Talk:Dehydroepiandrosterone

DHEA is produced...

"DHEA is produced by adrenal glands" AS WELL AS in the testes and the ovary...

http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/38/6/488.pdf

"Whereas, in males, most androgens come from the testes"

http://books.google.at/books?id=AsbIokGXBa8C&pg=PA190&lpg=PA190&dq=%22dhea+is+produced+*+the+testes%22&source=bl&ots=-aVcJnp9lA&sig=IK_A22EoBIqGRTDFno8hmmY_TJQ&hl=de&ei=cVe2Sqq4A4ePsAaUo4XvDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

p.190, The Causes of Aging: "Around 20% of DHEA in males is produced by the testes..."

schizophrenia

can someone who is an expert on DHEA add a section on schizophrenia and DHEA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp0 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources needed

I'd like to see some sources for these claims: "Side effects may include: irreversible male breast enlargement (gynecomastia) and prostate gland enlargement extensive growth of body hair, or hirsutism"

Answer; DHEA can be converted in the body into testosterone (male sex hormone) and estradiol (female sex hormone). The effect DHEA can have on your body may be the same as when taking these sex hormones. The testosterone effect will be most pronounced in women, as they produce little testosterone themselves and opposite, the estradiol effect may affect men. Thus it could lead to the irreversible male breast enlargement (gynecomastia) and prostate gland enlargement and in women the extensive growth of body hair could be observed (grow a beard).

Yes yes a popular theory. Gyno has never happened in men as a result as far I can tell though. Even though most of it is converted into estradiol, I have never seen anything showing a significant effect on male gyno from dhea use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.230.145 (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So why risk taking it, when the 'good' side-effects are not proven?

Or on the other side of the coin, why risk not taking it? Studies indicate that's a risk too --and could be substantial. There is quite a bit of evidence that there are "good side effects." Exercise increases DHEA levels. Do you think that's harmful as well?

Please not that the reference: "The DHEA Debate: A critical review of experimental data (Published 2004)" is a sponsored link of a DHEA manufacturer.

Sure, but the claims in the article are sourced. It's very informative.

I would like to see more information on DHEA and its use in sporting events. Some bodies have actually classified its use as a 'banned substance' much like hard steroids, including the Quebec athletic board which oversees TKO mixed martial arts events.

Precautions

Under the "Precautions" section, I noticed this:

"Since DHEA is very aromatizable, and almost all estrogen in men and women is derived from it, DHEA can have similar but even worse estrogenc effects of anabolic steroids"

I have never heard this about DHEA. Can this be backed up? Based on this pic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Steroidogenesis.gif

We can see what DHEA breaks down into, but we do not see which pathways are used the most. I have NEVER heard of someone experiencing "similar but even worse estrogenc effects of anabolic steroids" from DHEA. That statement seems preposterous. Steroids can cause your body to shut down its production of testosterone. DHEA has been shown not to do this. In fact, here's a study showing that supplementing with DHEA does not effect testosterone or estrogen levels:

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/6/2274

PAT or JK 18:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, where did "Stunted growth in teens who have not reached their height potential" come from? Does anyone have any studies / data / theories to back that up? I will leave it there for the time being since I'm uncertain of how true it is. PAT or JK 18:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

onset of labour

This hormone may be implicated in fetal control of the onset of labour - any thoughts??

Yes I find it surprising it's not mentioned... - I don't feel qualified enough/have time to explain it however it is referenced in Essential Reproduction (Johnson, ISBN 978-1-4051-1866-8) 131.111.8.104 (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

supplement?

when i was in my early 20's i used to buy this stuff for like a dollar a bottle at a store called 'family dollar'. it was sold as a vitamin supplement in the store and the container said something along the lines of it giving you energy. far as i can tell i don't have any long term health effects from it. i took about 1 tablet a day sometimes more if i needed more energy, i don't remember the dosage per pill. it did actually give me energy from what i remember but i think it might have caused other things like inability to focus. hard to say i was a raver then and did drugs on occassion. they eventually took it off the shelf of family dollar. now that i find all this stuff out about it, it makes me wish i was working out back then to really get the benefits lol. actually if i had known all this stuff about it i probably wouldn't have taken it.

