I wasnt trying to knock andractim around, like i said, who knows if it works? (Just didnt work for me) I have been luriking aroung the website for a good half a year and I have yet to see one before and after pictures of someone that used andractim. Like if it works for 75% of people, why hasnt one person had a log on here that shows them before, they post pics every week or so, then its better a few months later? Hypo, I know that you are very well respected around here and Im not trying in anyway to offend you. Im just saying that I havent even seen anyone with before and after pics showing proof and there are a lot of people on this board, thats all. Im just skeptical now.
Don’t worry I wasn’t offended in the slightest you were just stating your opinion which is perfectly reasonable. I was just trying to offer some info on the differences between Andractim and 'diet aid of questionable value' and 'diet aid of questionable value' which are very substantial IMHO and in the opinion of the medical community.
Separately the problem that you rightfully enquire about is;
Why do we not see such results replicated here on this website from people who have taken Andractim?
Given you have not seen either a response in your own case or photographic evidence your skepticism is understandable.
The 75% figure stems from controlled medical studies as detailed by Glen D Braunstein endocrinologist in his 1993 white paper on gynecomastia. I have the Braunstein paper out in front of me at the moment and from what I can see and from what I know first hand, the problem seems to me to be one of control and perception.
I’ll explain;
The 75% figure relates to the number of people who had a medically observable/assessed reduction of gynecomastia whilst being medicated with Andractim. 25% of this 75% had a complete resolution according to medical assessment. This leaves a further 25% of those in the studies who had no medically observable reduction of gynecomastia at all.
All those in the studies were diagnosed as having gynecomastia, and thought to have glandular gynecomastia and all would have undergone endocrine investigation to ensure that the use of dihydrotestosterone was suitable.
Now the problem here is that almost all using Andractim are self medicating. They have not been diagnosed as having gynecomastia and they have not had an endocrine assessment to see if dihydrotestosterone is suitable.
This means;
Guys with BDD or perfectionists/bodybuilders with little to no glandular mass will report that Andractim is not effective.
Those who are simply overweight (fat is not responsive to dihydrotestosterone) will report that Andractim is not effective.
Those who have gynecomastia and high levels of naturally occurring testosterone/ dihydrotestosterone whose gynecomastia is a result of puberty/or is idiopathic who would not be suitable for prescription of Andractim will try it anyway and report that it is not effective.
Many that see a reduction of gynecomastia with Andractim, but are not fortunate to have complete resolution will be unhappy and will report that Andractim is not effective.
Those who have not had an endocrine assessment who have an underlying undiagnosed disorder that does not relate to dihydrotestosterone, such as liver disease, Klinefelters, thyroid disease, elevated SHBG etc are unlikely to see a benefit for Andractim so they too will report that it is not effective.
Those who have developed are developing gynecomastia whose underlying cause relates to medication (this includes prescription meds, those that relate to finasteride and anabolic steroid/drugs of abuse) may see little benefit from Andractim and report that it is not effective
Those who are perfectly suited to Andractim as a treatment might not be using the correct dosage or schedule and they too as a result may report that it is not effective
Analogy- A glass of shandy or low alcohol beer will not get someone drunk; this could lead people to logically say that alcohol doesn’t get people drunk. Of course we know it does cause this effect, so dosage with this or any drug is crucial.
25% of people in the study who had diagnosed gynecomastia and had endocrine assessment and deemed suitable for Andractim still had no response at all. Now if you are one of those people who sees no response despite being someone who should respond favourably, most likely you will not feel any better or take heart from the fact that you were just unfortunate and tat other people will reap the benefit of its prescription. If you are in this bracket again you will most likely report that Andractim is not effective.
Andractim is most effective as all hormonal medications are, in the gynecomastia developmental/proliferation phase. After about one and a half to two years gynecomastia becomes more fibrous and less responsive to Andractim, this fact is something else that can skew the view/response when people are self medicating.
The bottom line then?
Andractim was proven to be effective in controlled medical conditions by endocrinologists for those diagnosed with glandular gynecomastia who seem suitable for its use following endocrine assessment when used in the correct dose and schedule by a prescribing endocrinologist.
It is one more treatment/armament in the treatment of gynecomastia. It is not as effective as surgery, but it offers benefits of low costs and lack of invasiveness to those in whom it may work.
Personal experience;
I was prescribed it at one stage as an alternative to TRT for hypogonadism. I found that it made a big difference/substantially reduced my gynecomastia and I did post the photos that showed this on the website about a year or so ago. Some members might be able to recall this and back me up here, if you can find the thread via a search you may even find the photos (under the name hypo). Although I had the stated reduction that made life a lot easier/it easier to live with I did not have a complete resolution. This might be due to a simple endocrine response or could be due to the fact that some of my gynecomastia had developed in recent time and some from a much earlier period and most likely fibrous. I also saw accounts of at least three people who were self medicating (bad idea) who were lucky enough to see an improvement. One posted pictures that showed a very substantial reduction and one claimed to have a complete resolution although I cannot confirm if this is was true or as no pictures were posted. One of the guys who was prescribed Anbdractim by his endocrinologist in Belgium said he had a reduction but it wasn’t enough for him to be happy with (we all differ in what is acceptable to us)..
The reason I had surgery in the end was because I couldn’t continue on Andractim as a medication for hypogonadism as it left me tired and lethargic at the dose required and symptomatically poorer than on TRT (testosterone replacement therapy) and so I could not continue to reap the benefits of its non aromatisable nature. Also the surgery got rid of all of the problem.
Again bottom line;
This medication can only really be assessed when it is correctly prescribed, not when it is self medicated.
I hope you can see the logic in this long winded response, in any event you are entitled to your subjective opinion, if you are still skeptical I don’t blame you (though perhaps a long search for those photos/links might make you think differently).
As for 'diet aid of questionable value' and 'diet aid of questionable value', my main point is that it is probably the same pill sold by the same people. Their websites are almost identical, word for word. Anyone who buys gynexim is getting the exact same pill as someone who buys 'diet aid of questionable value'. They just changed the name and the label to fool people that have figured out 'diet aid of questionable value' doesnt work. It seems like a marketing scam.
You could be right, I haven’t spent as much time looking at their sites.. It is snake oil though, as PT Barnum said there is a sucker born every minute, these people pray on the hopes and fears of men who have gynecomastia and hope to sucker enough men into buying their potions
Please excuse the typos- incurred as a result of trying to type what needed to be said in a short time frame.
Topic: 'diet aid of questionable value' and 'diet aid of questionable value' (Read 3129 times)
Similar Topics
