Nolva (Tamoxifen) may affect muscle regeneration?!

[Mrrippedzilla]

So you would rather rely on a mouse study that has hasn't replicated in humans instead of actually...you know...reading the large amount of human data on the matter suggesting otherwise?
Strong logic bro.

And no, what I wrote is in COMPLETE contradiction to what you said because YOU claimed that Nolva can destroy satellite cells based on a mouse study in your original post.
What I wrote shows that satellite cell activity between a mouse & a human is different and therefore the relevance of the mouse study to humans is ZERO because....wait for it...we're not fucking mice

But instead of pushing your ego to one side, learning from the information, and accepting the reasoning as to why your wrong....you decide to resort to ad hominem attacks and cling on to any hope of saving face. In other words, you acted the exact way I expected you to act.
Whatever floats your boat man.

 

[Megatron28]

Good read.

 

[Austinite]

Hey guys I just read a couple articles dexribing studies that had been conducted on mice and bascially saying Tamox/Nolva could destroy muscle satellite cells which could greatly affect muscle regenaration.. That would be extremely worrying as most ppl use it as part of PCT when their test levels are at their lowest.. I'd like to know you guys's thoughts about that..

Jean-Claude, This has zero impact on mature muscle. These studies are not relevant to general PCT use.

 

[ozzyozzy21]

I've ran very similar cycles in the past and ran a clomid only pct for one and clomid/nolva in the other and all I can tell you for sure is MY test numbers are much better when I run clomid WITH nolva than without. /thread for me. IMO neat discussion starter but splitting hairs.

 

[Jean-Claude]

So you would rather rely on a mouse study that has hasn't replicated in humans instead of actually...you know...reading the large amount of human data on the matter suggesting otherwise?
Strong logic bro.

And no, what I wrote is in COMPLETE contradiction to what you said because YOU claimed that Nolva can destroy satellite cells based on a mouse study in your original post.
What I wrote shows that satellite cell activity between a mouse & a human is different and therefore the relevance of the mouse study to humans is ZERO because....wait for it...we're not fucking mice

But instead of pushing your ego to one side, learning from the information, and accepting the reasoning as to why your wrong....you decide to resort to ad hominem attacks and cling on to any hope of saving face. In other words, you acted the exact way I expected you to act.
Whatever floats your boat man.

I'm not relying on the study and never was, I asked for ppl's opinions! There is a reason for that you realized that? If I had relied on it I wouldn't even have posted anything about it here and just thrown all my Nolva away.

Nothing of what you wrote is in contradiction to what I said, I posted about this study and asked for opinions, not once did I say it was definitely 100% applicable to humans. BTW, Even if satellite cell activity between mice and humans are different this by no stretch of the imagination proves it can't destroy satellite cells in humans, in fact it would still be a good reason to think that it very well could. We would need more research on humans to confirm or debunk that.

Nothing of what you posted proves the hypothesis is in fact wrong, basically it just says there are differences between mice and men (awesome job sherlock!) and you are right in that it is interesting info which I can learn from, I even said it in my last post (still haven't figured out that you need to read what ppl actually write in order to post a reply that makes sense huh?). I just didn't get why you chose to be a little bitch first and then post the actual relevant stuff.

 

[Jean-Claude]

Jean-Claude, This has zero impact on mature muscle. These studies are not relevant to general PCT use.

What do you mean mature muscle? Why not?

 

[Austinite]

What do you mean mature muscle? Why not?

Well, this is actually a very complex topic that I don't want to get into. This is why I don't recommend reading abstracts vs. the study in its entirety. Muscle satellite cells induce skeletal muscle development. Once you've developed enough tissue, they go dormant. In the event that they are needed for repairs (Their other partial job), they awake and proliferate. Far more rapidly than anything can prevent them. Muscular dystrophy (the condition) patients should consider avoiding such drugs. Not a healthy adult.

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

I'm not relying on the study and never was, I asked for ppl's opinions! There is a reason for that you realized that? If I had relied on it I wouldn't even have posted anything about it here and just thrown all my Nolva away.

Nothing of what you wrote is in contradiction to what I said, I posted about this study and asked for opinions, not once did I say it was definitely 100% applicable to humans. BTW, Even if satellite cell activity between mice and humans are different this by no stretch of the imagination proves it can't destroy satellite cells in humans, in fact it would still be a good reason to think that it very well could. We would need more research on humans to confirm or debunk that.

Nothing of what you posted proves the hypothesis is in fact wrong, basically it just says there are differences between mice and men (awesome job sherlock!) and you are right in that it is interesting info which I can learn from, I even said it in my last post (still haven't figured out that you need to read what ppl actually write in order to post a reply that makes sense huh?). I just didn't get why you chose to be a little bitch first and then post the actual relevant stuff.