The FDA does not regulate supplements. This is because the food supplement industry lobbied hard and defeated them, resulting in a plethora of unscrupulous manufacturers and questionable products on the shelves. There is no guarantee that you were even taking DHEA. Drugs and vitamins are taken at such small doses that most of any given pill is filler: cornstarch. Buyer beware! If you are convinced that a product is worth your hard earned dollar, it is also worth purchasing from a reputable manufacturer. I don't think I'd trust a dollar store for DHEA tablets. Incidentally, good researchers don't take their subjects for granted. Good scientists (bad ones, who unfortunatley abound, do not) report the brand name of the drugs they are testing, how they obtained it, the dosages and they double check by sending the stuff to a chemistry-analysis lab to test for purity and strength. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.245.168 (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Merger with Prasterone

Dehydroepiandrosterone or DHEA is the much more commonly used term ( medical lit. and google test). Prasterone is the term used in the ATC code but has limited usage. Articles should be merged.Ekem 17:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There is enough interest in DHEA separately from Prasterone that they should be kept separate. Nick Taylor1 14:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

DHEA

Scientifically speaking, the term "more advanced" is not applicable. A metabolite is just a molecule with a slightly different structure. Furthermore, the exact effects of such hormones is still not understood in detail. If it is shown that ingestion of a certain hormone provokes the production of another hormone, an entire cascade, including a variety of feedback mechanisms is set in motion. No exact number can, in such a case, be assigned to the levels of hormones, which is potentially dangerous. Any use of these compounds, which should, in all objectivity, be judged safe by the FDA, should be undertaken only under close supervision of an expert. 77.251.51.253 (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the section on DHEA should be kept separate.

And I see you have deleted the section on

7-Keto DHEA is a recently identified natural metabolite of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) which is both more effective and safer than DHEA because it does not convert itself into testosterone or estrogens in the body. In one word, 7-Keto DHEA possesses all the advantages of DHEA and - it is claimed - with none of the disadvantages.

Please note I have no interest in or connection with selling DHEA.

Now it seems to me that readers should want to know about this more advanced form of DHEA. For me it seems that this refined product forms part of the DHEA information. It is possible to add a separate entry but I would be against this.

That one external link provided the following information (refereces provided below):

• 7-Keto DHEA is structurally practically identical to DHEA, from which it is derived by an enzymatic conversion process taking place in the body. Professor Henry A. Lardy and his team have researched 7-Keto DHEA for ten years at the Institute of Research on Enzymes at the University of Wisconsin. Based on this research, Professor Lardy has obtained 9 patents for the uses of 7-Keto DHEA, for reinforcing and modulating the immune system, contributing to the treatment of Alzheimer's disease and favoring weight loss.

• The main worry of certain DHEA disparagers is that it will partly convert itself into sex hormones such as testosterone and estrogens. This seems to be an obvious advantage for the healthy, looking to combat age-associated hormonal decline. Unfortunately, this means advising all those with a personal or a family history of hormonal-dependent cancer risk (prostate, breast, ovarian) against taking DHEA. This rules out the important part of the elderly, who would gain the most, from the benefit of supplementation. And some women badly support the side effects due to an increase of androgens which can be induced by DHEA (acne, facial hair). For these, 7-Keto DHEA is the ideal solution. Doses as high as 500 mg/kg have been administered to primates with no adverse effect being observed. This is equivalent to more than 100 times the recommended dose for a human being. A human toxicity study confirmed that in doses of 200 mg/day for 28 days, 7-Keto DHEA did not negatively affect biological blood and urine tests.

• Lardy has demonstrated that 7-Keto DHEA is around 2.5 times more powerful, milligramme for milligramme, than DHEA, and this with no side effects. In fact, 7-Keto DHEA, metabolized in the body from DHEA, may be responsible for most of the beneficial effects attributed to DHEA. 7-Keto DHEA is more effective than DHEA for improving memory, inducing thermogenesis and reinforcing or modulating the immune system.

