Aromasin Users

NO i said u r a moron for opening ur mouth because there is an article on this site put up by a mod and either written by or put together by another well respected mod (zyg) that states the half life is 24...therefore you are a moron for argueing with me about half lives...do i need to spell it out for you anymore?
 
You didnt argue about half lives you argued saying that I never read the study...even if i didnt read the study and pulled 27 hours out of my ass for a half life of aromasin, the article written by zyg (god this is getting annoying) claims that the half life is about 24 hours. Its on this site and like i said even if i did get lucky and pulled that number outta my ass, its pretty close to what zyg said...odds are (obviously) that I wasn't pulling anything outta my ass and that I actually had something to back up my statements...

You made urself look like an idiot...just stop already...

Billy_Bathgate said:
My point is your lieing. If you read it like you claim and it says 27, then why not post it and show us.

You cant. Cause you never read it.

Just post it the full study. Prove me wrong and gloat about it! Make me look like Im wrong for saying you dont know what your talking about and accusing you of lieing!

POST IT COME ON! WE ARE ALL WAITING!
 
"NO i said u r a moron for opening ur mouth because there is an article on this site put up by a mod and either written by or put together by another well respected mod (zyg) that states the half life is 24...therefore you are a moron for argueing with me about half lives...do i need to spell it out for you anymore?"

Show me where I argued about half lives.

You said I did so show me, why are you ignoring this ready2?
 
ready2explode said:
You didnt argue about half lives you argued saying that I never read the study...even if i didnt read the study and pulled 27 hours out of my ass for a half life of aromasin, the article written by zyg (god this is getting annoying) claims that the half life is about 24 hours. Its on this site and like i said even if i did get lucky and pulled that number outta my ass, its pretty close to what zyg said...odds are (obviously) that I wasn't pulling anything outta my ass and that I actually had something to back up my statements...

You made urself look like an idiot...just stop already...
 
"NO i said u r a moron for opening ur mouth because there is an article on this site put up by a mod and either written by or put together by another well respected mod (zyg) that states the half life is 24...therefore you are a moron for argueing with me about half lives...do i need to spell it out for you anymore?"

Ok, just making sure that you were wrong read2. Thanks!
 
Complete surpression of estrogen is not a good idea. If you use anti estrogens properly you should use the lowest effective dose that will keep excess estrogen levels down but still allow some aromatization.
 
Again, complete supression of estrogen is just not going to happen. Ari shows about 50% blockage where Aromasin is more unclear with a 60-95% ( I belive more like 60-70% IMO, but ready2 would have a fit if I stated it as that). My blood work has never showed excessively low estrogen levels.
 
Guys stop bitchin at each other or I'll have to do something! We dont want ANY flaming here!!

Ok, now here is the key to aromasin! Its half life is 1 day, but since it is an aromatase deactivtor, its effects on the aromatase enzyme lasts for up to 5 days! Here is the key, We produce more every minute, so if the aromasin has left after say 2 days, the only aromatase enzymes that are deactivated would be the ones produced when the aromasin was active, which is about 2 days!

This mean you need to take a pill EOD or Every 3rd day for it to work properly. The study also doesnt take into account that there will be huge amounts of estrogen from the aromitization of the gear your using!

I dont care what anti-a your using, you will never fully supress your estrogen production!

Maybe 1 aromasin ED

So in closing, Everyone is different. Aromasin is the strongest, but it could lead to complete suppression of estrogen( not likely, but possible). This isnt good because estrogen is key to growth and glucose metabolism!

I say get rid of the excess, dont suppress it totally!

1mg of A-dex EOD always works fine for me, and I usually use .5mg EOD.
 
LMAO!! (not at you LS)

You summed up about 2 threads worth of my thoughs. lol

My only disputes are this.

"its effects on the aromatase enzyme lasts for up to 5 days!" >> on a biochemical level, the effects on the individual aromatic protiens are permanent and will stay that way, but by the 5th day, your body has most likely gotten rid of them by them anyways so it doesnt even matter.

This isnt good because estrogen is key to growth and glucose metabolism! >> true, but to what signifigance. There are other factors that effect these too. I think ready2 tried to use this against nolvadex decreasing gains or somethign, but he wouldnt post the study. So Im not totally sure. E does have a role though, even it us manly type.
 
(accidently hit reply)

I have never been able to suppress my E-levels to low so far. Even with 25mg Aro + 1mg Ari. I think its a Zenoch parable.
 
Here is a little something to read:

by William Llewellyn

Can estrogen work to augment muscle growth? Is this hormone always unwanted when we are taking anabolic steroids? Anecdotal reports from athletes suggest that the use of estrogen maintenance drugs such as tamoxifen (anti-estrogen) or aminoglutethimide (anti-aromatase) may slightly hinder muscle mass gains during steroid therapy. An explanation or even clarification for this observation has not been easy to come by. Here I would like to take a look at the comparative effectiveness of certain aromatizable and non-aromatizable drugs, as well as the possible mechanism in which estrogen can play a beneficial role to the athlete.

