37 replies to this topic

[cprlfred]

As this topic is constantly being debated I thought it might be a good idea to create some sort of formal post (perhaps starting with this thread) for all the reasons one might fall victim to increased oil production.

I'm thinking hard science here (so, at the least we can show the doctors)

for example, "hormones" would be too simple (and not very helpful) - something specific as to which hormones - whats going on with them and why

masturbation - any specific scientific tests?

stress/anxiety - same deal

and of course.... overwashing - but that's too general - specific cleansers - specific chemicals - BP - SA - use of exfoliants - harsh scrubbing

I'd like to ask people to only post real scientific theories/tests, or if is their own theory that they at least tested it using scientific method to some degree.

My hope is to collect all the important info, filter out the junk, and then assemble it into something that is helpful to people.

[Xandrine]

There are 2 factors to oil production for me:
1.Predisposing factors (includes genetics, race, age,etc)
2. Precipitating factors(diet, lifestyle,etc that can be included)

[JonoB]

Im guess that with chemicals or irrtants in cleanser and creams that are applied topically dry your skin out and therefore in turn your skin produces more sebum to try and regulate moisture levels within the skin>>eventually causing acne??

Edited by JonoB, 02 November 2009 - 10:17 AM.

[bryan]

Im guess that with chemicals or irrtants in cleanser and creams that are applied topically dry your skin out and therefore in turn your skin produces more sebum to try and regulate moisture levels within the skin>>eventually causing acne??

God, that idea is getting really OLD and tiresome.

[Packerfan785]

Im guess that with chemicals or irrtants in cleanser and creams that are applied topically dry your skin out and therefore in turn your skin produces more sebum to try and regulate moisture levels within the skin>>eventually causing acne??

God, that idea is getting really OLD and tiresome.

+1

[zitsick]

As this topic is constantly being debated I thought it might be a good idea to create some sort of formal post (perhaps starting with this thread) for all the reasons one might fall victim to increased oil production.

According to this article www dot ehow dot com/way_5538778_proven-ways-rid-pimples dot html , a high glycemic diet elevates insulin levels which in turn stimulates androgen synthesis thus enhancing sebum production. Apparently, Papua New Guineans are all acne-free because they eat a low glycemic diet. It's backed by research. What do you think of the article?

Edited by zitsick, 09 November 2009 - 05:58 PM.

[bryan]

According to this article www dot ehow dot com/way_5538778_proven-ways-rid-pimples dot html , a high glycemic diet elevates insulin levels which in turn stimulates androgen synthesis thus enhancing sebum production.

Really? Then how do you explain the fact that Kligman et al ("The Effect of Androgens and Estrogens on Human Sebaceous Glands", J Invest Dermatol 1962 Aug; 39:139-55) gave as much as 300 mg of methyl testosterone per day (!) to healthy young males between the ages of 20 and 30 years old for eight weeks, and found no change in sebum production at all? The authors of the study explain the lack of effect this way: "Presumably, the endogenous secretion of androgen in the male is probably in excess of that required to maintain maximal sebaceous gland function."

So if these doctors couldn't even increase sebum production with such a large daily dose of pharmaceutical androgens, what makes you think that your choice of FOOD is going to increase androgens enough to do the trick?

Edited by bryan, 09 November 2009 - 07:37 PM.

[zitsick]

According to this article www dot ehow dot com/way_5538778_proven-ways-rid-pimples dot html , a high glycemic diet elevates insulin levels which in turn stimulates androgen synthesis thus enhancing sebum production.

Really? Then how do you explain the fact that Kligman et al ("The Effect of Androgens and Estrogens on Human Sebaceous Glands", J Invest Dermatol 1962 Aug; 39:139-55) gave as much as 300 mg of methyl testosterone per day (!) to healthy young males between the ages of 20 and 30 years old for eight weeks, and found no change in sebum production at all? The authors of the study explain the lack of effect this way: "Presumably, the endogenous secretion of androgen in the male is probably in excess of that required to maintain maximal sebaceous gland function."

So if these doctors couldn't even increase sebum production with such a large daily dose of pharmaceutical androgens, what makes you think that your choice of FOOD is going to increase androgens enough to do the trick?

That study is over 47 years old and focused on the effect of androgens and estrogens on the SEBACEOUS GLAND, and NOT the skin. The authors state, "Though we have focused on the sebaceous gland, androgens have far reaching effect on prepuberal skin." Their results show that sebaceous glands of prepuberal males did not enlarge after strong androgenic stimulation most likely because their glands are already responding to endogenous androgens "which are in excess of that required for maximal effect".

Also, their sample size is alarmingly small. Only 6 adult males between 20-30 given 100 mg testosterone and only 3 adult males given 300 mg. Regardless, the study focused on sebaceous gland size and not skin.

