Estrogen: the forgotten key to building muscle

[Mrrippedzilla]

I'm sure most of us are aware of the negative side effects associated with letting your estrogen get out of control. We've also learnt how to combat this with AIs & compounds.

More recently, thanks to knowledgeable members from the TRT threads & learning to interpret bloodwork from other members (Megatron) - we've also recognized the health dangers of letting your estrogen levels get too low.

But what if I told you that estrogen was actually VITAL to helping you build the maximum amount of muscle?
What if I said that by controlling your estrogen on cycle, you were building LESS mass?
Can you build more muscle with high estrogen or are the sides not worth the risk?
Let's find out...

Warning:
Most of the information I'm going to to provide, along with my advice at the end, is only applicable to EXPERIENCED users.
When I say experienced, I mean individuals with years of training & multiple cycles behind them to get a good idea of how their body reacts to different compounds - preferably based on previous bloodwork results.
For everyone else, the traditional advice of using an AI through a cycle still applies and I strongly discourage you from following my advice at the end of this.


First, let's get some basics out of the way...

We already know that the body uses testosterone to synthesis estrogen (estradiol). In fact both substances are very similar with the only difference due to the changes caused by the enzyme Aromatase.
We should also be aware that Aromatase occurs throughout the body, not just in fat & muscle but also through the central nervous system, liver, etc.


Well known negative sides

Estrogen levels are naturally low for men and usually don't present an issue.
However large amounts can cause common sides such as fat gain, gynecomastia, water retention, etc.
This is why our community mainly focuses on limiting estrogen through AIs like Arimedex & AEs like Nolva.

I should mention that during a cut, limiting estrogen is beneficial to increase definition.
The benefits I'm about to explain will apply to inceasing muscle mass while bulking.


Benefits of Estrogen

Knowledgeable users are aware that estrogenic compounds are the best mass builders of all, but this isn't due simply to the extra water retention.
In fact Estrogen has a direct effect on anabolism in several ways.


Increased glucose use

Estrogen has a strong impact on how glucose is utilized within the muscle tissue through the G6PD enzyme, which influences glucose use for muscle growth & recovery.
G6D is also part of the Pentose Phosphate pathway, which determines the rate of cell synthesis for tissue repair.

To give a real life demonstration of this information, lets look at G6PD levels postworkout.
Multiple studies have shown that G6PD levels rise after muscle damage has occured in order to enhance recovery & estrogen is the key to G6PD availability for cells looking to recover:

Aromatization of androgens to estrogens - PubMed Mobile

This study showed a direct link between estrogen & G6PD when test prop administration on rats resulted in an increase in G6PD levels NOT due to the direct action of test, but due to the aromatization of test to estradiol.
This was further illustrated when non-aromatizable compounds like halotestin failed to show this effect in the same study.
The results of the study also showed that this positive rise in G6PD levels didn't occur when test prop was combined with an AI.
There are other studies combining test with an anti-androgen that illustrate this rise in G6D occurs independent of androgen receptors.

What all this shows is that estrogen, via the G6PD enzyme, can increase glucose utilization - this accelerates recovery & can lead to more growth in the future.


Estrogen & GH/IGF-1

IGF-1 is released through GH stimulus and is responsible for the anabolic activity of GH (increased protein synthesis, etc).
There are several studies showing multiple AIs & AEs reducing IGF-1 levels indirectly by lowering estrogen:

Aromatization of androgens to estrogens - PubMed Mobile

This study compared a group on trt with another on trt + Nolva.
The trt only group increased GH & IGF-1 while the trt + nolva group showed suppressed levels.

Androgen-stimulated pubertal growth: th - PubMed Mobile

This study showed that DHT, a non-aromatizable hormone, reduced GH/IGF-1, unlike test.

Estrogen clearly results in higher GH/IGF-1 levels, this gives users an advantage to building more muscle.
This advantage is completely lost when AIs, AEs and/or anti-estrogenic compounds are used.


Estrogen & fatigue

Estrogen is capable of promoting focus & wakefulness and, in our community, fatigue is a pretty common problem. Extreme estrogen suppression is one of the main causes of fatigue (as the bloodwork of alot of board members has shown).
Here's a study showing fatigue caused directly by estrogen suppression in women:

Premenstrual syndrome. - PubMed Mobile

There are other studies illustrating the same point by using Arimedex, Letrozole, etc as examples.
I should mention that non-aromatizable compounds can also cause fatigue - highlighting the need for test as a base.