The Androgen Receptor
All anabolic/androgenic steroids promote muscle growth primarily via the cellular androgen receptor (abbreviated as AR in this article). The steroid attaches to and activates the androgen receptor, which ultimately gives the cell an order to increase protein synthesis. This process is well understood. But it has been suggested that other mechanisms may foster muscle growth during steroid therapy as well, which lie outside of the androgen receptor. One way this is evidenced is by the fact that steroids displaying a high affinity for the AR in muscle tissue do not always promote an equally high level of muscle growth. In other words, anabolic potency does not always correspond perfectly to receptor affinity. Clearly there are some disparities that lead into question whether or not the androgen receptor is the only thing at work concerning growth.

Testosterone, Nandrolone and Methenolone
Testosterone is without question one of the most effective steroids for building muscle mass available to athletes. However it does not have the highest affinity for the androgen receptor compared to some other steroids. For example, it has been shown that by eliminating the 19-methyl group (nandrolone) the affinity of the steroid for the androgen receptor is greatly enhanced. Nandrolone thus displays approximately 2-3 times greater affinity for the androgen receptor compared to testosterone, yet its ability to promote muscle growth seems to be considerably lower than testosterone at an equal dosage. One discussed possibility for this occurrence is the reduced androgenic potency of nandrolone. While testosterone converts to the more active steroid dihydrotestosterone (3-4 times greater AR affinity) upon interaction with the 5-alpha reductase enzyme in various androgenic target tissues such as the skin, scalp, prostate, CNS and liver, nandrolone drops to a third of its original potency by converting to the weak steroid dihydronandrolone[ii]. However this action is very site specific, and in muscle tissue nandrolone dominates as the active form of the steroid. Therefore this explanation may not suffice.

Nandrolone also differs from testosterone in its ability to be converted by the aromatase enzyme to estradiol (an active estrogen). In comparison, nandrolone aromatizes at approximately 20% of the rate testosterone does, and as such is not known as a very estrogenic steroid. It is likewise favored when reduced estrogenic side effects such as water retention, fat deposition and gynecomastia are desired. However athletes know that there is a trade off with the reduced tendency for nandrolone to promote side effects, in that it is a less anabolic steroid. With its known high affinity for the AR in muscle tissue, could this suggest that estrogen may also be a key mediator of muscle growth?

When we look at Primobolan® (methenolone) we see a similar trend. Methenolone is at least as good a binder of the androgen receptor as testosterone. By some accounts it is on par with nandrolone[iii]. However it is known to be much weaker than both steroids at promoting muscle growth. We know that methenolone does not interact with 5-alpha reductase, and as such its affinity for the AR does not increase or decrease in androgen target tissues. This would logically seem like a more favorable trait for anabolism over the weakening we see with nandrolone. However methenolone is a markedly weaker anabolic, and requires relatively high doses to promote growth. This also brings into question the role of 5-alpha reductase in promoting an anabolic state. Perhaps the fact that Primobolan® is a non-aromatizable steroid is more relevant.

Estrogen and GH/IGF-1
To date the most common explanation for why anti-estrogens may be slightly counterproductive to growth in the sports literature has been the suggestion that estrogen plays a role in the production of growth hormone and IGF-1. IGF-1 (insulin like growth factor 1, formerly known as somatomedin C) is of course an anabolic product released primarily in the liver via GH stimulus. IGF-1 is responsible for the growth promoting effects (increased nitrogen retention, cell proliferation) we associate with growth hormone therapy. We do know that women have higher levels of growth hormone than men, and also that GH secretion varies over the course of the menstrual cycle in direct correlation with estrogen levels[iv]. Estrogen is likewise often looked at as a key trigger in the release of GH in women under normal physiological situations.

It is also suggested that the aromatization of androgens to estrogens in men plays an important role in the release and production of GH and IGF-1. This was evidenced by a 1993 study of hypogonadal men, comparing the effects of testosterone replacement therapy on GH and IGF-1 levels with and without the addition of tamoxifen[v]. When the anti-estrogen tamoxifen was given, GH and IGF-1 levels were notably suppressed, while both values were elevated with the administration of testosterone enanthate alone. Another study has shown 300mg of testosterone enanthate weekly (which elevated estradiol levels) to cause a slight IGF-1 increase in normal men, whereas 300mg weekly of nandrolone decanoate (a poor substrate for aromatase that caused a lowering of estradiol levels in this study) would not elevate IGF-1 levels[vi]. Yet another study shows that GH and IGF-1 secretion is increased with testosterone administration on males with delayed puberty, while dihydrotestosterone (non-aromatizable) seems to suppress GH and IGF-1 secretion, presumably due to its strong anti-estrogenic/gonadotropin suppressing action[vii]. All of these studies seem to support a direct, estrogen-dependant mechanism for GH and/or IGF-1 release in men. It is difficult to say at this point just how important estrogen is to IGF-1 production as it relates to the promotion of anabolism in the steroid using athlete, however it remains an interesting subject to investigate.

