Aromasin Users

bWWAAAAHAAAAAHHHHAAAHHHAhaaaaaaa



You mean this crap went on for 3 hours after I got off the boards last night? LOL...........Bwaaaahaaaaaaaaaaa!


Bill: I give you creidit boss, at least you tried to be civil/peaceful interections throughout your arguments with ready2. Props to YOU! ;)
 
DRveejay11 said:
Bill: I give you creidit boss, at least you tried to be civil/peaceful interections throughout your arguments with ready2. Props to YOU! ;)
Tried to be civil/peaceful huh? Why dont you check out some of his posts towards the end of this thread: http://www.steroidology.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=849&perpage=25&pagenumber=2

This is the thread that we were debating on prior to coming over to here. And lawnsaver and I have butted head on other boards ourselves. Not surprising who he's gonna back when push comes to shove...
 
LOL. I was polite up until you told me to shut my mouth. When someone tells me to shut my mouth, thats when it gets hostile. I gave you a chance to post your credentials to prove to everyone that you were far more knowledgeable and accredited in this particular area to make it acceptable, but you wouldnt cause your not. So dont tell people to shut up unless you can back it up!


Ive argued with LS on Anasci and AF about insulin and diabetes before. Its not a big deal, We are still cool. It wasnt even an argument, it was a discussion on thoeries and bilogical procceses really. He however, didnt tell me to shut up or say that Im a moron.

Ya you pissed me off towards the end. You earned it and you got it. Next time watch what you say and quit copyrighting people and there will be no problems.
 
There's some really good info here from both R2R and BillyB. Of course my hope is that in the future you guys can debate in a more peaceful manner. I'm not pointing fingers at only one person here, just expressing my concern that people may see this type of argueing as the norm here. In reality I really would like this board to be as "no-flame" as it can be.

Just keep that in mind please. Its in the best interest of the site.

Thanks

Biggie
 
ready2explode said:
Tried to be civil/peaceful huh? Why dont you check out some of his posts towards the end of this thread: http://www.steroidology.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=849&perpage=25&pagenumber=2

This is the thread that we were debating on prior to coming over to here. And lawnsaver and I have butted head on other boards ourselves. Not surprising who he's gonna back when push comes to shove...


To be honest I dont remember either one of you...no offense!

I dont think I'm behind anyone! I'm a unbias Moderator, trying to keep the peace! We will not have any name calling! As, I said, we want and need the debates here, just dont call each other names!

R2E, relax man!! You need to go to K-mart and purchase some thicker skin! You dont have to take everything personal!

Its kind of funny on these boards, as you can never see anyones facial expression as they type, so you can take someone completely wrong!

Although EF has some great guys and a lot of great info, the board was to big and some of the Mods were never there, so this could get out of hand!

I'll say this one time! We are not EF, we do not tolerate flaming of any kind! If you are warned once and do it again you could be banned! We want people to have fun here, be able to learn and ask questions without someone making them feel stupid.

This the way things are...Deal with it on dont post here!
 
Billy_Bathgate said:
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.
Aight my last comment on this thread (arguements over)...Bill you said rite off the bat that nolva does not inhibit gains...this translates to estrogen not contributing to gains...i gave several possible reasons how estrogen could contribute to gains (albeit they werent my own thoughts) and references to back those reasons up...in order for you to enforce ur first point, Billy, who must disprove the reasons I gave and/or the studies...u said nolva DOES NOT inhibit gains...u proving it doesnt was what this whole thread was about...I dont have to be a doctor to know that estrogen contributes to gains in some way shape or form...
 
Using Nolva on cycle you cannot and willnot possibly suppress your estrognes SO low that they are going to SIGNIFICANTLY lower your gains.

Do you need studies showing that E levels are lowered only 50% from ari and fem and a bit higher with Aromasin?

Seriosly they are on the board. Maybe soem are even in this thread. LS posted one somewhere I think.

I never said "0 estrogen will not inhibit gains" I said using Nolva wont. Your estrogen levels are high. Factor that in along with the % decrease from whatever anti-e and your about back on track to where you normally would be anyways.


Would it make you happy if I said Nolva (10-20mg range) will not inhibit your gains on a significant level?

Go check out Animals board on the FAQ. He explains it very well. If you would like me to put it in my original thought and post studies I guess I could, but is that nessicary? Its going to be impossible to find an absolute proof. Unless you know of anyone that has a 100% identical clone.


Not to be taken offensive, but when you say things like "nolva does not inhibit gains...this translates to estrogen not contributing to gains..." you have to be very carefull in the scientific world of your translations.