This suppression can inhibit your gains due to an inability to train at full intensity.
Estrogen helps prevent fatigue by supporting serotonin, a neurotransmitter vital to being alert.

For guys who don't get regular bloodwork done (why?), I suggest looking at fatigue as a sign that your estrogen levels may be suppressed - this is detrimental to your gains on cycle.


Recommendations for advanced users

If the aim of the cycle is to build maximum muscle mass, then compounds made to control estrogen should be used cautiously.
In general, if you have no bad sides (bloodwork is reasonable) then the added estrogen from compounds like test, Dbol, etc will increase your energy & muscle mass.

So in conclusion, veterans who are in tune with their bodies or not prone to the sides may want to hold back on the estrogen control compounds to achieve maximum muscle mass during their cycle.





I could've written about the many health benefits of estrogen, but I though I'd keep it relevant to building muscle.
Hope this is useful for some of you.

Rippedzilla

 

[JimiThing]

Aromaisn and even arimidex have been shown to have minimal impact to none at all on igf-especially stane.
Also elevated G6PD is believed responsible for both insulin resistance and is also being looked at as a contributing factor to obesity so will it help build muscle or increase insulin resistance and also adipose tissue? Maybe both? If both is it worth it ?
I tend to think the "happy medium" approach is best, managing but keeping e2 in the clinical range. I will also add that during the years where I only used a serm to offset e2 my estrogen levels were through the roof and my gains were no better, in fact it was harder not to look bloated and not gain fat on bulking cycles and harder to cut as well. Of course serms slightly lower igf so maybe that played a role, although I seriously doubt it.
I only post to foster discussion and not discredit in any way. Interesting topic.

 

[Therealkozmo]

I was under the impression it was only nova that lowered igf

 

[JimiThing]

I was under the impression it was only nova that lowered igf

Thats what I took.
Raloxifene does as well btw ....

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

I was under the impression it was only nova that lowered igf

Nolva is the only one with a solid body of data showing it reduces igf concentrations.
There is data for arimedex, raloxifene & others lowering igf, but its mixed.

Anything that successfully lowers estrogen will impact GH, if you impact gh its hard to see (from a physiological perspective) how you wont impact igf.

Jimi: your reply deserves a more detailed response, which I'll get to tomorrow

 

[Therealkozmo]

Have you used clomid

 

[hölderlin]

Good stuff thanks.

For my first cycle I'll probably just use the recommended dose of AI/AEs and check my levels once or twice on cycle in addition to the normal checks.

 

[STAUNCHED427]

IIRC,Raloxifene at 60mg ED wasn't shown to significantly reduce IGF-1?

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

Aromaisn and even arimidex have been shown to have minimal impact to none at all on igf-especially stane.
Also elevated G6PD is believed responsible for both insulin resistance and is also being looked at as a contributing factor to obesity so will it help build muscle or increase insulin resistance and also adipose tissue? Maybe both? If both is it worth it ?
I tend to think the "happy medium" approach is best, managing but keeping e2 in the clinical range. I will also add that during the years where I only used a serm to offset e2 my estrogen levels were through the roof and my gains were no better, in fact it was harder not to look bloated and not gain fat on bulking cycles and harder to cut as well. Of course serms slightly lower igf so maybe that played a role, although I seriously doubt it.
I only post to foster discussion and not discredit in any way. Interesting topic.

Aromasin, IMO, is severely underrated by most guys since its the main AI that I can conclusively say doesn't lower igf-1. However, this may be due to it only lowering E2 by 30% or so - I suspect the stronger the suppression, the higher the likely impact on gh & igf.

The research shows advantages & disadvantages to elevated G6PD & G6PD deficiency.
Its a heavily regulated enzyme through multiple pathways and I think its benefits outweigh the risks on cycle. I say this because the nutrient partitioning effects of the other compounds would make it difficult, but not impossible, for insulin resistance to occur.
I also want to emphasise that the benefits I highlighted would only apply to advanced users - guys who wouldn't cycle at higher bf%, which increases the likelihood of insulin resistance & further fat accumulation dramatically.

See in your experience your already aware that letting your estrogen get out of the clinical range doesn't lead to further gains (although I should add that most guys with high bf also have high muscle mass naturally - another topic for another time).
But there are guys who, with experience, have discovered that they are not prone to the negatives of high estrogen & actually feel more energetic & make more gains. I also don't think its a coincidence that the best mass builders have high estrogenic activity, while the lower E compounds are poor choices for bulking (mast, winnie).

