A Randomized Controlled Trial of Ovarian Suppression in Premenopausal Women: No Change in Free-Living Energy Expenditure.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether suppression of ovarian function (gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist [GnRHAG ]) for 24 weeks in premenopausal women approaching menopause causes changes in body composition and a decline in free-living physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) and whether endurance exercise training attenuates the changes. METHODS: Premenopausal women who were approaching menopause (mean [SD]: age 46 [3] years, BMI 26.3 [4.8] kg/m2 ) were randomized to 24 weeks of GnRHAG (n = 14), GnRHAG + Exercise (n = 11), or placebo (n = 9). Endurance exercise was performed 4 days per week with the goal of expending 200 to 300 kcal per session. Primary outcome measurements included body composition by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, total daily energy expenditure (TDEE), and PAEE by doubly labeled water, and resting energy expenditure (REE) by indirect calorimetry. RESULTS: Changes in TDEE, PAEE, REE, or body composition were not different between groups. However, within the GnRHAG group, fat mass increased (mean [SE]: total 1.7 [0.4] kg, trunk 0.9 [0.2] kg, leg 0.6 [0.2] kg) and fat-free leg mass decreased (mean [SE]: -0.4 [0.2] kg) significantly. CONCLUSIONS: In premenopausal women approaching menopause, ovarian hormone suppression resulted in increased adiposity without alterations in TDEE, PAEE, or REE.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist in premenopausal women does not alter hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis response to corticotropin-releasing hormone.

Sex hormones appear to play a role in the regulation of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis activity. The objective was to isolate the effects of estradiol (E2) on central activation of the HPA axis. We hypothesized that the HPA axis response to corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) under dexamethasone (Dex) suppression would be exaggerated in response to chronic ovarian hormone suppression and that physiologic E2 add-back would mitigate this response. Thirty premenopausal women underwent 20 wk of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist therapy (GnRHAG) and transdermal E2 (0.075 mg per day, GnRHAG + E2, n = 15) or placebo (PL) patch (GnRHAG + PL, n = 15). Women in the GnRHAG + PL and GnRHAG + E2 groups were of similar age (38 (SD 5) yr vs. 36 (SD 7) yr) and body mass index (27 (SD 6) kg/m2 vs. 27 (SD 6) kg/m2). Serum E2 changed differently between the groups ( P = 0.01); it decreased in response to GnRHAG + PL (77.9 ± 17.4 to 23.2 ± 2.6 pg/ml; P = 0.008) and did not change in response to GnRHAG + E2 (70.6 ± 12.4 to 105 ± 30.4 pg/ml; P = 0.36). The incremental area under the curve (AUCINC) responses to CRH were different between the groups for total cortisol ( P = 0.03) and cortisone ( P = 0.04) but not serum adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) ( P = 0.28). When examining within-group changes, GnRHAG + PL did not alter the HPA axis response to Dex/CRH, but GnRHAG + E2 decreased the AUCINC for ACTH (AUCINC, 1,623 ± 257 to 1,211 ± 236 pg/ml·min, P = 0.004), cortisone (1,795 ± 367 to 1,090 ± 281 ng/ml·min, P = 0.009), and total cortisol (7,008 ± 1,387 to 3,893 ± 1,090 ng/ml·min, P = 0.02). Suppression of ovarian hormones by GnRHAG therapy for 20 wk did not exaggerate the HPA axis response to CRH, but physiologic E2 add-back reduced HPA axis activity compared with preintervention levels.

Influence of Estradiol Status on Physical Activity in Premenopausal Women.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the effects of 5 months of ovarian hormone suppression in premenopausal women on objectively measured physical activity (PA). METHODS: Participants (age, 35 ± 8 yr; body mass index, 27 ± 6 kg·m) received monthly intramuscular injections of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHAG) therapy, which suppresses pituitary gonadotropins and results in suppression of ovarian sex hormones. Women were randomized to receive concurrent transdermal E2 (GnRHAG + E2; n = 30) or placebo (GnRHAG + PL, n = 31). PA was assessed for 1 wk before and during each month of the 5-month intervention using a hip-worn accelerometer (Actical, Mini Mitter Co., Inc., Bend, OR). Estimates of time spent in sedentary, light, and moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) were derived using a previously published equation. Subsets of participants in each group were also randomized to a supervised progressive resistance exercise training program. RESULTS: Total MVPA tended toward being higher (P = 0.08) in the GnRHAG + E2 group at month 4. There were no significant effects of intervention or time in sedentary or light PA. In the subset of women who did not participate in structured exercise training for which Actical data were obtained (n = 16 in each group), total MVPA was higher at month 4 (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: PA levels seem to be maintained at a higher level in women undergoing pharmacological suppression of ovarian function with E2 add-back when compared with women treated with placebo. These data provide proof-of-concept data that E2 contributes to the regulation of PA in humans. However, given the exploratory nature of this study, future confirmatory investigations will be necessary.

Body composition and bone mineral density after ovarian hormone suppression with or without estradiol treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Suppression of ovarian hormones in premenopausal women on gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH(AG)) therapy can cause fat mass (FM) gain and fat-free mass (FFM) loss. Whether this is specifically caused by a decline in serum estradiol (E2) is unknown. This study aims to evaluate the effects of GnRH(AG) with placebo (PL) or E2 add-back therapy on FM, FFM, and bone mineral density (BMD). Our exploratory aim was to evaluate the effects of resistance exercise training on body composition during the drug intervention. METHODS: Seventy healthy premenopausal women underwent 5 months of GnRH(AG) therapy and were randomized to receive transdermal E2 (GnRH(AG) + E2, n = 35) or PL (GnRH(AG) + PL, n = 35) add-back therapy. As part of our exploratory aim to evaluate whether exercise can minimize the effects of hormone suppression, some women within each drug arm were randomized to undergo a resistance exercise program (GnRH(AG) + E2 + Ex, n = 12; GnRH(AG) + PL + Ex, n = 12). RESULTS: The groups did not differ in mean (SD) age (36 [8] and 35 [9] y) or mean (SD) body mass index (both 28 [6] kg/m). FFM declined in response to GnRH(AG) + PL (mean, -0.6 kg; 95% CI, -1.0 to -0.3) but not in response to GnRH(AG) + E2 (mean, 0.3 kg; 95% CI, -0.2 to 0.8) or GnRH(AG) + PL + Ex (mean, 0.1 kg; 95% CI, -0.6 to 0.7). Although FM did not change in either group, visceral fat area increased in response to GnRH(AG) + PL but not in response to GnRH(AG) + E2. GnRH(AG) + PL induced a decrease in BMD at the lumbar spine and proximal femur that was prevented by E2. Preliminary data suggest that exercise may have favorable effects on FM, FFM, and hip BMD. CONCLUSIONS: Suppression of ovarian E2 results in loss of bone and FFM and expansion of abdominal adipose depots. Failure of hormone suppression to increase total FM conflicts with previous studies of the effects of GnRH(AG). Further research is necessary to understand the role of estrogen in energy balance regulation and fat distribution.

Physical attractiveness biases in ratings of employment suitability: tracking down the "beauty is beastly" effect.

The "what is beautiful is good" heuristic suggests that physically attractive persons benefit from their attractiveness in a large range of situations, including perceptions of employment suitability. Conversely, the "beauty is beastly" effect suggests that attractiveness can be detrimental to women in certain employment contexts, although these findings have been less consistent than those for the "what is beautiful is good" effect. The current research seeks to uncover situations in which beauty might be detrimental for female applicants. In two studies, we found that attractiveness can be detrimental for women applying for masculine sex-typed jobs for which physical appearance is perceived as unimportant.