The possible translation of that would be something like...Nolvadex does not appear to show any catabolic properties, or inhibit protien sysnthes adn other biochemical reactions that go on in the body leading to muscular enhancement. Furthur more, since nolvadex mainly is an anti-estrogen, the amount lowered by nolvadex is not significant enough to inhibit any properties that estrogen may perform leading to muscular enhancement.

Thats all my reasoning for Nolva not hindering gains is. Its actually kinda mathmatical. Determine the increase of aromatation normally present from an increase of testosterone and deduce the new level of estrogen. Then calculate the amount of inhibition capable of estrogen subtract that from your calculated level and then add on whatever percent effect nolva has by acting as a psuedo-estrogen...

My point is that the number you would get from that, is going to be very close to what your E levels were before you ever jacked with them.

Maybe I didnt state it well enough to start with, I thought I did.
 
Here...I brought this up to BC a while back...heres the convo:

ready2explode
Testosterone God

Registered: Apr 2002
Location:
Posts: 429

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Big Cat
Not necessarily. You know I am of the belief that estrogen is a large contributor to gains, I'd rather just let it flow and keep the Nolva on hand in case problems arise. With a standard 500/400 cycle, most will not have problems anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I copied this from animal (animalkits.be): Just say no to E!
Animal


Joined: Dec 03, 2001
Posts: 1520
From: Parts unknown
Posted: 2002-01-01 10:38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The premise:
you've been duped into believing or at least, have entertained the idea is that E is necessary for protein synthesis and/or E makes a cycle much better. You will see how that is absolutely and totally wrong.

The study.

Estrogen suppression in males: metabolic effects.

Mauras N, O'Brien KO, Klein KO, Hayes V.

Nemours Research Programs at the Nemours Children's Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida 32207, USA. nmauras@nemours.org

We have shown that testosterone (T) deficiency per se is associated with marked catabolic effects on protein, calcium metabolism, and body composition in men independent of changes in GH or insulin-like growth factor I production.


It is not clear,however, whether estrogens have a major role in whole body anabolism in males. We investigated the metabolic effects of selective estrogen suppression in the male using a potent aromatase inhibitor, Arimidex (Anastrozole).

First, a dose-response study of 12 males (mean age, 16.1 +/- 0.3 yr) was conducted, and blood withdrawn at baseline and after 10 days of oral Arimidex given as two different doses (either 0.5 or 1 mg) in random order with a 14-day washout in between. A sensitive estradiol (E2) assay showed an approximately 50% decrease in E2 concentrations with either of the two doses; hence, a 1-mg dose was selected for other studies. Subsequently, eight males (aged 15-22 yr; four adults and four late pubertal) had isotopic infusions of [(13)C]leucine and (42)Ca/(44)Ca, indirect calorimetry, dual energy x-ray absorptiometry, isokinetic dynamometry, and growth factors measurements performed before and after 10 weeks of daily doses of Arimidex. Contrary to the effects of T withdrawal, there were no significant changes in body composition (body mass index, fat mass, and fat-free mass) after estrogen suppression or in rates of protein synthesis or degradation; carbohydrate, lipid, or protein oxidation; muscle strength; calcium kinetics; or bone growth factors concentrations. However, E2 concentrations decreased 48% (P = 0.006), with no significant change in mean and peak GH concentrations, but with an 18% decrease in plasma insulin-like growth factor I concentrations. There was a 58% increase in serum T (P = 0.0001), sex hormone-binding globulin did not change, whereas LH and FSH concentrations increased (P < 0.02, both). Serum bone markers, osteocalcin and bone alkaline phosphatase concentrations, and rates of bone calcium deposition and resorption did not change. In conclusion, these data suggest that in the male 1) estrogens do not contribute significantly to the changes in body composition and protein synthesis observed with changing androgen levels; 2) estrogen is a main regulator of the gonadal-pituitary feedback for the gonadotropin axis; and 3) this level of aromatase inhibition does not negatively impact either kinetically measured rates of bone calcium turnover or indirect markers of bone calcium turnover, at least in the short term. Further studies will provide valuable information on whether timed aromatase inhibition can be useful in increasing the height potential of pubertal boys with profound growth retardation without the confounding negative effects of gonadal androgen suppression.

The proofs:

Let's first look elsewhere at another mechanism where we have an insulin rise after a workout from recovery drinks causing a DECREASE in blood levels of Testosterone.

Does that mean that the drink or workout is causing LOWER testosterone levels?

Hell NO! The insulin causes the T to clear from the blood faster after the workout and the very same could be true of the supposed drop in I with anastrozol use above!

Damn if it doesn't look like we can throw a lot of animal studies out as it's not so much contradictory about what hormone does what but it is well known that T causes a rise in H and T and T3 and H are closely related, too, so to say that 'androgens in animals' caused a lowering or rising of one thing or another CANNOT be extrapolated to humans.