The reason I raised the topic is because no one really talks about the mass building benefits of estrogen & we tend to see it as the enemy.
Again, most of my advice applies only to users who are already familiar with how sensitive they are to estrogen and, as a result, don't really need to take an AI from day 1.
Basically, I would want my estrogen low when cutting & high when bulking - depending on my sensitivity towards it.

IIRC,Raloxifene at 60mg ED wasn't shown to significantly reduce IGF-1?

This is correct, only at higher doses do problems occur.
Well done for remembering my post

 

[Mprtz]

How much is there to the notion that the testosterone to estrogen ratio is what really matters, and what does that say about the ideal E2 level of someone on cycle whose T level is several times top of range?

I've frequently heard of 40 or 50 to one being ideal.

 

[JimiThing]

Aromasin, IMO, is severely underrated by most guys since its the main AI that I can conclusively say doesn't lower igf-1. However, this may be due to it only lowering E2 by 30% or so - I suspect the stronger the suppression, the higher the likely impact on gh & igf.I very much agree for the most part

The research shows advantages & disadvantages to elevated G6PD & G6PD deficiency.
Its a heavily regulated enzyme through multiple pathways and I think its benefits outweigh the risks on cycle. I say this because the nutrient partitioning effects of the other compounds would make it difficult, but not impossible, for insulin resistance to occur.
I also want to emphasise that the benefits I highlighted would only apply to advanced users - guys who wouldn't cycle at higher bf%, which increases the likelihood of insulin resistance & further fat accumulation dramatically.Nice point

See in your experience your already aware that letting your estrogen get out of the clinical range doesn't lead to further gains (although I should add that most guys with high bf also have high muscle mass naturally - another topic for another time).
But there are guys who, with experience, have discovered that they are not prone to the negatives of high estrogen & actually feel more energetic & make more gains. I also don't think its a coincidence that the best mass builders have high estrogenic activity, while the lower E compounds are poor choices for bulking (mast, winnie).

The reason I raised the topic is because no one really talks about the mass building benefits of estrogen & we tend to see it as the enemy.
Again, most of my advice applies only to users who are already familiar with how sensitive they are to estrogen and, as a result, don't really need to take an AI from day 1.
Basically, I would want my estrogen low when cutting & high when bulking - depending on my sensitivity towards it.

Very nice man. I think it prudent to mention there are other concerns when one allows e2 to exceed clinical levels besides say gyno etc that can also compound already elevated risk factors associated with aas use but that beibg said I honestly think this is a really good write up man.

 

[JimiThing]

How much is there to the notion that the testosterone to estrogen ratio is what really matters, and what does that say about the ideal E2 level of someone on cycle who's T level is several times top of range?

I've frequently heard of 40 or 50 to one being ideal.

While androgen estrogen ratio plays a role in gyno development it does not in the other, in reality, more dangerous e2 related sides, Thats why within range IMO is the best bet for most at most levels. Im not trying to step on OP's toes - thats my opinion on your question. Im sure he will post his.

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

How much is there to the notion that the testosterone to estrogen ratio is what really matters, and what does that say about the ideal E2 level of someone on cycle whose T level is several times top of range?

I've frequently heard of 40 or 50 to one being ideal.

The ideal ratio can be anywhere from 20-50 to one depending on the individual circumstances.

I think the ratio does matter but I wouldn't say its the only thing that matters.
Ideally, for maximum muscle gains you want to have a similar ratio on cycle as you do off. In the past high E2 used to be the worry due to the sides we've already mentioned along with other health detriments Jimi mentioned. Now the issue has switched to low e2 because of the emphasis on AIs on cycle from day 1 - abit like taking antibiotics in anticipation of an illness.

Most of the time E2 levels are too low on cycle to really maximise the muscle mass benefits I've highlighted. It becomes a case of how close can you get to the ratio before your health becomes compromised?
For experienced users who are comfortable with slightly elevated E2, getting close to the naturally recommended ratio is ideal for mass.

 

[Die$eL~Man]

what about Letro

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

what about Letro

Letro is definetly bad news if you want to maximise your gains on cycle.

It reduces estrogen by 98% - this will eliminate the glucose utilization benefits I highlighted, increase the risk of injury & cause fatigue.
The studies are mixed in termsof Letro's effects on IGF-1, but if you reduce estrogen that drastically it will impact GH and as a result won't be beneficial to igf either.

If you have to use an ai on cycle, choose less severe ones like Aromasine.

 

[STAUNCHED427]

Letro is definetly bad news if you want to maximise your gains on cycle.

