Sex Reassignment Surgery May Be Better for Transgender Women's Health Than Hormones Only

http://www.newswise.com/articles/sex-reassignment-surgery-may-be-better-for-transgender-women-s-health-than-hormones-only

NewsWise/Released: 16-Nov-2015 8:00 AM EST Embargo expired:  18-Nov-2015 1:30 PM EST 
Source Newsroom: American Physiological Society (APS)

"Newswise — Annapolis, Md. (November 18, 2015)—Emerging evidence suggests that transgender women have a higher risk of developing cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes compared with men and women in the general population. A preliminary study to be presented at Cardiovascular, Renal and Metabolic Diseases: Physiology and Gender compares the risks of metabolic disease of the two therapies that aid the transition from male to female: hormone replacement with female hormones and bilateral orchiectomy, which is the surgical removal of both testicles. The study finds that transgender women who received only hormone therapy had poorer metabolic health than transgender women who underwent sex reassignment surgery in addition to receiving hormone therapy. Moreover, bilateral orchiectomy may be metabolically protective."

That seems like big news, although its only 12 women. I bet its going to be quoted a lot.

Perhaps it will help the argument for getting SRS paid for by insurance/government.

it makes me wonder because my Doctor told me my MRI I just had showed fat around the liver

Well it seems logical...
no need for anti androgens...


hugs

Quote from: stephaniec on November 20, 2015, 02:54:31 AM
it makes me wonder because my Doctor told me my MRI I just had showed fat around the liver

If guess you already know that's bad. Its it NAFLD you can get likely fix it by losing weight, which is of course easier said than done.

Quote from: AnonyMs on November 20, 2015, 04:06:32 AM
If guess you already know that's bad. Its it NAFLD you can get likely fix it by losing weight, which is of course easier said than done.

yea , I'm working on it , but a lot easier said than done. I'm try to progressively limit intake.

Quote from: stephaniec on November 20, 2015, 09:13:18 AM
yea , I'm working on it , but a lot easier said than done. I'm try to progressively limit intake.

here might be some hints...
https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,199400.msg1772916.html#msg1772916

you might talk it through with a doc...


hugs

Trust me from a medical POV this is NOT a big surprise, quite the contrary in fact.

It's one reason why when I originally transitioned, many decades ago, I made very sure I got SRS extremely quickly. Its basic science that the longer you spend with two competing endocrine steroidal supply systems (your original equipment plus the pills/patches/injections) the more you will risk knackering your liver, your pancreas, your kidneys, and just about every other organ system in your body.

My personal view, based on what I now know of medicine, is that I personally would not think about transition or begining HRT unless I was absolutely 100% certain of achieving SRS within one to two years.

I completely understand that not everyone desires surgery, thankfully I did, but in any case, to my mind the non surgical choice would have represented an unacceptable risk to my longterm systemic health and therefore as a personal opinion, had I not been willing to go the whole way I would simply never have started the journey at all. Instead I would have found other ways to express my identity.

Makes sense. Even spiro alone can't be good for you over the long term.

Quote from: Rejennyrated on November 20, 2015, 09:45:06 AM
Trust me from a medical POV this is NOT a big surprise, quite the contrary in fact.

It's one reason why when I originally transitioned, many decades ago, I made very sure I got SRS extremely quickly. Its basic science that the longer you spend with two competing endocrine steroidal supply systems (your original equipment plus the pills/patches/injections) the more you will risk knackering your liver, your pancreas, your kidneys, and just about every other organ system in your body.

My personal view, based on what I now know of medicine, is that I personally would not think about transition or begining HRT unless I was absolutely 100% certain of achieving SRS within one to two years.

here were some hints concerning an orchi:
https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,193238.msg1722909.html#msg1722909

here some additional hints concerning orchi and srs:
https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,194707.msg1735248.html#msg1735248
some surgeons use part of the payment for an orchi towards an srs...
just ask around...
there are different opinions concerning possible shrinking, and what is necessary during an orchi for a later srs...

concerning meds many people now use sublingual intake, or pads, injections or implants...
non bioidentical estrogen orally is supposed to be more straining on the liver...

We were talking about this in another group I subscribe to. It's probably not the estradiol part of the HRT that's the problem, but spironolactone, and the reason an orchie/SRS causes a health improvement is because you stop taking spiro once you've had the surgery. Estradiol in a high enough dose acts as a T suppressant, and depending on how resistant your endocrine system is to E, spiro might not even be necessary in a lot of cases. The only reason so many people are put on it at all is because that's what's in the guidelines doctors are following. The trouble is that medicine is very conservative, and takes a long time to respond to new scientific discoveries or evidence against the use of a particular treatment.

Quote from: HughE on November 20, 2015, 01:51:25 PM
We were talking about this in another group I subscribe to. It's probably not the estradiol part of the HRT that's the problem, but spironolactone, and the reason an orchie/SRS causes a health improvement is because you stop taking spiro once you've had the surgery. Estradiol in a high enough dose acts as a T suppressant, and depending on how resistant your endocrine system is to E, spiro might not even be necessary in a lot of cases. The only reason so many people are put on it at all is because that's what's in the guidelines doctors are following. The trouble is that medicine is very conservative, and takes a long time to respond to new scientific discoveries or evidence against the use of a particular treatment.

There are endos who know this supressing effect and use it.
In general its only considered safe with internal application, with implants and injections.
And often additionally bioidentical progesterone is given, which has also anti androgen effects without the many side effects of anti androgens. Its also supposed to help with breast development.
https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,192953.msg1733564.html#msg1733564


hugs