So we don't know if the I is being used better or not, but it seems that IT MOST CERTAINLY IS because if H is the same, and I is going down in the blood, is the H not being converted to I any longer by the liver? I would say SAID scenario is not the case plainly if nothing more than because more H floating around would cause a REDUCTION in H production and we didn't see that, either.

And anyone will tell you that certain hormones make you incredibly hungry and when they try I, they found the same 'hunger'.

And in fact this study PROOVED that E is not needed for protein synthesis and the elimination of E did NOT show a reduction in protein synthesis, at all even with less E!

The presence of E causes addition of fat not only subq, organ, interorgan, but also intramuscularly! So that great bulking hormone you are taking which is adding so much muscle is just adding fat INTO the muscle and when you diet, that fat will be the first to go. That's why a user would believe they are getting bigger 'muscle' on 'bulking AS'.

The fat from the E is going to go around the waist, too which is the most detrimental and difficult to get rid of and all too many are forgetting about. In fact, there was a study in the paper telling of how many more people with 'waste' fat are substantially more likely to have health problems.

Ahh but what the hell, who wouldn't love to look like the worlds strongest man chief iron bear, right? Nothing like having a huge beer gut and you don't even get to drink the beer!

Again it's your choice, but there's a reason that as males age, they get fatter around the waist and it's due to lower Hgh and increased aromatization, so enjoy that E.

Yes, T definitely makes a difference as the study illustrated in the first paragraph, but less E didn't decrease protein synthesis. Now, if extra T is added as in a cycle and more T is produced, is the E coming from aromatization going to cause a NOTED amount of protein synthesis or is that E just going towards the addition of intramuscular fat? It's perception by the user if they think that is a good thing.

And as for the ho's, any woman can look like a man with proper amounts of T and hGH and they will then have the same fat distribution problems when they are done and you can look at Chyna now that she is off the circuit. Anybody see her on any of the talk shows lately? Makes me want all the E I could get!

Again, I'd say that if E were so great, it's promoters would be using and suggesting amounts of E to take during any AS cycle and they don't as we know full (fool?) well that the main side which is gyno can be blocked with nolvadex and/or clomid, right? So E it up?

The problem then becomes that Nolv blocks IGF-1 production which would reduce REAL protein synthesis, so do you want a 'suspected' increase in E protein synthesis at the loss of IGF-1 which is proven to work?

In the end it's going to be your choice on what you believe the mechanism to be, but if addition of fat in the muscle is going to make you feel and think you are bigger, then get all the E you can.

I again call you back to the study with arimidex and what the 'authors' of posts and mag articles don't tell you because they know nearly NOTHING!

Harper Biochemistry pg 544.

Estrogen causes a rise in SHBG! Bing-****ing-O!

Do you see it, yet?

The reason there is a rise in blood levels of T in the study subjects is because there is less E and therefore less SHBG!

You see, you gotta know more and look farther than just the abstract you are looking at.

SHBG is also increased by a state of hyperthyroidism also read as lots of T3.

SHBG is decreased by ANDROGENS and that is why people add different AS or stacks!

I don't know to what levels SHBG can rise, but the reason given levels of AS cease to work being due to SHBG rising as the body sees so much free T around is a very plausible scenario and I've written on that before. Women have 2x the SHBG as men, so male levels can go up at least that much farther.

Therefore, if you want your cycle to end quicker and you want to make your T less effective and waste your money and injections, then you get all that E you can!

EOD.
 
Big Cat
The People's Moderator

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 6683

However, E2 concentrations decreased 48% (P = 0.006), with no significant change in mean and peak GH concentrations, but with an 18% decrease in plasma insulin-like growth factor I concentrations

Might be wise to point this out to Animal some time since he is using the study to say that E makes no difference, an 18% decrease in IGFI is a more than significant change.

Hell NO! The insulin causes the T to clear from the blood faster after the workout and the very same could be true of the supposed drop in I with anastrozol use above!

Science at its best. First he preaches not to extrapolate data so easily but now he "assumes" that just because it holds true for two hormones that it now holds true for another set of substances. Anyone else find that a bit far-fetched ? But ok, lets assume its correct. When test is cleared due to insulin, you still have insulin which is an equally if not more anabolic hormone than testosterone. When insulin and IGF1 are decreased by anastrozole, do you honestly believe your anastrozole has any anabolic action ?

And in fact this study PROOVED that E is not needed for protein synthesis and the elimination of E did NOT show a reduction in protein synthesis, at all even with less E!