I told you, very clearly, why you shouldn't pay attention to the study in my 1st post.
You asked what the point of animal data was and I explained it you while, AGAIN, suggesting why only a retard would look at mice and assume it has any relevance to humans.
You then decided to doubt my knowledge on this issue by claiming I needed a "physiology lesson" and clinging onto some genetic BS that you have no understanding of in order to justify mice data. Ergo confirming my suspicion of your retard status.
I then proceeded to give you a lesson in physiology illustrating the difference between humans & mice. I then explained how this difference means that the mice satellite cell data cannot, in any way/shape/form, be applicable to humans.
And now in the past 2 posts your still trying to justify the relevance of mice data - you even suggest that it provides a good reason to think that nolva can destroy human satellite cells - despite the fact that MICE SATELLITE CELLS ARE NOT THE SAME AS OURS THEREFORE THE RESEARCH IS USELESS IN ITS APPLICABILITY TO HUMANS.

At this point I'm putting you on my ever growing ignore list so please continue with your animal data journey of mental masturbation

 

[Austinite]

I told you, very clearly, why you shouldn't pay attention to the study in my 1st post.
You asked what the point of animal data was and I explained it you while, AGAIN, suggesting why only a retard would look at mice and assume it has any relevance to humans.
You then decided to doubt my knowledge on this issue by claiming I needed a "physiology lesson" and clinging onto some genetic BS that you have no understanding of in order to justify mice data. Ergo confirming my suspicion of your retard status.
I then proceeded to give you a lesson in physiology illustrating the difference between humans & mice. I then explained how this difference means that the mice satellite cell data cannot, in any way/shape/form, be applicable to humans.
And now in the past 2 posts your still trying to justify the relevance of mice data - you even suggest that it provides a good reason to think that nolva can destroy human satellite cells - despite the fact that MICE SATELLITE CELLS ARE NOT THE SAME AS OURS THEREFORE THE RESEARCH IS USELESS IN ITS APPLICABILITY TO HUMANS.

At this point I'm putting you on my ever growing ignore list so please continue with your animal data journey of mental masturbation

Take it easy brother. He is entitled to be curious. No need for name-calling.

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

Take it easy brother. He is entitled to be curious. No need for name-calling.

I'm calling him a retard in the literal sense - defined as someone who is behind in terms of progress/development - something I believe the OP has demonstrated very nicely in this thread

 

[Austinite]

Jean-Claude, feel free to PM me any questions you have. I'm happy to assist if you don't feel comfortable in this thread.

 

[Jean-Claude]

I told you, very clearly, why you shouldn't pay attention to the study in my 1st post.
You asked what the point of animal data was and I explained it you while, AGAIN, suggesting why only a retard would look at mice and assume it has any relevance to humans.
You then decided to doubt my knowledge on this issue by claiming I needed a "physiology lesson" and clinging onto some genetic BS that you have no understanding of in order to justify mice data. Ergo confirming my suspicion of your retard status.
I then proceeded to give you a lesson in physiology illustrating the difference between humans & mice. I then explained how this difference means that the mice satellite cell data cannot, in any way/shape/form, be applicable to humans.
And now in the past 2 posts your still trying to justify the relevance of mice data - you even suggest that it provides a good reason to think that nolva can destroy human satellite cells - despite the fact that MICE SATELLITE CELLS ARE NOT THE SAME AS OURS THEREFORE THE RESEARCH IS USELESS IN ITS APPLICABILITY TO HUMANS.

At this point I'm putting you on my ever growing ignore list so please continue with your animal data journey of mental masturbation

Wow the more I interact with you the more I think you are truly retarded yourself.. at first I thought you were just a douche but come on..
You didn't explain anything, you said : mice are different to humans and that's why this study is meaningless.. that is COMPLETE CRAP. You literally cannot have ever had a basic biology class in highschool to think mice are completely different to humans and that nothing can come out of a study done on them that can be relevant to humans.. TONS of studies are done on rats and mice, In fact it is the most used and prefered model. and it's not only because it's cheap.. Our body systems and organs for the most part are pretty identical, here is a good read for you https://www.jax.org/genetics-and-healthcare/genetics-and-genomics/why-mouse-genetics.

Although the stuff you posted after being a little bitch on her period was indeed interesting, absolutely none of it proves Nolva can't have similar on human satellite cells yes EVEN THOUGH MICE SATELLITE CELLS ARE NOT THE SAME AS OURS. Making the conclusion you did based on that.. now THAT's retarded.

Go on my friend I'm not interested in interacting with idiots who can't use logic to save their lives.

 

[Megatron28]

Guys, please keep this at an elevated level. Name calling isn't necessary.

JC -- please use the Ignore feature too.

 

[Megatron28]

Wow the more I interact with you the more I think you are truly retarded yourself.. at first I thought you were just a douche but come on..
You didn't explain anything, you said : mice are different to humans and that's why this study is meaningless.. that is COMPLETE CRAP. You literally cannot have ever had a basic biology class in highschool to think mice are completely different to humans and that nothing can come out of a study done on them that can be relevant to humans.. TONS of studies are done on rats and mice, In fact it is the most used and prefered model. and it's not only because it's cheap.. Our body systems and organs for the most part are pretty identical, here is a good read for you https://www.jax.org/genetics-and-healthcare/genetics-and-genomics/why-mouse-genetics.

