Hey again (sorry for all the questions xD)
Im just wondering what effect does estrogen have on muscle mass? Im not like muscly at all but certain places like my calves seem to have quite a bit of muscle which Im guessing makes them appear larger and then less feminine. Will estrogen reduce this muscle mass? I dont mind if it doesnt but Id prefer it to be gone : )

In my experience it effected the upper body much more than the lower body.  My legs have lost very little mass.


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

I calves are.... Let's say Popeye calves.  I also cycle, a lot.  They are not getting any smaller.

Sorry to say.

Genetically, women can have very muscular and strong legs.  The big difference is in upper body mass.

My daughter is a good example.  She is about six inches shorter than me and a very in shape fitness instructor with not a whole lot of bodyfat.  Yet her thighs are only about an inch smaller than mine and mine are fairly large from a lot of sports, running, and road marching.


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

Nine months in with 30 t and nearly 300E and I've gained 5 pounds. Noticed no difference in any measurement save my neck, which lost perhaps 1/2 to 3/4 inch circumference. My consciousness OTOH is a completely different story.

I've run and cycled all my life, so my calves had very defined muscles. After 18 months on estrogen they haven't really got any smaller, but the muscle definition has gone, so they do look much more feminine. Unfortunately I have also become much slower on the bike.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

As someone with a genetically female body I can tell you that it will be difficult to keep muscle definition, something I get the feeling is often not wanted for most women.

As someone who doesn't identify as a woman and who wants muscle definition in my upper body I can tell you that even with working out you will have to spend much more time in the gym and with more weight to get any definition, not just tone and general strength, if you do want it.

The strength will still be there, but it won't look like it, it will be a softer more feminine look.

Hormones haven't really had any effect on my muscles. I've always been athletic, tall and skinny (5'10, 146 pounds) and have been on hormone medication for 8 years.

I assume it's lowering the T that causes reduction in latent muscle mass.

I've seen what T can do to % muscle mass within a month, so I should think T is responsible for the maintenance and amount of muscle the body is told to 'keep' rather than E.

My best estimate is that HRT lowered my upper body muscle mass by 10 lbs.  I don't think it effected my leg muscles much at all.

I don't really notice being any weaker though.  I still seem to be able to do everything I could back then strength wise.  I do run slower though given an equal amount of effort.  I'm working to see if I can fix that.


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

I was just thinking about this today.  It's weird.  My legs don't seem to have changed in size at all,
but . . . Maybe its just my imagination . . .but they look . . . well . . . more shapely.

Lily-James,

Welcome to the site. You should have gotten a post like this sooner. Sorry.

I am only about a year in but do notice loss of strength in the upper body. I can still lift and move things but it is a lot harder now. So I noticed it in the muscle mass around my back and shoulders. I wouldn't mind losing more there. My legs have always been pretty big. I just need to tone them though. All the info I read and experiences I hear about does indicate that losing muscle is pretty standard. Lots of water and working out(if you have the time) are pretty big suggestions I would share.

I also want to share some links with you. They are mostly welcome information and the rules that govern the site. If you have not had a chance to look through them, please take a moment:

Site Terms of Service & Rules to Live By	Standard Terms & Definitions	Post Ranks (including when you can upload an avatar)
Reputation rules	News posting & quoting guidelines	Photo, avatars, & signature images policy

Once again, welcome to Susan's. Look around, ask questions and join in.

With warmth,

Joanna

Is there any science as to why it affects upper body more than lower body?

My assumption is that just living even a relatively sedentary life still works the leg muscles quite a bit, it takes quite a bit of strength to just stand up and walk around. It is far less of a workout doing the things one normally does with one's arms.

Has anyone here on HRT continued to do upper body exercises in the gym? 

I actually want to keep my "guns", they seem to keep people from messing with me...

