1908 This data was gathered as part of the Andro Project, an ongoing series of experiments designed to investigate the impact of oral androstenedione (AN) supplementation in healthy, adult male (44.8 ± 7 yr), resistance trainers. Previous research indicates that AN supplementation increases plasma AN, testosterone (TT), estrone (E1), and estradiol (E2). Evidence suggests that bone mineral density (BMD) is positively correlated with all of the above sex steroids. PURPOSE: To measure the effect of high intensity resistance training (RT) (3 d/wk × 12 wk) combined with double blind AN (n = 12, 200 mg/d × 12 wk) or placebo (PL, n = 12) supplementation on total body and regional BMD. METHOD: BMD, plasma concentrations of sex steroids (AN, TT, E1, E2), and muscular strength (1RM) were assessed at pre- and post-RT. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to test for significant (p < 0.05) time and treatment differences. Multiple regression analysis was used to test the impact of sex steroid concentrations on total body and regional BMD measures. RESULTS: This study found that spine BMD significantly increased by 5–6% in both treatment groups (1.23 ± 0.1 and 1.34 ± 0.2 g/cm2, respectively). Total body or other regional measures of BMD did not change between pre- and post-treatment. As previously reported, significant increases in pre- to post-AN (185%), E1 (86%), E2 (37%) occurred in only the AN supplementation group. 1RM measures significantly increased by 20–23% from pre- to post- training in both treatment groups. This study found that increases in spine BMD were significantly correlated with total body mass (r = 0.35, p = 0.047) CONCLUSION: RT significantly increased spine BMD and 1RM measures in a short time period (12 wk). Total body mass, an indicator of long-term skeletal loading, was the best predictor of increases spine BMD after RT. Despite a significant impact on sex steroid hormone profile, AN supplementation did not significantly impact BMD.

BACKGROUND Since the passage of The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act in 1994, there has been a flood of new "dietary" supplements promoting anti-aging benefits such as the enhancement of growth hormone or testosterone levels. Androstenediol and androstenedione are such products. This study's purpose was to elucidate the physiological and hormonal effects of 200 mg/d of oral androstenediol and androstenedione supplementation in men aged 35 to 65 years while participating in a 12-week high-intensity resistance training program. METHODS Fifty men not consuming any androgenic-enhancing substances and with normal total testosterone levels, prostate-specific antigen, hemoglobin, and hematocrit, and with no sign of cardiovascular or metabolic diseases participated. Subjects were randomly assigned to a placebo, androstenediol (diol), or androstenedione (dione) group using a double-blind study design. Main outcomes included serum sex hormone profile, body composition assessment, muscular strength, and blood lipid profiles. RESULTS During the 12 weeks of androstenedione or androstenediol use, a significant increase in the aromatization by-products estrone and estradiol was observed in both groups (P =.03). In the dione group, total testosterone levels significantly increased 16% after 1 month of use, but by the end of 12 weeks, they returned to pretreatment levels. This return to baseline levels resulted from increases in aromatization and down-regulation in endogenous testosterone synthesis based on the fact that luteinizing hormone was attenuated 18% to 33% during the treatment period. Neither androstenediol nor androstenedione enhanced the adaptations to resistance training compared with placebo for body composition or muscular strength. However, both androstenediol and androstenedione supplementation adversely affected high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels, coronary heart disease risk (representing a 6.5% increase), and each group's respective (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C]/HDL-C)/(apolipoprotein A/apolipoprotein B) lipid ratio (diol: +5.2%; dione: +10.5%; P =.05). In contrast, the placebo group's HDL-C levels increased 5.1%, with a 12.3% decline in the (LDL-C/HDL-C)/(apolipoprotein A/apolipoprotein B) lipid ratio. These negative and positive lipid effects occurred despite no significant alterations in body composition or dietary intakes in the supplemental groups or placebo group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Testosterone precursors do not enhance adaptations to resistance training when consumed in dosages recommended by manufacturers. Testosterone precursor supplementation does result in significant increases in estrogen-related compounds, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate concentrations, down-regulation in testosterone synthesis, and unfavorable alterations in blood lipid and coronary heart disease risk profiles of men aged 35 to 65 years.

160 Thirty division IIA football players (15 African-American (AA) and 15 Caucasian (CAU)) matched for age, Ht, Wt, playing position, football and weight lifting experience volunteered for a cross-sectional evaluation of body composition (BC) and bone density (BD). BC was assessed using hydrostatic weighing, skinfolds (SF), and dual-photon X-ray absorption (DEXA). Percent fat was determined using a 2-component (2C) (CAU: Siri, 1961; AA: Schutte, 1984), 4-component (4C) (Friedl, 1992), and DEXA models. Total and regional BD was measured using a Lunar scanner. The results indicated there were no significant differences in relative fat using the population specific 2C, 4C, and DEXA methods between the groups. There were no significant differences in 9 regional subcutaneous SF measurements nor regional DEXA estimates of body fat between the groups. AA did have slightly greater SF measures at all sites resulting in a larger, but non-significant total SF sum (AA=146.5, CAU=126; p = 0.46). BD expressed as a percentage of age-matched norms was not significantly different between AA and CAU groups. However, absolute total bone density (p=0.03), regional head (p=0.05) and leg (p=0.04) measurements expressed in g/cm2 were significantly greater in AA. In contrast, food frequency surveys showed calcium intake was significantly less in the AA group by 43.1%. No significant differences in caloric intake, protein, CHO, or fat intake were observed. These data suggest that whole-body percent fat was similar between AA and CAU football players but the AA group had thicker skinfold body fat measures. As shown in non-athletic populations, despite being matched with CAU subjects for age, body size, playing and weight lifting experience, AA football players showed a 3.6% greater total body bone density value.

830 This study's purpose was to ascertain how accurately the TBF-105 (TBIA) device measured body composition when the TBIA adult (TAD) versus athletic(TAT) equations were applied to the device's impedance measurements. Body composition was analyzed on thirty-five subjects (19 females, 16 males) using TBIA, Valhalla BIA (VBIA), hydrostatic weighing (HW), and a 4- site skinfold(4SF) equation. Based on an activity questionnaire with a score range of 1-100, subjects were classified as active (n=15; AC=77.3 ± 11.8) or non-active (n=19; NA = 31.9 ± 14.9) with no classification group overlap occurring. VO2 max also was estimated using the non-exercise equation of Thompson et al., 1992. HW values were used as the reference standard. This study's results indicated that the TAD equation significantly overestimated% body fat (%BF) in the NA group by 35.0% and 59.3% for females and males respectively compared to HW. When the TAT equation was used for the AC male group,%BF was also significantly overestimated compared to HW by 32.3%. However, in AC females, the TAT equation was very similar to the group's HW values (TAT = 25.8% vs HW = 25.9% BF values). The VBIA% BF values were very similar to HW for both active groups. (AC Males = -2.0%; AC Females< 1.0%). The NA female subjects were moderately over-estimated by the VBIA assessment 4.1% (VBIA = 27.8%; HW 26.7%) while the NA males VBIA significantly overestimated their% BF by 25.8%. However, because these subjects were uncharacteristically lean for low-activity individuals, the absolute difference in%BF was just 2.5% compared to HW. In comparison with all BIA measures, the 4SF equation results were nearly identical to HW for all groups except NA males (Absolute differences: AC Males = -0.8%; AC Females = +0.9%; NA Males = 3.6%; NA Females = -0.4%). When subject's were subdivided based on aerobic capacity (Low = 27.5 ± 4.5; Normal = 41.1 ± 5.2, ml•kg 1•min4), the TAD equation significantly overestimated the HW%BF by 22.6% and 37.4% respectively. In contrast, the TAT equation%BF values were not significantly different for either group compared to HW. In conclusion, these results indicated that despite the ability to select equations accounting for differences in physical activity patterns of fitness with the TBIA device, significantly large differences in body fat measurements were observed when compared with HW or SF measurements in this population.