CORRECT finally a mofo that understands some shyt.
JESSSSSUSSSSSS
(NOT SAYING I DO.).
@SwaZ, I guess you were part of the Electrolyte Protocol... You stayed SILENT almost -- you'ze a sneaky kid.
1. '
Circulating Androgen Levels and Self-reported Sexual Function in Women'
--SOME KEY POINTS BELOW. (CAN'T FIND PROPER LINK/ some firewall issue on Mac). --> JUst woke up, I actually did link it... I saw it in 2 places, IDK.
Context It has been proposed that low sexual desire and sexual dysfunction areassociated with low blood testosterone levels in women.
-1. Objective:
To determine whether women with low self-reported sexual desire andsexual satisfaction are more likely to have low serum androgen levels thanwomen without self-reported low sexual desire and sexual satisfaction.
-2. Design, Setting, and Participants
A community-based, cross-sectional study of 1423 women aged 18 to 75years, who were randomly recruited via the electoral roll in Victoria, Australia,from April 2002 to August 2003. Women were excluded from the analysis if theytook psychiatric medication, had abnormal thyroid function, documented polycystic ovarian syndrome, or were younger than 45 years and using oral contraception.
-3. Main Outcome Measures Domain
scores of the Profile of Female Sexual Function (PFSF) and serumlevels of total and free testosterone, androstenedione, and dehydroepiandrosteronesulfate.
-4. Non Clinically Signifcant relnships
between having a low score for any PFSF domain and having a low serum total or free testosterone or androstenedionel evel was demonstrated.
-5. A low domain score for sexual responsiveness for women aged 45 years or older was associated with higher odds of having a serum dehydroepiandrosteronesulfate level below the 10th percentile for this age group (odds ratio [OR],3.90; P = .004).For women aged 18 to 44 years, having a low domain score for sexual desire(OR, 3.86; P .001),and sexual responsiveness (OR, 6.59;
-6. Conclusions:
No single androgen level is predictive of low female sexual function,and the majority of women with low dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate levels didnot have low sexual function.
-7. Sexual dysfunction:
primarily low libido, is common among women, with prevalences of 8% to 50% previously reported. 4 Although multiple psychosocial and health factors contribute to low sexual desire and arousal, 5 it has been proposed that endogenous androgen levels are significant independent determinants of sexual behavior in women.
-8. Therapautic Benefit FOR WOMEN with HYPOCTIVE SEXUAL DESIRE DISORDER; increased TEST used for this.
-widely believed LOW serum ree test is the diagnostic marker...
-I think that's bullshit.
--THere is evidence that low serum testosterone level distinguishing women with low sexual function from others, and that androgen deficiency syndrome that can be defined biochemically,
is lacking. --> JUST LIKE MEN, DUH!!!!!!
-9. THUS, the authors investigated :
if LOW self-reported sexual function, (PSFS - Profile Female Sexual Function scale) in women 18--75 yrs age is associated with low serum androgen levels.
-11. Random Selection/ Australia.
-12. Further excluded were CONFOUNDING CONDITIONS -- i.e. AAP's, SNRI's/ ANTICONVULSANTS, ABNORMAL THYROID F'n. , USE OF ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES (wmn <45y)
-13. PFSP contains 7 domains: desire, arousal, orgasm, pleasure, sexual concerns, responsiveness,and self image and has no total score.
-14... doing later maybe, this is pretty OCD...
-15. Relevancy and accuracy: A Questionaiire done, ...
-16.
Free testosterone was calculated using the Sodergard equation as previously described. 19 Dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS) and sex hormonebinding globulin were measured using a solid-phase, 2-site chemiluminescentenzyme immunometric assay with the Immulite 2000 automated analyzer (DiagnosticProducts Corporation, Los Angeles, Calif). The intra-assay and interassaycoefficients of variation for sex hormone binding globulin are 6.5% and 8.7%,respectively; the detection limit is 0.2 nmol/L. For DHEAS level, the intra-assaycoefficient of variation is between 6.8% and 9.5% and the interassay coefficientof variation is between 9.2% and 12.7%.
-17.
Androstenedione was measured by directradioimmunoassay (DSL Inc, Webster, Tex). Follicle-stimulating hormone, thyroid-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, and prolactin were measured usingthe Vitros ECI machine (Johnson Johnson, Clinical Diagnostics Division,Rochester, NY). Sample Size Other commun
REFS: --> Check the back of the article: Circulating Androgen Levels and Self-reported Sexual Function in Women
9.Shifren JL, Braunstein G, Simon J. et al. Transdermal testosterone treatment in women with impaired sexual function after oophorectomy. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:682-688PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.Goldstat R, Briganti E, Tran J, Wolfe R, Davis S. Transdermal testosterone improves mood, well being and sexual function in premenopausal women. Menopause. 2003;10:390-398PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.Sherwin BB, Gelfand MM. The role of androgen in the maintenance of sexual functioning in oophorectomized women. Psychosom Med. 1987;49:397-409PubMedGoogle Scholar
12.Cameron DR, Braunstein GD. Androgen replacement therapy in women. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:273-289PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.McHorney CA, Rust J, Golombok S. et al. Profile of female sexual function: a patient-based, international, psychometric instrument for the assessment of hypoactive sexual desire in oophorectomized women. Menopause. 2004;11:474-483PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
1. Béjin A. Sexual pleasures, dysfunctions, fantasies, and satisfaction. In: Spira AB, ed. Sexual Behaviour and AIDS. Aldershot, England: Avebury; 1994:163-171
2. Kontula O, Haavio-Mannila E. Sexual pleasures. In: Enhancement of Sex Life in Finland, 1971-1992. Aldershot, England: Dartmouth; 1995
3.Laumann E, Paik A, Rosen RC. Sexual dysfunction in the United States: prevalence and predictors. JAMA. 1999;281:537-544PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.Nathorst-Boos J, von Schoultz H. Psychological reactions and sexual life after hysterectomy with and without oophorectomy. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1992;34:97-101PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref