Guest guest Posted May 12, 2005 Report Share Posted May 12, 2005 I was trying to find what the P & E levels were suppose to be on average for Young Adults. I found on the web: Estadiol Follicular Phase 20 - 160 Follicular Phase 2-3 days 20 - 84 Periovulatory Phase +/- 3 days34 - 400 Luteal Phase 27 - 246 Progesterone Median Absolute Rng Ovulating Females: ng/mL ng/mL Follicular Phase 0.4 0 - 1.5 Luteal Phase 7.7 2.3 - 25 Midluteal Phase 14.7 3.5 - 25 Pregnant Females: First Trimester 22.4 8.1 - 42 Second Trimester 53.5 15.2 - 130 Third Trimester 110. 49.1 - 227 I agree with Wiley Protocol hypothesis as far as replacing hormones to a youthful level and if we are already there why is there a need to do a specific # of lines of anything (E or P) We should have the protective benefits of hormone replacement if we can get them to fluctuate at youthful levels. This is the goal, not putting on X # of lines. It does concern me when it sounds like individuals were just putting on more and more hormones just based on how they felt at any given time. I am of the school of thought that just the addition of one hormone affects all the others and they all must find a new balance. I am afraid some maybe suffering from yoyo affects, not giving there bodies enough time to find new balance. Remember when we had babies we were told to only introduce one food each week. When we take any drug w/psychiatric affects we are told to ramp up slowly and down slowly. Not shocking our bodies. I am on Day 13 of my second month. I am on 1/2 dose WP. I needed to add Synthroid for Thyroid deficiency a week ago after 1st blood test showed my thyroid efficiency going down. I am sure the result of the hormones. I am in a holding pattern to observe my bodies ability to balance additions. There are fluctuations within my day but nothing unbearable. I do notice small improvements in some situations, sometimes, that only I could feel. I don't think my family has noticed any differences yet. Margaret Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2005 Report Share Posted May 12, 2005 Margaret wrote: I agree with Wiley Protocol hypothesis as far as replacing hormones to a youthful level and if we are already there why is there a need to do a specific # of lines of anything (E or P) But the WP is about never doing less than 10 lines of P and the recommendations for increasing came from Susie. Women who are doing less than 10 lines of P on day 21 are told “you are not on the WP”. What we hear from a doctor who works with Dr. Taguchi is to not change ANYHTING for 3 – 6 months. That doctor worked with Wiley in the past, but will not now. This extreme resistance to respect individuality is what we are responding to with such irritation. Your goal sounds healthy and one I also embrace. Another consideration. Using blood levels is not showing to be a consistent way of measuring hormone levels with this protocol. The astonishingly high levels of progesterone which women are told to deposit into the fat base are _likely_ saturating the tissues and not showing up on the blood tests. The excessive P _may_be_ killing off estrogen reception (overkill) and escalating the need for more estrogen. It _may_ depend on an individual woman’s predisposition to accumulating the P in the tissues. This would make blood testing highly suspect for evaluation and the determination to state a dose of never use less than 10 lines of P to be dependent on unsound assumptions. I am of the school of thought that just the addition of one hormone affects all the others and they all must find a new balance. I am afraid some maybe suffering from yoyo affects, not giving there bodies enough time to find new balance. This is a very wise comment, but women were responding to what they were told about the protocol from the researcher. Can we explain why women who start the protocol can tolerate the progesterone (to some extent) and become increasingly less able to tolerate it? Would continuing to apply it as directed be wise if women are seeing the extreme side effects? The researcher told women in my town to double the E and the P or double the E. Your perspective appears to be somewhat different although I don’t know how one can achieve balance with an accumulation of P in the system. Another thing I find fascinating and of concern. Why do we see younger cycling women posting their pre protocol blood testing results and follow up results with much lower blood levels of E and P? There was one with much higher E, but her response was usual and interesting as well. And another thing… We are seeing younger women (36 – 46) who have their periods drying up or never appearing even after a year. A woman of around 50 who had not cycled for three years and could not get blood levels was told to increase her E and P by double. After a year (of great difficulty and no significant increase in health and well being) she had an ultrasound and her lining showed no indication of any increase. A year of very high E and P she did not grow a lining or ever bleed. I am on Day 13 of my second month. I am on 1/2 dose WP. If you do a ½ dose you are not on the Wiley Protocol. The Wiley Protocol registered pharmacy has been forcefully instructed that they are not allowed to sell any prescriptions at ½ dosing and call it the Wiley Protocol. Your approach seems wise as hell to me, but if you sat in a support meeting in Port Townsend in December you would be told that those levels could grow cancer in your body. That I am telling