It reduces estrogen by 98% - this will eliminate the glucose utilization benefits I highlighted, increase the risk of injury & cause fatigue.
The studies are mixed in termsof Letro's effects on IGF-1, but if you reduce estrogen that drastically it will impact GH and as a result won't be beneficial to igf either.

If you have to use an ai on cycle, choose less severe ones like Aromasine.

That's at 2.5mg ED in females, no?

I am considering doing a 1000mg Test only blast, but I'll have to use letro as test just gives me wicked e2 sides that adex just doesn't control, yet stane is too strong. I'm thinking something like .25mg per shot (MWF) @ 350mg shots and this will be using Sustanon.

Also just to add, in terms of e2 I don't notice a major difference between highly elevated e2 and just over the top of the range e2 in terms of gains, pump, fullness etc... However, when e2 is way to low, a pump is just near impossible to achieve, I look flat, feel shit and will not grow at all.

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

That's at 2.5mg ED in females, no?

I am considering doing a 1000mg Test only blast, but I'll have to use letro as test just gives me wicked e2 sides that adex just doesn't control, yet stane is too strong. I'm thinking something like .25mg per shot (MWF) @ 350mg shots and this will be using Sustanon.

Also just to add, in terms of e2 I don't notice a major difference between highly elevated e2 and just over the top of the range e2 in terms of gains, pump, fullness etc... However, when e2 is way to low, a pump is just near impossible to achieve, I look flat, feel shit and will not grow at all.

That was at 2.5mg ED yes, although some studies show suppression of over 70% at doses as low as 0.1mg ED:
Phase I study of the oral nonsteroidal aromatase ... [Cancer Res. 1993] - PubMed - NCBI
I seem to recall you had gyno issues before so I can understand the need to use Letro.

Its about finding a sweet spot for E2 - high enough to see max gains but below the nasty sides threshold.
This differs from person to person but there are guys who simply don't need to take an ai from day 1 & can reap the benefits of higher e2 - you don't fall into this category unfortunately lol.

 

[STAUNCHED427]

Yeah I don't respond to adex very well, yet respond to stane very well. I remember someone on the board, may have been halfwit gave letro a shot at dosing as if it were adex (.25mg E3D or something). Whether or not my extremely low SHBG has something to do with it, who knows but I am going to be getting myself a bottle of Liquid Letro if I decide to go ahead with the 1G test blast, however at the moment it looks like 200 Test/600mg EQ/400mg Tren is on the cards and would produce far better results for the same coin.

Wish I had the coin to cut out this gyno, that way I wouldn't have to be taking fucking Raloxifene all the time. Still, it has gone down and has settled but is still there.

 

[Moppy1]

There is an evil side to estrogen that seems more important to me, and suggests that we need to keep it on the low end of the range if possible, regardless of minor effect on IGF-1 or holding water and the perception of more muscle growth. Estrogen is probably the agent most responsible for promoting or enhancing prostate cancer in men, not testosterone per se. And since about 50% of men that live over 70 years of age will have some stage of prostate cancer (most are very slow growing though), it would seem to me that the best advice for all of us is to keep our estrogen on the lower end of normal. You can find literally 100s of studies on Pubmed (internet medical reference library) related to the role of estrogen in stimulating prostate cancer cells, or even other cancerous cells...and prostate cancer in animals

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

There is an evil side to estrogen that seems more important to me, and suggests that we need to keep it on the low end of the range if possible, regardless of minor effect on IGF-1 or holding water and the perception of more muscle growth. Estrogen is probably the agent most responsible for promoting or enhancing prostate cancer in men, not testosterone per se. And since about 50% of men that live over 70 years of age will have some stage of prostate cancer (most are very slow growing though), it would seem to me that the best advice for all of us is to keep our estrogen on the lower end of normal. You can find literally 100s of studies on Pubmed (internet medical reference library) related to the role of estrogen in stimulating prostate cancer cells, or even other cancerous cells...and prostate cancer in animals

I think your severely underestimating the importance of estrogen for increased muscle growth.
Its not just a "minor effect" on igf-1; its an effect on gh, increased glucose utilization & more energy - all these factors put together make a measurable difference.
These adaptations lead to more muscle growth, its not simply a "perception" caused by water retention - its a fact.

I understand your concerned more about the health implications rather than muscle potential of estrogen, which is why I recommend reading Jimi's sticky on estrogen.

However, there are serious bodybuilders who do not have issues with estrogen on cycle. For them, taking an ai "just in case" makes no sense & will limit the success of their cycle.
As I previously stated, for these guys its equivalent would be taking some antibiotics proactively for something that may not happen.