Edited by zitsick, 09 November 2009 - 08:23 PM.

[bryan]

That study is over 47 years old...

Oh, is there an expiration date on medical research, like there is on a carton of milk? FYI, I can show you modern medical journal studies which still cite other studies from as early as 1940. That was nearly 70 years ago!

...and focused on the effect of androgens and estrogens on the SEBACEOUS GLAND, and NOT the skin.

Excuse me, but the sebaceous gland is PART of the skin!

The authors state, "Though we have focused on the sebaceous gland, androgens have far reaching effect on prepuberal skin." Their results show that sebaceous glands of prepuberal males did not enlarge after strong androgenic stimulation most likely because their glands are already responding to endogenous androgens "which are in excess of that required for maximal effect".

Huh?? You're misreading what it says! They were referring to ADULTS, not prepuberal children. Here's what they actually said (page 143, column on the left, third paragraph down): "At first we thought it surprising that the glands of adult males did not enlarge after strong androgenic stimulation. One need only realize, however, that in the post-adolescent male the glands of any given subject are already responding to endogenous androgens which are ordinarily in excess of that required for maximal effect."

In numerous other places in the study, the authors make crystal-clear the fact that prepuberal males _do_ respond to androgens with enlarged sebaceous glands. Here's just ONE example (page 141, column on the right, near the bottom of the page): "Exogenous androgen brings about prompt enlargement and increased secretion of the sebaceous glands of subjects in the prepuberal age group.

Also, their sample size is alarmingly small. Only 6 adult males between 20-30 given 100 mg testosterone and only 3 adult males given 300 mg. Regardless, the study focused on sebaceous gland size and not skin.

Again, sebaceous glands are PART of the skin.

In any event, I hope you now understand the point I'm making: blaming acne on an increase in sebum caused in turn by higher levels of androgens caused by your FOOD choices is ridiculous.

[zitsick]

@ bryan

I realize they were talking about that portion of their research on the 9 adult males receiving testosterone. I skimmed the article for that part of the research since that's what you referred to in your initial post. And yeah, I misread pre-puberal as post-puberal when they mentioned focusing on the sebaceous gland and not the skin per se. I also realize the sebaceous glands are in the skin.

And of course there's no expiration date on research, but current research may prove earlier findings wrong or inaccurate.

I disagree with you about the diet/acne connection, but I'm not gonna try and change your mind. Please, eat all the high glycemic carb, dairy, sugar, and gluten you want. lots and lots.

Edited by zitsick, 10 November 2009 - 11:14 AM.

[zitsick]

@ bryan

Just out of curiosity, would you happen to know if synthetic androgens (ie methyl testosterone) and naturally occurring androgens produce identical effects?

TIA

[mfit]

Exogenous Hormones def. alter the sebacous glands in some sort of way - AAS induced Acne would come to my mind - esp. in the Bodybuilding Community a well known fact.

[bryan]

And of course there's no expiration date on research, but current research may prove earlier findings wrong or inaccurate.

Sure, but in this specific case, it hasn't done that.

I disagree with you about the diet/acne connection, but I'm not gonna try and change your mind. Please, eat all the high glycemic carb, dairy, sugar, and gluten you want. lots and lots.

Now you seem to be misreading what _I_ said! I never said that there's no diet/acne connection, just that the specific biological MECHANISM that so many people who read these forums think is what happens, doesn't have anything to do with it. Everybody always assumes that eating sugar causes insulin, which then causes androgen, which then causes sebum, which then causes acne; but as we've seen in the Kligman study, that theory doesn't work AT ALL. If there's a diet/acne connection (I'm saying IF there's such a connection), it works by some mechanism that's far more subtle than just sugar --> androgen --> sebum --> acne.

Edited by bryan, 10 November 2009 - 07:06 PM.

[bryan]

Just out of curiosity, would you happen to know if synthetic androgens (ie methyl testosterone) and naturally occurring androgens produce identical effects?

I wouldn't go so far as to say that they have identical effects (there can be differences in potency); but let's say that they're very similar. The authors of that study said that methyl testosterone has about 1/3 the potency of real testosterone.

[zitsick]

@ bryan

You're messing with my head. I'm almost completely annoyed.

But I just want to know, why are you giving that paper so much weight? Has there been research since then validating or expanding on the results?

It's generally accepted that androgens regulate sebaceous glands which function in sebum production. And that sebum is a major factor in developing acne....even Kligman has research concluding that. And recent studies suggest a link between a high glycemic diet, surge in insulin, and the synthesis of androgens. Each step in the sugar -> androgen -> sebum -> acne chain is getting verified by research. Has Kligman's 1962 paper affected any of this research so far?

[bryan]

But I just want to know, why are you giving that paper so much weight?

I'm not completely sure what you mean. I'm giving it weight because it was carefully done by some heavyweights in the field of dermatology, and produced a result which is very counterintuitive to what most people here would believe.