you I believe that your ½ dose seems wise to me would be an example of the misinformation that is being spread on the RL group. Very wise of you. You might manage to make this work and feel good all the time, but you are not on the WP. That could be called rhythmic dosing or some such thing. Laurel From: rhythmicliving [mailto:rhythmicliving ] On Behalf Of margaretcegelski Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 10:34 AM To: rhythmicliving Subject: Wiley Protocol I was trying to find what the P & E levels were suppose to be on average for Young Adults. I found on the web: Estadiol Follicular Phase 20 - 160 Follicular Phase 2-3 days 20 - 84 Periovulatory Phase +/- 3 days34 - 400 Luteal Phase 27 - 246 Progesterone Median Absolute Rng Ovulating Females: ng/mL ng/mL Follicular Phase 0.4 0 - 1.5 Luteal Phase 7.7 2.3 - 25 Midluteal Phase 14.7 3.5 - 25 Pregnant Females: First Trimester 22.4 8.1 - 42 Second Trimester 53.5 15.2 - 130 Third Trimester 110. 49.1 - 227 I agree with Wiley Protocol hypothesis as far as replacing hormones to a youthful level and if we are already there why is there a need to do a specific # of lines of anything (E or P) We should have the protective benefits of hormone replacement if we can get them to fluctuate at youthful levels. This is the goal, not putting on X # of lines. It does concern me when it sounds like individuals were just putting on more and more hormones just based on how they felt at any given time. I am of the school of thought that just the addition of one hormone affects all the others and they all must find a new balance. I am afraid some maybe suffering from yoyo affects, not giving there bodies enough time to find new balance. Remember when we had babies we were told to only introduce one food each week. When we take any drug w/psychiatric affects we are told to ramp up slowly and down slowly. Not shocking our bodies. I am on Day 13 of my second month. I am on 1/2 dose WP. I needed to add Synthroid for Thyroid deficiency a week ago after 1st blood test showed my thyroid efficiency going down. I am sure the result of the hormones. I am in a holding pattern to observe my bodies ability to balance additions. There are fluctuations within my day but nothing unbearable. I do notice small improvements in some situations, sometimes, that only I could feel. I don't think my family has noticed any differences yet. Margaret click here for our webpage http://rhythmicliving.com/ Our sister group for research and high volume http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Rhythmic_Living_Research/ **This group has no pharmacy or commercial affiliations. Any mention of product or a pharmacy is within the scope of that group member's experience and does not represent the view of the list owner. Please check directly with pharmacies for details about their product and policies. Not everything you hear on an e-mail list is the truth even if it is a member's best effort to report their experience which may vary from your own. There are many variables that determine how we feel.*** **The group conversation is informational in nature and is not intended as medical advice. Anyone wishing to actively use this information or members' opionins for personal health improvement is advised to consult with the qualified health care provider of their choice before attempting to use the information. Membership on this list constitutes agreement that you will not consider any of this medical advice. Discuss your decisions with your doctor.** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2005 Report Share Posted May 12, 2005 Hi Margaret..it sounds like you are approaching this in an intelligent manner. As long as you continue to feel well, that's the main thing, I think. Because if we don't feel well doing any particular thing, then chances are it's not for us. And to me it makes sense to begin more gradually if you have been in menopause or not cycling for a while and have low levels of natural homrones. But I think the " adding more lines of E " was actually started several months ago, in response to women on the protocol as set forth in the book coming to Susie with their individual symptoms, such as headache, allergies, fibromyalgia, etc and Susie telling them they may need more E and to try x number of extra lines to see if it will allevitate the symptoms that appeared. (I have been follwoing this since last summer )She did say that some women might need double the E - statements like that. But I am not faulting Susie here...she did it on an individual basis and to individuals, she did encourage them to experiment a little when faced with unforseen symptoms. I do not think that women on the WP were dosing on their own at all. But I am sure some were...like me - while I waited for my doctor to prescribe the WP for me I began using ever increasing amounts of P during my two week P phase, trying to ready my receptors for more E - you see, I have been cycling with P and using estradiol for over a year before I got on the WP just this month. I have begun to find I am having symptoms of P excess...and I would really appreciate hearing what Susie Wiley has to say about this subject. But I know she will not comment on anything women not on the WP are doing....the fact remains that P excess is a phenomenon, so I am left with questions as to why is the high P on the WP okay...maybe there is a justification for it. I do not know. But keep us apprised of how you're doing! > I was trying to find what the P & E levels were suppose to be on > average for Young Adults. > > I found on the web: Estadiol > Follicular Phase 20 - 160 > Follicular Phase 2-3 days 20 - 84 > Periovulatory Phase +/- 3 days34 - 400 > Luteal Phase 27 - 246 > > Progesterone Median Absolute Rng > Ovulating Females: ng/mL ng/mL > Follicular Phase 0.4 0 - 1.5 > Luteal Phase 7.7 2.3 - 25 > Midluteal Phase 14.7 3.5 - 25 > > Pregnant Females: > First Trimester 22.4 8.1 - 42 > Second Trimester 53.5 15.2 - 130 > Third Trimester 110. 