• 7-Keto DHEA is without doubt the most effective supplement available for helping to lose weight durably and rapidly. Lardy's work demonstrates that taking 7-Keto DHEA significantly increases the liver production of thermogenetic enzymes as well as the production of the thyroid hormone T3 (without influencing either TSH or T4, and so with no negative impact on thyroid function) with, as a consequence, a sure but certain rise in basal metabolism. One double blind study was carried out on subjects taking 100 mg of 7-Keto DHEA twice a day for 8 weeks. During this study, the subjects absorbed 1,800 calories per day and exercised (moderately) 3 times 60 minutes per week. The supplemented subjects lost three kilos, whereas the controlled ones lost only one. At this dose, and during this length of time, 7-Keto DHEA caused no side effects. All those preoccupied with weight control should consider supplementation in 7-Keto DHEA.

• All those taking DHEA can take 7-Keto DHEA if they are willing to pay a little more for a more effective and safer supplement. Those who cannot take DHEA because of the risk of hormonal-dependent cancer can take 7-Keto DHEA. With men who excessively aromatize testosterone, taking DHEA can lead to a simultaneous and undesirable increase in estradiol, a typically feminine estrogen. Replacing DHEA with 7-Keto DHEA will avoid this. Those wishing to effectively control their weight over a long period of time should make 7-Keto DHEA one of their basic supplements. Where DHEA does not succeed, or not succeed enough, 7-Keto DHEA, an active and improved form, should be tried.

• Twenty-five to 50 mg per day is sufficient supplementation for the healthy, or in the case of an anti-aging programme. If you take 50 mg per day, it is preferable to divide the dose between two meals. Higher doses can be advised for limited periods.

And the following references: • Weeks C., Hardy H., Henwood S. Preclinical toxicology evaluation of 3-acetyl-7-oxo-dehydroepiandrosterone (7-Keto DHEA), FASEB J 1998;12:A4428. • Henwood S. M., Weeks C. E., Lardy H. An escalating dose oral gavage study of 3 beta-acetoxyandrost-5-ene, 17 dione (7-ox-DHEA acetate) in Rhesus monkeys. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun, 1999;254:120-3. • Davidson M. H., Weeks C. E., Lardy H., et al. Safety and endocrine effects of 3-acetyl-7-oxo DHEA (7-Keto DHEA) FASEB J 1998;12:A4429. • Colker et al., Double blind study evaluating the effect of exercise plus 3-acetyl-7-oxo dehydroepiandrosterone on body composition and the endocrine system in overweight adults. J. Exercise Physiology online, 1999;341:122-8. • Shi J., Lardy H. 3beta-hydroxyandrost-5-ene-7, 17 dione (7-Keto DHEA) improves memory in mice. FASEB J 1998;12:A4427. • Shi J., Schulze S., Lardy H. The effect of 7-oxo-DHEA acetate on memory in young and old C5577BL/6 mice. 2000;65(3):124-9. • Davidson M., Lardy H., et al. Safety and pharmacokinetic study with escalating doses of 3-acetyl-7-oxo-dehydroepiandrosterone in healthy male volunteers. Clin Invest Med. Vol23, n° 5, Oct 2000.

Nick Taylor1 14:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your considerable points (this obviously took you some time to write your thoughtful comments):

• If that site provided all those links, then I appologise for not having looked hard enough at the site.
• However, I would then suggest providing citations to these primary sources rather than a tertiary source.
• I merely did the move from established to claimed uses, and removed the "in one word" (used several words to repeat the previous sentance) - I still would consider such uses "claimed" vs established medical/pharmaceutical practice, but clearly, with so much evidence to cite from, I agree it deserves at least its own subsection.
• The easiest way of providing full links with usually at least an abstract is the free National Institutes of Health PubMed abstract service. Use PubMed search (this link) for finding articles based on their titles or keywords. Using PMID abstract-number generates a link to PubMed's abstract (eg. PMID 123456). To create the necessary mark up:
  • at the relevant place in the article text enclose the citation details between <ref> ... </ref> tags.
  • The citation details themselves can be manually entered, but it is much preferred (and quicker) to use citation templates and there is Diberri's tool (this link) that, given the PubMed abstract number, will do this for one.
• If you need any help with any of this, please feel free to ask... :-) David Ruben ^Talk 15:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry haven't been here for a while. Will add references over the next month and scientifuc formaulations and the resutls of scientifcally based soruve and research study plus clincial trials. Nick Taylor

Wikipedia is a global reference, not just a scientific reference.