Has there been research since then validating or expanding on the results?

I'm not sure about that. I would imagine there probably is, but I haven't really done any searching for corroborating studies.

A few months ago I was reading the abstract of another more recent dermatological study (like within the last ten years or so), and it said something to the effect that giving exogenous androgens to adult men doesn't increase their sebum production. I smiled when I read that, and assumed that it was probably the earlier Kligman study which they were using as a reference for that claim.

It's generally accepted that androgens regulate sebaceous glands which function in sebum production. And that sebum is a major factor in developing acne....even Kligman has research concluding that. And recent studies suggest a link between a high glycemic diet, surge in insulin, and the synthesis of androgens. Each step in the sugar -> androgen -> sebum -> acne chain is getting verified by research. Has Kligman's 1962 paper affected any of this research so far?

Well, yes. Obviously, it shows that there are limits to the effects of exogenous androgens on sebum production in adult men and women. Especially in men.

Edited by bryan, 11 November 2009 - 07:09 AM.

[zitsick]

But I just want to know, why are you giving that paper so much weight?

I'm not completely sure what you mean. I'm giving it weight because it was carefully done by some heavyweights in the field of dermatology, and produced a result which is very counterintuitive to what most people here would believe.

Would you say derm research should be giving this paper more attention? If so, why? What makes the result so important?

Has there been research since then validating or expanding on the results?

A few months ago I was reading the abstract of another more recent dermatological study (like within the last ten years or so), and it said something to the effect that giving exogenous androgens to adult men doesn't increase their sebum production. I smiled when I read that, and assumed that it was probably the earlier Kligman study which they were using as a reference for that claim.

You admit exogenous and endogenous androgens can't be said to produce identical results. It would be more convincing if they had stimulated production of endogenous androgens and showed the same outcome.

It's generally accepted that androgens regulate sebaceous glands which function in sebum production. And that sebum is a major factor in developing acne....even Kligman has research concluding that. And recent studies suggest a link between a high glycemic diet, surge in insulin, and the synthesis of androgens. Each step in the sugar -> androgen -> sebum -> acne chain is getting verified by research. Has Kligman's 1962 paper affected any of this research so far?

Well, yes. Obviously, it shows that there are limits to the effects of exogenous androgens on sebum production in adult men and women. Especially in men.

That is your own extrapolated conclusion. Results seen in 9 men can't be extended to the entire adult male population. Cite actual research, please, showing explicitly any influence Kligman's 1962 paper has on current findings esp regarding diet, endogenous androgen stimulation, and increased sebum production.

Edited by zitsick, 11 November 2009 - 03:11 PM.

[bryan]

Would you say derm research should be giving this paper more attention? If so, why? What makes the result so important?

What odd, philosophical questions to ask!

You admit exogenous and endogenous androgens can't be said to produce identical results.

But you forced me to get a little nit-picky only when you used the word IDENTICAL. Personally, I don't doubt that any androgens (either endogenous or exogenous) would have similar effects on sebaceous glands, although (again) they may obviously differ in potency.

It would be more convincing if they had stimulated production of endogenous androgens and showed the same outcome.

You really think THAT would make a difference?

Well, yes. Obviously, it shows that there are limits to the effects of exogenous androgens on sebum production in adult men and women. Especially in men.

That is your own extrapolated conclusion. Results seen in 9 men can't be extended to the entire adult male population.

Oh, you think that was really just an amazing coincidence, and by some astonishing bad luck, Kligman, Strauss, and Pochi just happened to find 9 individuals with really eccentric and idiosyncratic biological responses to androgens in their sebaceous glands?

Cite actual research, please, showing explicitly any influence Kligman's 1962 paper has on current findings esp regarding diet, endogenous androgen stimulation, and increased sebum production.

Nah, I can't be bothered to try to find something that vague. I think Kligman's paper stands perfectly well on its own. However, considering how much trouble you seem to have believing the results of that study, please feel free to do that yourself. Good luck.

[zitsick]

However, considering how much trouble you seem to have believing the results of that study, please feel free to do that yourself. Good luck.

I have trouble believing that paper's impact/relevance on the diet/acne connection. Recall, you said:

"So if these doctors couldn't even increase sebum production with such a large daily dose of pharmaceutical androgens, what makes you think that your choice of FOOD is going to increase androgens enough to do the trick?"

So, it's your conclusion based solely on a single research project done in 1962 that if exogenous androgens can't increase sebum production, then nothing else will?

[bryan]

So, it's your conclusion based solely on a single research project done in 1962 that if exogenous androgens can't increase sebum production, then nothing else will?

No, that's not my conclusion. I'm just concluding that extra androgens (regardless of their source) won't do it.

Edited by bryan, 11 November 2009 - 09:47 PM.