Glucose Utilization and Estrogen
Estrogen may play an even more vital role in promoting an anabolic state by affecting glucose utilization in muscle tissue. This occurs via an altering the level of available glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase. G6PD is an important enzyme in the support anabolism, as it is directly tied to the use of glucose for muscle growth and recuperation[viii] [ix]. During the period of regeneration after skeletal muscle damage, levels of G6PD are shown to rise dramatically. G6PD enzyme plays a vital role in what is known as the pentose phosphate pathway, and as such this rise is believed to enhance the PPP related process in which nucleic acids and lipids are synthesized in cells; fostering the repair of muscle tissue.

A 1980 study at the University of Maryland has shown that levels of glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase rise after administration of testosterone propionate, and further that the aromatization of testosterone to estradiol is directly responsible for this increase.[x] In this study neither dihydrotestosterone nor fluoxymesterone could mimic the affect of testosterone propionate on levels of G6PD, an affect that was also blocked by the addition of the potent anti-aromatase 4-hydroxyandrostenedione to testosterone. 17-beta estradiol administration caused a similar increase in G6PD, which was not noticed when its inactive estrogen isomer 17-alpha estradiol (unable to bind the estrogen receptor) was given. An anti-androgen could also not block the positive action of testosterone. This study provides one of the first palatable explanations for a direct and positive effect of estrogen on muscle tissue.

What does this all mean?
It is a long held belief among athletes that estrogen maintenance drugs can slightly hinder muscle gains during steroid therapy with a strong aromatizable steroid such as testosterone. Whether or not we have plausibly explained this remains to be seen, however the above evidence certainly does provide strong support for a direct and positive affect of estrogen on growth. Does this mean we should abandon estrogen maintenance drugs? I don’t think that should be the case. It is important to remember that estrogen can deliver many unwanted effects such as increased water retention, fat deposition and the development of female breast tissue when it becomes too active in the male body. Clearly if we plan a high-dose cycle with an aromatizable steroid, anti-estrogens will be an important inclusion. However we cannot ignore the suggestion of using estrogen maintenance drugs only when they are necessary to combat visible side effects during mild to moderately dosed cycles, especially if bulk is the ultimate goal of the athlete.
 
Good ol Bill :)

I dont dispute the evidence of E in muscle. I am just curious to what EXACT degree. I tried to get read2 to post his study on it but he wouldnt, I dont know why, I asked nicely and all.

Even in here, it seems Bill agrees that there is no concrete evidence in the inhibitation of gains. That was pretty much my whole point to start with in the other thread. Ive seen many different studies showing decrease in IGF related to E levels, but they always seem to be different. The other thing, how many of these studies were done with males on high levels of anabolic (not Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT), high doses like we use). I wonder that and would love to see a study on that. From that question, I come to my next...with that presence of high anabolics, how significant does the decrease in IGF become and what effect is on the glucose metabolism?

I can only offer my own thoughts, which is basically that its not significant for me to not use anti-e's. As we seem to all agree, total estrogen suppresion is not really an issue. And while on a high level of aromatic compounds, even with a 50-80 or 90% reduction will still leave quite a bit of E left.


Anyways, Bill made a good conlclusion.
 
ready2explode said:
Good post Lawnsaver...exactly the points I've been trying to defend...

BAHHAAHAH go back and read the threads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Look close at what I disagreed with. Maybe when trying to defend something, you should post actual stuides, not someone elses references.

I never disagreed estrogens role. I said nolva wouldnt hinder gains from my above hypothesis!

Read closer next time.
 
Billy_Bathgate and ready2explode need to kiss and make up.
cuddle.gif
 
Did you see American Pie 2? Remeber when Stiffler first saw Finch in Stif's moms room and he chased him. Then the other guys said to shake...

Remeber the gesture that Stif made while saying "Shake this"

hahah
 
Guys, relax!! Billy, you seem knowledgable! We need that here.

The main point here is that all of these studies are done on women and not men on steriods! It is a completely different ball game!

The key to this game is reduce the conversion and production of estrogen enough to keep the bad sides away...Fat deposits, gyno, depression, etc. but keep enough circulating to aide in muscle growth, glucose metabolism, and I-Gf1 production!

To much is bad, but estrogen in moderation is priceless!
 
Thanks L! Likewise to you bro! Your fellow worker StoneCold brought me over here. It is a pretty cool board!

This guy has just been at it all day making false claims without any factual presentation. If anything, cut n paste of articles with no illustration of the specific point. Its just annoying to me, and sort of a pet peeve so to speak. But, its ok. The facts are presented and the readers may choose which ones to decide to apply for them.

I dont know what else to say really though.

Lets here it for Darwinism...lol
 
Debates are key to learning!! We want them here, lets just not let the flaming start as we have a no tolerence policy.

Anyway, some good info here!

Remember guys control estrogen, dont kill it!!
 
Back
Top