I would like to point out that this debate over the *efficacy* of the 7-keto metabolite or the quality of available research is not an excuse for removing any mention of it wholesale from this article. The result is that someone coming to wikipedia and doing a search on the term "7-keto" comes up with no results. I know that I was at one time able to find either the DHEA article or a separate 7-keto article by performing a simple search on this term.

7-keto is not the product of someone's imagination; it is a specific metabolite of DHEA and whether anyone agrees that it is useful or should be consumed or has verified usage claims, the fact remains that it is being marketed as a product and is being taken by a lot of people. That fact, with or without caveats, should be recognized in this article so that someone searching here can at least find out what 7-keto is. If they end up having to go elsewhere to actually learn more about it, so be it. That's the point of Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia is not just for the academic community, its articles should not be designed only for a select few.

I am not a medical professional or chemist and do not intend to add a comment about 7-keto myself, but am instead asking those of you who presume stewardship of this topic to remedy the situation. I suggest to you that not mentioning 7-keto at all in the main article does not adhere to the neutrality principle and lowers the quality of the article itself. Spudchick 15:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like some more information on 7 keto dhea too, I would rather come to wikipedia where it is "peer reviewed" rather than just randomly on the net where there is usually an ulterior motive in selling a product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.63.116.221 (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Garbled sentence re exercise

The section on "Increasing endogenous DHEA production" begins, "Regular exercise is known to the body." Well, it's known to some bodies but not others.  :) I'm guessing that the sentence is supposed to read, "Regular excercise is known to increase DHEA production in the body." I can't readily access the cited references, though, and so can't confirm that. Would someone knowledgeable please clarify? JamesMLane t c 20:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

DHEA/DHEAS

Should these be better qualified as sterols?

Recent edits

I've edited some of the recent additions, which had presented preclinical or in vitro data in a somewhat more definitive form than actually reported. I've also removed this reference: Perkins SN, Hursting SD, Kim K, Poetschke K, Heather L, Richie ER. Mechanisms underlying the anti-lymphoma activity of dehydroepiandrosterone: studies in murine thymocytes and murine T-cell hybridoma cells. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention. 2002; 11(10):1233s. as I cannot find it on MEDLINE. It seems to be a supplement, so perhaps it was an abstract presented at a meeting which was either never published or was published under a different title? In any case, it's somewhat misleading to say that the NCI found that DHEA reduced the risk of breast cancer. The reference was to an in vitro (not clinical) study, which I am unable to locate and verify. The available clinical data (which I've referenced in the article) indicates fairly strongly that higher levels of DHEA are in fact associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, presumably through pro-estrogenic effects. MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Bone density

The discussion of DHEA effects, including the Mayo article has these statements: "DHEA supplementation has been studied as a treatment for Alzheimer's disease, but was found to be ineffective.[2] Some small placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial studies have found long-term supplementation to improve mood and relieve depression[3][4] or to decrease insulin resistance.[5] However, a larger placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 found that DHEA supplementation in elderly men and women had no beneficial effects on body composition, physical performance, insulin sensitivity, or quality of life.[6]"

