding and encouragement because this research is valid, and can only further our discoveries of the unknown.
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/rej.1.1998.1.125
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Anti-Aging Therapies
Anti-aging medicine is not in full force yet in the medical fields because there is still much researchers need to understand and prove about anti-aging methods. While caloric restriction, stress reduction and life-style changes can elongate life expactany, researchers are finding medicinal practices and therapies to further enhance this effect. Many different hormone and gene manipulations have proven in theory and animal clinical testing to be efficient in slowing the aging process. But major side effects and unproven and unfinished clinical trials hinder anti-aging medicine to be a full-blown force in the world of medicine. The International Longevity Center addresses these specific therapies, their success’s and problems, in its 2001 workshop report, “Is There Anti-Aging Medicine?
Genetic manipulations seem to be one of the best interventions for slowing the anti-aging process. The ILC gives fifteen examples of genes that were modified in animal testing and helped to increase life expectancy. But researchers are still unclear as to how each gene and its surrounding proteins are exactly involved with longevity. These scientists have been successful in proving their theory of manipulating growth hormone and therefore insulin-like growth factors in mammals but research is not sufficient enough. The ILC uses words like “appear, suggest, can”, all words of possibility but no definite answers. It will take much more research and assurance for to prove these anti-aging therapies will be successful practices.
Another similar practice that the ILC addresses is the very controversial hormone replacement therapy. Like genes that affect aging, circulating hormones like testosterone, estrogen, and dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) all decrease with age, speeding the process. Supplementing these hormones to slow aging seems great in theory, but yet again more research is needed to find the proper application of these hormones and to prove that the risks outweigh the benefits. For example, success had been made in beginning clinical trials such as improving the life expectancy of mice by five percent after supplementing them with the hormone melatonin. But, serious side effects (such as the sporadic tumors that started to show in the clinical mice) and the question as to how effective these hormones really are create obstacles to their legitimacy.
One of the hormone used for this practice that is most argued over is estrogen. Estrogen replacement therapy has had success in improving length and quality in women. The supplementation of estrogen can do wonders to a woman’s body including preventing osteoporosis, dementia, “inhibition of atherosclerotic plaque formation in arterial walls, increase in cardiac output, an increase in arterial flow velocity, a decrease in vascular resistance, and a decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure.” But there have been multiple concerns about the serious risks of estrogen replacement therapy like the development of ovarian cancer after a long period of treatment. But failure to prove that ERT can prevent cardio-vascular disease in patients who previously had it made the American Heart Association drop its support of ERT, starting a long battle of legitimacy for the therapy. What is most interesting about this fact and other risks of ERT (for example, the fact that it may stimulate growth in already existing tumors) is that it may be a case for specialized medicine. If ERT does not help with women who already have a breast tumor or who have had cardio vascular diseases, doctors can stratify patients into patient populations and treat them accordingly. While some trials have shown overall improvement in length and quality of life, question and concerns still linger and make people wary of ERT, just like the other unproven therapies for anti-aging.
http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/reprint/57/9/B333.pdf
Genetic manipulations seem to be one of the best interventions for slowing the anti-aging process. The ILC gives fifteen examples of genes that were modified in animal testing and helped to increase life expectancy. But researchers are still unclear as to how each gene and its surrounding proteins are exactly involved with longevity. These scientists have been successful in proving their theory of manipulating growth hormone and therefore insulin-like growth factors in mammals but research is not sufficient enough. The ILC uses words like “appear, suggest, can”, all words of possibility but no definite answers. It will take much more research and assurance for to prove these anti-aging therapies will be successful practices.
Another similar practice that the ILC addresses is the very controversial hormone replacement therapy. Like genes that affect aging, circulating hormones like testosterone, estrogen, and dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) all decrease with age, speeding the process. Supplementing these hormones to slow aging seems great in theory, but yet again more research is needed to find the proper application of these hormones and to prove that the risks outweigh the benefits. For example, success had been made in beginning clinical trials such as improving the life expectancy of mice by five percent after supplementing them with the hormone melatonin. But, serious side effects (such as the sporadic tumors that started to show in the clinical mice) and the question as to how effective these hormones really are create obstacles to their legitimacy.
One of the hormone used for this practice that is most argued over is estrogen. Estrogen replacement therapy has had success in improving length and quality in women. The supplementation of estrogen can do wonders to a woman’s body including preventing osteoporosis, dementia, “inhibition of atherosclerotic plaque formation in arterial walls, increase in cardiac output, an increase in arterial flow velocity, a decrease in vascular resistance, and a decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure.” But there have been multiple concerns about the serious risks of estrogen replacement therapy like the development of ovarian cancer after a long period of treatment. But failure to prove that ERT can prevent cardio-vascular disease in patients who previously had it made the American Heart Association drop its support of ERT, starting a long battle of legitimacy for the therapy. What is most interesting about this fact and other risks of ERT (for example, the fact that it may stimulate growth in already existing tumors) is that it may be a case for specialized medicine. If ERT does not help with women who already have a breast tumor or who have had cardio vascular diseases, doctors can stratify patients into patient populations and treat them accordingly. While some trials have shown overall improvement in length and quality of life, question and concerns still linger and make people wary of ERT, just like the other unproven therapies for anti-aging.
http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/reprint/57/9/B333.pdf
Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy for Anti-Aging
http://www.worldhealth.net/news/bioidentical_hormone_replacement_therapy/
Age has always been one of the few aspects of life that was impossible to control, until now. Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is a new biotechnological advancement that replaces the physiological levels of hormones that decline as a result of a specific disease state. The American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine,A4M, (an international medical society of 18,500 physicians and scientists from 87 different countries composed of physicians responsible for the daily medical care of millions worldwide) supports the use of hormone replacement therapy and feels that it “…constitutes a legitimate and important life-enhancing, life-extending medical application.”