Although the stuff you posted after being a little bitch on her period was indeed interesting, absolutely none of it proves Nolva can't have similar on human satellite cells yes EVEN THOUGH MICE SATELLITE CELLS ARE NOT THE SAME AS OURS. Making the conclusion you did based on that.. now THAT's retarded.

Go on my friend I'm not interested in interacting with idiots who can't use logic to save their lives.

Do you realize that the link you provided as a source of information is to a place that sells laboratory mice for research? I am thinking they have a financial interest that may provide a bias in their opinion.

 

[Roush]

Take it easy brother. He is entitled to be curious. No need for name-calling.

I'm calling him a retard in the literal sense - defined as someone who is behind in terms of progress/development - something I believe the OP has demonstrated very nicely in this thread

been away from the boards for awhile,, I see some things remain exactly the same. Zilla still calling anyone and everyone that doesn't agree with him or his precious little bag of 'studies' a retard, dummy, idiot, etc.. grow up

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

Wow the more I interact with you the more I think you are truly retarded yourself.. at first I thought you were just a douche but come on..
You didn't explain anything, you said : mice are different to humans and that's why this study is meaningless.. that is COMPLETE CRAP. You literally cannot have ever had a basic biology class in highschool to think mice are completely different to humans and that nothing can come out of a study done on them that can be relevant to humans.. TONS of studies are done on rats and mice, In fact it is the most used and prefered model. and it's not only because it's cheap.. Our body systems and organs for the most part are pretty identical, here is a good read for you https://www.jax.org/genetics-and-healthcare/genetics-and-genomics/why-mouse-genetics.

Although the stuff you posted after being a little bitch on her period was indeed interesting, absolutely none of it proves Nolva can't have similar on human satellite cells yes EVEN THOUGH MICE SATELLITE CELLS ARE NOT THE SAME AS OURS. Making the conclusion you did based on that.. now THAT's retarded.

Go on my friend I'm not interested in interacting with idiots who can't use logic to save their lives.

Despite being on my ignore list, I can still see your posts so here...no name calling involved

You have no idea how formal debates actually work and to suggest that your using logic is laughable.

The burden of proof is on YOU to provide evidence that Nolva does the same thing in humans as it does in mice - not on me to disprove anything. Science isn't based on proving a negative.
This type of fallacy is commonly used online in an attempt to shift the burden of proof - something YOUR doing right now.

A logical person would look at this and see that the physiological differences between mice & humans as illustrated by the evidence I provided, combined with the fact that their is no direct evidence to the contrary, and conclude that the study has no real life applicability/relevance to us. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in this case.
They would NEVER assume the opposite, like you are, because that would go completely against the definition of what a logical approach is (using clear, sound reasoning).

So unless you can provide evidence that the same thing does indeed happen in humans, then I'm afraid you have no business suggesting your approach is logical and in a formal debate you would be considered to be wrong.

BTW, my degree was in biological sciences so...you know...I might know a little bit more about this topic than most. Just saying.

 

[Jean-Claude]

Despite being on my ignore list, I can still see your posts so here...no name calling involved

You have no idea how formal debates actually work and to suggest that your using logic is laughable.

The burden of proof is on YOU to provide evidence that Nolva does the same thing in humans as it does in mice - not on me to disprove anything. Science isn't based on proving a negative.
This type of fallacy is commonly used online in an attempt to shift the burden of proof - something YOUR doing right now.

A logical person would look at this and see that the physiological differences between mice & humans as illustrated by the evidence I provided, combined with the fact that their is no direct evidence to the contrary, and conclude that the study has no real life applicability/relevance to us. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in this case.
They would NEVER assume the opposite, like you are, because that would go completely against the definition of what a logical approach is (using clear, sound reasoning).

So unless you can provide evidence that the same thing does indeed happen in humans, then I'm afraid you have no business suggesting your approach is logical and in a formal debate you would be considered to be wrong.

BTW, my degree was in biological sciences so...you know...I might know a little bit more about this topic than most. Just saying.

I'm not going to grant you with a long response because you are obviously just trolling. For the 50th time I never said it was definitely applicable to humans, I'm not trying to prove anything, if it's not applicable whatsoever to humans I'll be all the more happy! I just brought this here cause I wanted to know people's opinion and if they had more info on this because yes there are A LOT of similarities between mice's body systems and humans' body systems no matter how in denial you are. My approach is that the fact that it happens with mammals that share the vast majority of its genome with humans, there is a possibility that the same phenomenon could be found in humans although it remains to be proven, that is logical. Yours seems to be that since there are differences between mice and humans, it is absolutely impossible... that is not logical, to say the least, thanks for your input in my thread, good day.

BTW using the ignore button but still responding kinda defeats the purpose.

 

[anzel]

Most of your SARMS like S1 were only studied on mice .

 

[Megatron28]

Most of your SARMS like S1 were only studied on mice .

That is probably why a lot of the evidence provided for SARMs seems to be anecdotal. Hopefully with time more peer reviewed studies will be made available as it is a really fascinating area.