However, the Mayo article did find increase in both genders in bone density. Considering the side effects and as yet unknown long term effects of the phospholipids, it might be worth mentioning this point. And the medical research community might want to look into this further. --Dan 03:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume instead of "phopholipids" you mean bisphosphonates. It's fine to mention increased bone density, though in the NEJM study this was only in the radius in women and not in the hip or spine, and it's not clear whether there would be any improvement in fracture risk. These days fracture incidence, rather than bone density on DEXA, is really the appropriate endpoint for studying this sort of thing. MastCell ^Talk 18:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fractures are an inappropriate endpoint for a trial of this sort - that could be years out. I see no problem with assuming that an increase in bone density at the radius is indicative of a general increase. And as you know, Colles' is one of the commonest fractures in people, especially women, with osteoporosis. I repeat, I think this deserves a word or two in the main article.(You misspelled "phospholipids") --Dan 21:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to detail. I again assume you meant bisphosphonates rather than "phospholipids". You may be interested to know that fractures (vertebral, incidentally, not Colles') are considered an appropriate and essential endpoint by, among others, the FDA:

A treatment related increase in BMD cannot be assumed to result in reduced risk of fracture.... Assessment of the effect of a new drug regimen on the incidence of new vertebral fractures is of primary importance in judging efficacy.^[1]

Such trials do take a while, but they're far from impossible or exorbitant: for example, they've been done for the currently approved bisphosphonates, as the FDA requires them. Anyhow, we're getting a bit far afield. I'm not opposed to a sentence or two on increased bone mineral density in the wrist in women, just to the implication that this is a great undiscovered treatment for osteoporosis. The jury's still way out on that one. MastCell ^Talk 22:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree absolutely; the efficacy question is unknown because it's largely unexplored. I do think that part of that article should be mentioned, especially since the negative findings were described, and the authors did bring it out in the abstract. But a fracture study would be tougher because of course, one can't do it without funding, and from whence would come such funding? Oh, and thanks, I did mean bisphosphonates rather than "phospholipids" - I was thinking of too many diverse things while replying. --Dan 20:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add a line about the ulnar BMD finding if you like - I don't have a problem with that. I'm not a big believer in the funding argument, though - dietary supplements are a huge business. They bring in nearly as much $$$ as prescription meds, with a fraction of the overhead (thanks to our current lack of regulation) and essentially no R&D costs. The supplement industry makes billions. If they chose, they could fund actual studies of their products, just as Pfizer, Merck, and the other villanous pharmaceutical companies do. But such a study might show the supplements are worthless - so why rock the boat? Anyhow, the potential funding is there - just not the motivation on the part of the companies that sell these products. MastCell ^Talk 06:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Belly Fat Burner??

I recently read this "too good to be true" report. Can anyone substantiate this claim??

"Just months ago, scientists at Washington University School of Medicine completed their double-blind, placebo-controlled study, and it works! The aging, overweight "couch potatoes" who took dehydroepiandrosterone kept right on eating just like before. Yet within a matter of months bulging waistlines abruptly shrunk. And they weren't just sucking in their guts. When researchers peered inside their bellies with MRI scans, masses of fat had vanished. The average patient lost 13 square centimeters of belly fat under the skin, plus another 13 square centimeters of deeper, even deadlier visceral fat, for a total of 26 square centimeters."Catart 17:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is that it's too good to be true and someone's making outlandish claims in an effort to sell you something. The longer answer is that if you're really curious, the best idea is to find the actual study that this advertisement is referencing. MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Irony and Stupidity

It's rather ironic that the people who buy this compound as a supplement tend to be those who get regular exercise - an activity that boosts the body's production of this compound. So, it's essentially pointless as a supplement if you exercise regularly. Also, the fact that a couple of conservative senators are trying to add this compound to a list of controlled substances is completely idiotic. It is not a drug of abuse (i.e., does not produce euphoria or physiological/psychological dependence), and there is no evidence that it could be used as an athletic performance enhancer, for the reason which I stated above (it is produced endogenously, especially by physically active individuals, i.e. athletes). The only reason for it to be a controlled substance is so that pharmaceutical companies can sell it for ridiculously high prices. I'd be willing to bet that those two senators have stocks in various pharmaceutical companies. This is the same thing that happened to tryptophan in the 80's - it was sold as a pharmaceutical for exorbitant prices, when it's really just an amino acid that is commonplace in almost every food. Come to think of it, most of the supplement market consists of snake oil products (e.g., alanine supplements - an amino acid that is present in more or less every food product). Of course, these are just my opinions, after looking over the whole state of affairs regarding the supplement industry in the United States. Basically, the whole thing is run on ignorance of basic biological principles. And thus, I end my rant. Fuzzform (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the ratio of amino acids matters, which is why it is often useful to consider selective amino acid supplementation. Tryptophan may be 'common in many foods' but it has competition from several other amino acids--*often common in those same foods*--for transport through the blood-brain barrier. Therefore it's not always feasible to achieve a high enough ratio of tryptophan through diet alone to support desirable serotonin (and melatonin) levels, which is the usual goal of tryptophan supplementation. Likewise, a high ratio of lysine to arginine is shown to inhibit replication of the herpes virus. Altering this ratio through diet and lysine supplementation is a common aid for treatment in humans (herpes simplex) and also cats (viral rhinotracheitis). And here is a study that demonstrates performance enhancement through beta-alanine supplementation.