Over what time period ? Compared to what ? There are actually more studies showing that estrogen plays a key role in several processes, first of all the improved use of glycogen, and increase in GH and the upgrading of the androgen receptor. These studies are all to be found in the reference list for my profile on EQ. Now lets look at one study here, several studies proving the opposite and lets top it off with one question : do you really believe you can attain the same results with a non-aromatizing hormone that you can with testosterone ? Or how about : Being as poor an androgen as D-bol is, how does it cause any muscle growth at all ?

The fat from the E is going to go around the waist, too which is the most detrimental and difficult to get rid of and all too many are forgetting about. In fact, there was a study in the paper telling of how many more people with 'waste' fat are substantially more likely to have health problems.

Says the man who sells anastrozole ... Bet he would be whistling a different tune if he was selling clenbuterol ...

The problem then becomes that Nolv blocks IGF-1 production which would reduce REAL protein synthesis, so do you want a 'suspected' increase in E protein synthesis at the loss of IGF-1 which is proven to work?

Go back to the first part of this post now and you will see that what the study actually said was that a reduction in estrogen caused a reduction in IGF-1 levels. Estrogen actually promotes plasma IGF1 levels. So yes, Nolvadex will reduce IGF1. Guess what ? So will anastrozole, Mesterolone, letrozole and every other anti-e.

The reason there is a rise in blood levels of T in the study subjects is because there is less E and therefore less SHBG!

The reason there was a rise in blood levels of T in the study subjects is because test that isn't aromatized, stays test, so more test is present. If SHBG played a key role, your figures for total test wouldn't change, because bound test (SHBG and globulin) counts towards total blood test as well.

SHBG is decreased by ANDROGENS and that is why people add different AS or stacks!

Wrong, Free SHBG is reduced, because androgens bind to them. When androgens bind to SHBG they become inactive.

Therefore, if you want your cycle to end quicker and you want to make your T less effective and waste your money and injections, then you get all that E you can!

Again, those would be the statements of someone selling anastrozole, with one study, which is misinterpreted etc.

Body-fat percentages do not lie. And after a year of bulking when an athlete comes down to 4%, that means 4% total fat in his body. And an athlete who continually uses aromatase blockers, and one who does not, then the athlete who does not will come out much bigger at the same body-fat percentage. Those are facts. The lean muscle yield with aromatizing hormones is larger than with non-aromatizing hormones, all other factors left aside.

I again call you back to the study with arimidex and what the 'authors' of posts and mag articles don't tell you because they know nearly NOTHING!

Wanted to keep this one for last. Because I suppose this refers to people like myself. And just to remind whomever wrote this, I will be more than happy to go head to head on this issue. I mean, by no means do I claim to be that brilliant, but if I know nearly nothing, then whoever wrote that knows less than nothing.


__________________
Good things come to those who weight.

H.H. HAS RETURNED. We don't die, we just go to hell to regroup.

Vigor Mortis ! Even in death we remain strong ...

For those who did not know yet, next to Philiep van Nuffel's victory in June's European championships in Napoli, another client of mine, Estelle Moreau took the world championship fitness title in the medium height class in Tenerife last fall.

I am currently incommunicado due to extreme work pressure. My apologies to all those who have tried to contact me in the past 3 weeks.weeks.
 
ready2explode
Testosterone God

Registered: Apr 2002
Location:
Posts: 429

hey bc, 18% reduction in IGF1...does that mean there is an 18% reduction in gains?
 
Big Cat
The People's Moderator

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 6683
No gains come from many factors. IGF1 is just one of them, but an important one. And an 18% reduction is a significant difference in the long run.
 
ready2explode
Testosterone God

Registered: Apr 2002
Location:
Posts: 429

ok, but does animal's study show that estrogen isnt as important as you thought?
 
Big Cat
The People's Moderator

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 6683
not really. It does raise some issues that require further digging. The effect of estrogen on muscle growth is not an issue for me, I need but look at the result of a year working on test with or without anti-e's and look at the difference in lean mass at the end to know that. But this study does raise a few questions about in which ways estrogen contributes so much. Obviously by improved glycogen use, but I always assumed that GH increases and androgen receptor upgrading were main players as well, and this study does somewhat seem to minimize their involvement, especially where GH is concerned. But then, while no reduction in GH was noted when blocking estrogen , there was a significant reduction of IGF1 that does explain a whole lot.

The short answer is no, it doesn't show that estrogen isn't as important as I thought, but it does beg further investigation into the exact ways in which estrogen contributes to muscle growth.
 
gh causes a very large increase in igf1 levels right? im guessing much more than 18%. so why isnt there a considerable gain of muscle if using merely gh?
 
Hahaha, Animal is a good guy. Thanks for posting that READY2! You and your buddy RC can argue all you want about it. You dont give up even when you are wrong do you?
 
Back
Top