In a year on HRT I've not lost any strength or muscle. This may be because I've always favored endurance training and large aerobic capacity. I don't go to the gym but I do bike daily rain or shine and I blow glass for a living and prefer to work (very) large. Judging by results my strength is fully intact and possibly improving with time on HRT.

The assumption that women are weaker imx isn't a good one, yes muscle bulk is affected by testosterone and in sports that require lots of bursty energy like bicycle racing and baseball there's a huge incentive to cheat with anything from steroids to EPO to HGH. In pure endurance I don't think women give up anything to men.

In pure endurance, at the ultra level, women have a small advantage in that they can metabolically use a greater percentage of fat for energy.


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

Quote from: Deborah on March 25, 2017, 06:41:30 AM
In pure endurance, at the ultra level, women have a small advantage in that they can metabolically use a greater percentage of fat for energy.


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

I'm curious Deb if you can drop me any studies on this? The best single data point I have is a woman who won the badwater 135 ultra twice, including setting a course record and then generally of course as you move into longer and longer endurance competition women become more competitive. The problem of course with competitive results is they're confounded with the much smaller group of females who choose to compete and the generally segregated nature of athletic competition.

QuoteThe female hormone estrogen may have a positive effect on resting and exercise fat metabolism. Although there appears to be a connection between estrogen and increased fat metabolism, the mechanisms are not fully understood. Research has suggested that estrogen may aid in the mobilization of fat from adipose tissue.

http://bit.ly/2nhlsSr

Proper training and diet do remain the vastly more important factor though.


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

That's awesome, thanks! Having never been in great aerobic shape (but having a basis of athletics in soccer and some medium distance cycling in my youth, in my late 40s I started training and at 50 began triathlon as a way to build up a deep aerobic base. Along the way I discovered that contrary to earlier research it's possible to train for optimal fat burning, not unlike the way one can train for maximum glycogen storage (earlier studies had missed this because it takes a minimum of 6 weeks to start seeing effect.

I know it worked for me because I found that if I biked to a blood test, even if it was only 15 minutes of riding I would have high triglyceride levels to the point my Dr was complaining. When I took the bus to my blood test the tri-g numbers were rock-bottom. So while conventional wisdom says fat burn doesn't begin until 30-45 minutes into a workout, I'm quite certain that the training worked.

This btw was all a decade before I started HRT, yes training matters as does innate ability.

I'm conducting an experiment of one to see what effect low carb eating combined with aerobic targeted running (less than around 65% VO2max) will have on my health and fitness.  If it works as expected in the long term I should turn into a fat burning monster.

The past few weeks my daily carb intake has been averaging around 60 g.  That seems more than adequate for daily one hour runs.  However, the weekly 90+ minute long runs are kind of brutal.  My legs feel ok but after about an hour heart rate drift is slowing me way down.  This may get better with training or maybe 60g of carbs is insufficient to support longer runs.  We'll see.  Worst case is I can double my carbs on Friday and still be pretty low carb compared to the 400+ g I used to eat.

Mainly I want to maximize my health and see if I can get back the running shape I had three years ago.  I'm not sure if that's possible or not on HRT but it can't hurt to try.

In the meantime it has dropped my resting heart rate down nearly as low as it used to be.


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

Deb it's less important to strictly limit carbs than to get the carbs you take in as vegetables, maybe fruits **with two exceptions**. The body can't burn fat without a small supply of carbohydrate so when you run out of blood sugar and the glycogen stores in the liver then your body gets the carbs it needs from breaking down protein which has a bunch of negative effects you don't want.

The key as I remember it is to minimize glycogen storage in the muscles, so you won't be having a recovery meal and you can supply the blood sugar you need during exercise with whatever your preferred complex sugar (maltodextrose). I used brown rice syrup for this.

By not having glycogen reserves, eating a diet high in healthy fat and lots of micronutrients (dark green veggies etc) you are teaching the body to both store some triglycerides in muscle and to utilize fats earlier and more efficiently. Again, it takes 6 weeks to get there.