The biggest issue with hormone replacement therapy is the safety or lack thereof. Research has found through the A4M’s group’s Women’s Health Initiative study of healthy menopausal women that bio-identical hormones is the key to safety in hormone replacement therapy. Bio-identical hormones have the same chemical structure as those hormones that are made in the human body. The term “bio-identical” means that the chemical structure of the replacement hormone is exactly the same as the chemical structure found in the hormone naturally found in the body. Bio-identical hormone replacement therapy (BHRT) is the “…method by which replaced hormones follow normal metabolic pathways so that the essential active metabolites are formed in response to the treatment.” In terms of the safety of hormone replacement therapy, the molecular differences between bio-identical and non-bioidentical may prove to be the defining aspect. Natural, rather than synthetic, forms of hormones are associated with greater bio-availability (meaning that they are taken up by the body more easily and are utilized more efficiently).
I feel that hormone replacement therapy, and better yet, bio-identical hormone replacement therapy, is a great way to introduce anti-aging medicine. Experienced anti-aging physicians have been prescribing BHRT for over 20 years and numerous benefits have come from it. I believe that BRHT is still widely underdeveloped and still has many more benefits that will be discovered.
Another interesting fact about BHRT is how individualized it is. Hormone levels are different in every patient so with hormone therapy comes the appropriate monitoring of bio-available hormone levels and laboratory analysis for each patient. In doing this, the goal of anti-aging endocrinology will be achieved (“Safe optimization of essential hormone levels in the deficient and symptomatic patient”) and also, the most effective hormonal balance at the lowest possible dosage will be reached. I also think that this runs parallel to personalized medicine. Since every patient has different hormonal levels and needs to be monitored for different dosages, the medicines become personalized for the patient. This is also a new biotechnological advancement like hormone replacement therapy. I believe that by combining the two technologies together, it will make a stronger, more applicable field of medicine for a whole new field of patients.
I strongly believe in BHRT and its benefits. I also believe that with the proper modifications and adjustments done by an experienced physician, the benefits will largely outweigh the risks.
Age has always been one of the few aspects of life that was impossible to control, until now. Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is a new biotechnological advancement that replaces the physiological levels of hormones that decline as a result of a specific disease state. The American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine,A4M, (an international medical society of 18,500 physicians and scientists from 87 different countries composed of physicians responsible for the daily medical care of millions worldwide) supports the use of hormone replacement therapy and feels that it “…constitutes a legitimate and important life-enhancing, life-extending medical application.”
The biggest issue with hormone replacement therapy is the safety or lack thereof. Research has found through the A4M’s group’s Women’s Health Initiative study of healthy menopausal women that bio-identical hormones is the key to safety in hormone replacement therapy. Bio-identical hormones have the same chemical structure as those hormones that are made in the human body. The term “bio-identical” means that the chemical structure of the replacement hormone is exactly the same as the chemical structure found in the hormone naturally found in the body. Bio-identical hormone replacement therapy (BHRT) is the “…method by which replaced hormones follow normal metabolic pathways so that the essential active metabolites are formed in response to the treatment.” In terms of the safety of hormone replacement therapy, the molecular differences between bio-identical and non-bioidentical may prove to be the defining aspect. Natural, rather than synthetic, forms of hormones are associated with greater bio-availability (meaning that they are taken up by the body more easily and are utilized more efficiently).
I feel that hormone replacement therapy, and better yet, bio-identical hormone replacement therapy, is a great way to introduce anti-aging medicine. Experienced anti-aging physicians have been prescribing BHRT for over 20 years and numerous benefits have come from it. I believe that BRHT is still widely underdeveloped and still has many more benefits that will be discovered.
Another interesting fact about BHRT is how individualized it is. Hormone levels are different in every patient so with hormone therapy comes the appropriate monitoring of bio-available hormone levels and laboratory analysis for each patient. In doing this, the goal of anti-aging endocrinology will be achieved (“Safe optimization of essential hormone levels in the deficient and symptomatic patient”) and also, the most effective hormonal balance at the lowest possible dosage will be reached. I also think that this runs parallel to personalized medicine. Since every patient has different hormonal levels and needs to be monitored for different dosages, the medicines become personalized for the patient. This is also a new biotechnological advancement like hormone replacement therapy. I believe that by combining the two technologies together, it will make a stronger, more applicable field of medicine for a whole new field of patients.
I strongly believe in BHRT and its benefits. I also believe that with the proper modifications and adjustments done by an experienced physician, the benefits will largely outweigh the risks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)