49.1 - 227 > > I agree with Wiley Protocol hypothesis as far as replacing hormones > to a youthful level and if we are already there why is there a need > to do a specific # of lines of anything (E or P) > > We should have the protective benefits of hormone replacement if we > can get them to fluctuate at youthful levels. This is the goal, not > putting on X # of lines. > > It does concern me when it sounds like individuals were just putting > on more and more hormones just based on how they felt at any given > time. I am of the school of thought that just the addition of one > hormone affects all the others and they all must find a new balance. > I am afraid some maybe suffering from yoyo affects, not giving there > bodies enough time to find new balance. > > Remember when we had babies we were told to only introduce one food > each week. When we take any drug w/psychiatric affects we are told to > ramp up slowly and down slowly. Not shocking our bodies. > > I am on Day 13 of my second month. I am on 1/2 dose WP. I needed to > add Synthroid for Thyroid deficiency a week ago after 1st blood test > showed my thyroid efficiency going down. I am sure the result of the > hormones. I am in a holding pattern to observe my bodies ability to > balance additions. There are fluctuations within my day but nothing > unbearable. I do notice small improvements in some situations, > sometimes, that only I could feel. I don't think my family has > noticed any differences yet. > > Margaret Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2005 Report Share Posted May 12, 2005 > But the WP is about never doing less than 10 lines of P and the > recommendations for increasing came from Susie. Women who are doing less > than 10 lines of P on day 21 are told " you are not on the WP " . What we hear > from a doctor who works with Dr. Taguchi is to not change ANYHTING for 3 – 6 > months. That doctor worked with Wiley in the past, but will not now. This > extreme resistance to respect individuality is what we are responding to > with such irritation. Your goal sounds healthy and one I also embrace. My Doctor is friends with Dr Taguchi and she is the one who suggested starting with 1/2 doses. I agreed with her especially at the time reading about issues with peoples receptors needing to be turned on. She is on the hormones herself, although I don't know if she follows it exact. She made a comment that Suzie does not like her to start people on 1/2 doses. My doctor is doing alot of her own research into this as well, attending conferences all over the country. I got my Rx filled by MS w/WP 1/2 dose. No problem. I do comprehend you ladies frustrations with the protocol. There is nothing in the book that suggests a minimum use of product or you will get sick and die. They only discuss turning our clocks back to when we were in prime reproductive years. So until I see proof, 10 lines means nothing to me. That is not my goal. My goal is to achieve the hormones I was producing when I was younger. > Another consideration. Using blood levels is not showing to be a consistent > way of measuring hormone levels with this protocol. The astonishingly high > levels of progesterone which women are told to deposit into the fat base are > _likely_ saturating the tissues and not showing up on the blood tests. The > excessive P _may_be_ killing off estrogen reception (overkill) and > escalating the need for more estrogen. It _may_ depend on an individual > woman's predisposition to accumulating the P in the tissues. This would > make blood testing highly suspect for evaluation and the determination to > state a dose of never use less than 10 lines of P to be dependent on unsound > assumptions. I hear you. I am monitoring the conversation here regarding this subject. I will still continue to test, place P in alternate parts of body (not fat), and observe closely my symptoms for improvement. > This is a very wise comment, but women were responding to what they were > told about the protocol from the researcher. Can we explain why women who > start the protocol can tolerate the progesterone (to some extent) and become > increasingly less able to tolerate it? Would continuing to apply it as > directed be wise if women are seeing the extreme side effects? The > researcher told women in my town to double the E and the P or double the E. > Your perspective appears to be somewhat different although I don't know how > one can achieve balance with an accumulation of P in the system. > Another thing I find fascinating and of concern. Why do we see younger > cycling women posting their pre protocol blood testing results and follow up > results with much lower blood levels of E and P? There was one with much > higher E, but her response was usual and interesting as well. > > > > And another thing… We are seeing younger women (36 – 46) who have their > periods drying up or never appearing even after a year. A woman of around > 50 who had not cycled for three years and could not get blood