I'm not saying that amino supplements are always necessary, used properly or sold conscientiously but it's going a bit far to dismiss them as 'snake oil'. Spudchick 22:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference ranges

Can we get a table that summarizes a representative sample of reference ranges for men and women? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Effects changes

It needs to be understood that it all depends on purity. 99+% pure DHEA (nearly impossible to find) may very well produce the effects that are advertised. This section needs to be changed to display that. Most DHEA supplements are bought in bulk from suppliers in China and just put in capsules / pills and are very impure. Purity affects the effectiveness of all substances, DHEA is no exception. It is true, supplement companies make insane claims that don't apply to their particular impure DHEA product.

The truth should be told about how most every DHEA supplement is impure, therefore the listless claims companies associate with their DHEA product may not really apply to that DHEA product. But make no mistake, 99+% pure DHEA CAN produce the advertised claims. The claims are not baseless, they are based on clinical trials, but clinical trials for a different DHEA then what the company is selling. This section needs to be updated to more accurately explain the information already contained in it. If no one is willing, I will update it later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.183.145 (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

How are you supposed to get the effects from 99% purity DHEA but not 90% DHEA? It doesn't make sense chemically unless the impurity is an active compound blocking the effects of DHEA. DHEA is a neurosteroid which elevates estrogen in men, not a miracle steroid supplement. 93.161.107.239 (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Side Effects

There's a large section on the supposed positive effects of DHEA, but what about the detrimental ones? I have no sources to back this up, but my doctor has told me high levels of DHEA can cause anger and irritability. I also believe it can produce depression-like symptoms such as anhedonia. Like I said, I can't find any sources, so I'm hoping some of you can help. For reference, my DHEA level is in the 1400s, which is about four times the normal level. Darktangent (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit of a can of worms, because you're talking about comparing the possible effects of high endogenous levels of DHEA with the possible effects of supplementation. High endogenous levels might or might not point to an underlying cause that would likely not be present in the case of supplementation--for example, abnormally low levels of some of the enzymes needed to process DHEA in the body. Supplementation, on the other hand, could introduce an entirely different picture WRT possible positive benefits OR negative effects. I haven't read all of the sources on DHEA supplementation, but have not seen the effects you're talking about mentioned in any study so far. Will keep my eyes open. Leha Carpenter (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Just went and looked at the cited SLE study under FDA. Over two years of women with SLE taking 200mg/day of DHEA, the only significant side effects were acne (about 15% over control), and hirsutism (about 12% over control). Leha Carpenter (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with the effects and causes of high endogenous levels of DHEA. Whether or not it is causing my symptoms could only be determined if my doctor treats me for it, assuming there is a treatment. He made it sound like there was, since he strongly opposed lowering my DHEA level as it would also lower my testosterone level, but he might have just told me that as opposed to telling me there is no treatment and having me lose hope. It's clear that more research needs to be done--I'd love to participate, but I'm just an unemployed 23-year-old with a computer--without a research team my experiences with DHEA will be worthless. If anyone knows of any groups doing research on DHEA, I'd love to get in contact with them. Darktangent (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

7-Keto

A separate article about 7-Keto must be created as up and link to it provided on DHEA with one paragraph stating it's difference from DHEA.