levels was > told to increase her E and P by double. After a year (of great difficulty > and no significant increase in health and well being) she had an ultrasound > and her lining showed no indication of any increase. A year of very high E > and P she did not grow a lining or ever bleed. > Laurel Laurel, Your passion here is helping alot of people. I am making decisions for myself based on all the books I've read, research on the web and info I have learned from this group and my doctors. Suzanne Sommers said and I am paraphrasing, " to always search for the most current, progressive, leading edge, anti-aging doctors you can find " . I still believe the SL & M hypothesis for now. If the WP did not exist we would all still be trying to achieve the effects of recapturing our youth with BHRT, because we want to feel alive and vibrant again. I am not being confused by the information here, I am going into this with my eyes as wide open as I can possibly make them. Thank you, Keep up the excellent service you provide. Margaret > From: rhythmicliving [mailto:rhythmicliving ] > On Behalf Of margaretcegelski > Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 10:34 AM > To: rhythmicliving > Subject: Wiley Protocol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2005 Report Share Posted May 12, 2005 Margaret wrote: My Doctor is friends with Dr Taguchi and she is the one who suggested starting with 1/2 doses. I agreed with her especially at the time reading about issues with peoples receptors needing to be turned on. She is on the hormones herself, although I don't know if she follows it exact. She made a comment that Suzie does not like her to start people on 1/2 doses. My doctor is doing alot of her own research into this as well, attending conferences all over the country. How wonderful that your doctor is independent. I wonder if she is one of the doctors about which Susie has told me “doesn’t do the WP correctly”? Susie told me that if I didn’t use enough progesterone I wouldn’t reset my estrogen receptors and not receive my estrogen the next month. I got my Rx filled by MS w/WP 1/2 dose. No problem. That is very interesting! I know full well they were told very strongly to never do that. Cool. I wonder if Susie knows they are sending out ½ dosing and writing “Wiley Protocol’ on it? Or maybe they don’t write WP when they do that. If she is cool with it how will Susie account for telling the women in Port Townsend they will get cancer on ½ dosing I know when I wrote the FAQ and said that ½ dosing would be fine for a little while, but after two months she was concerned I was told to remove it and told – never say ½ dosing is the WP.. I do comprehend you ladies frustrations with the protocol. There is nothing in the book that suggests a minimum use of product or you will get sick and die. They only discuss turning our clocks back to when we were in prime reproductive years. So until I see proof, 10 lines means nothing to me. That is not my goal. My goal is to achieve the hormones I was producing when I was younger. I have Susie on video tape telling a room full of women who thought they were doing the protocol that their doctor was basically a screw up because she had them on ½ doses. Some of them are reading this list but never post. Your experience of the protocol is different than those of us who got closer for information. I wonder if the ½ dosing was your friend’s idea or ’s. If is recommending ½ dosing a lot of women in Port Townsend would like to know that!!! Seriously, we would really love to know. I hear you. I am monitoring the conversation here regarding this subject. I will still continue to test, place P in alternate parts of body (not fat), and observe closely my symptoms for improvement. This may have been the initial idea behind the protocol and because you didn’t get too close you won’t hear any scare tactics that tell you your method is ‘going to give you cancer’ or not protect you from disease. Laurel, Your passion here is helping alot of people. I am making decisions for myself based on all the books I've read, research on the web and info I have learned from this group and my doctors. Suzanne Sommers said and I am paraphrasing, " to always search for the most current, progressive, leading edge, anti-aging doctors you can find " . I still believe the SL & M hypothesis for now. If the WP did not exist we would all still be trying to achieve the effects of recapturing our youth with BHRT, because we want to feel alive and vibrant again. I am not being confused by the information here, I am going into this with my eyes as wide open as I can possibly make them. Thank you, Keep up the excellent service you provide. Margaret Thank you Margaret. You are capturing the feeling that many of us felt when we started. When we looked closer we got a message that turned into something dark and far from what we originally expected. It really was shocking to be told by her that ½ dosing gave a woman cancer and it was dangerous. The archives don’t hold the history of the group. They only go back a bit. I purposefully deleted them. I don’t want any record of supporting the protocol. I honestly believe this approach of slamming in large doses of sex hormones into women without knowing the overall status of their hormone health is reckless. I don’t have a solution, but I have looked at the protocol very closely and I have a lot of concerns. My only solution is to learn. Laurel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.