Nolvadex vs Arimidex

[ready2explode]

Nolvas action and an anti-aromatase action are completly different. Nolva is far from the same. One is blocking estrogen via psuedo-estrogen replacement in the ER. The other is biochemically lowering aromatase enzyme activity. BIG difference. The net effect is also very different. In the nolva case, you still have some E and psuedo-E in your body. In the case of mamary tissue, it does no function ie. causes no growth. However, there are other functions that it can still carry out. Cholesterol action is one of them. I also believe that the AR upregulation can still take place. In fact...I think thats the entire reason that Nolva alone for post cycle can possibly used!!!

Yes, I know this. Everyone knows this...my point was when you start nolva and after a few days on an anti-aromatase they both basically do the same thing which is CONTROL THE ESTROGEN PROBLEM IN YOUR BODY. Yes, everyone knows by now that they do it in different ways. Yes, nolva is easier on cholesterol levels than any of the anti-aromatases, but ur cholesterol levels are still going to be shot to shit on your cycle. Using nolva they will be slightly better. And thats not even close to the reason u can use nolva post cycle...High est levels cause a negative feedback - nolva blocks estrogen better than clomid - thats why one can use nolva post cycle instead of clomid.

That is unfortunately more of a speculation. Some studies show much less, some show much more. IGF is a very, very sensitive compound. It can fluxuate easily. It is nearly impossible to set controls on a study accurately enough to pin point the exact change. You have to put things in relative means. You think 1/5 less IGF is going to inhibit a "noticable" decrease in gains off say a gram of test a week? No way! Thats going along with the "1/5" at that.

Post some studies for me to read bro...i got a lot of time on my hands tonite...and yes 1/5th less igf-1 will be a significant reduction in gains, but we lost site of somethin. Blocking estrogen causes the lowering of igf-1 levels, but igf-1 levels arent the only thing that is lowered...didn't you read what i posted? this (again) was written by Big Cat over at bb.com "It can be responsible for better glucose utilization3,4 (repleting lost glycogen stores after exercise) and stimulating increased growth hormone release5. But most notably estrogen is responsible for an upgrading of the androgen receptor6 allowing hormones that act on the androgen receptor to exert a larger anabolic effect. This is why hormones that are strong androgens but also aromatize heavily, like anadrol and testosterone, can put the most mass on your frame."

Studies are a dime a dozen. Most of them arent even on BB with our goals anyways. In this topic, most are on breast cancer or rats. I dont need any abstracts. 90% of my knowledge is from my own experience and from what I have learned through the many courses of biology, microbiology, physics, thermodynamics, pharmocology, toxicology, organic and inorganic chemistry, biochemistry, physicology, biomechanics and whatever I left out. (senior in pre-med, 3 yr personal trainer). If I really needed to, all Id have to do is goto the library or to medline and dig one up after who knows how long. But what for? You have a study saying otherwise, what would a study contradicting yours prove? Nothing, just that studies are a dime a dozen and shouldnt be held as the end all say all.

Again, I'd like to see some studies contradicting these statements "It can be responsible for better glucose utilization3,4 (repleting lost glycogen stores after exercise) and stimulating increased growth hormone release5. But most notably estrogen is responsible for an upgrading of the androgen receptor6 allowing hormones that act on the androgen receptor to exert a larger anabolic effect. "

Ari and Fem are both anti-e's but they hardly do the same thing in the body. They both decrease aromatic enzyme levels, BUT Fem increases aromactic protein levels!!! Thats a huge difference! ITs like apples and oranges, both are fruit but they taste different..

They are inhibitors of the aromatase enzymes to be exact. Now show me somethin that talk about "aromactic protein levels"...I honestly have no idea what you're talkin about (and would guess you dont either).


All the rest I'm not even going to reply to...I believe we both got off track here. The question here is NOT whether NOLVADEX or FEMARA inhibits gains, its whether ESTROGEN contributes to gains. I have backed up why estrogen could play a major role in the amount of gains one has on a cycle while you have not. Until you try and show me something it's going to be a worthless discussion...

 

[Billy_Bathgate]

You havent backed anything up. You posted your big cat or whoever he is stuff. Wow...if he said it, then its true...lol!

LOL, ya I dont know what an aromatic protien is...ok. What the hell do you think is responsible for aromatation?? Do you think it just magically does it??? OMG Dont accuse me of sharing your ignorance next time.

Believe me, I know why nolva can be used. And anyways, LOW estrogen causes negative feedback, you said high. you are wrong.


Nolva doesnt control the estrogen, it makes it inactive. Anti-Aro lower it. Thats not the same thing. They dont both control the estrogen in your body.

You keep saying..."It can be responsible for better glucose utilization3,4 (repleting lost glycogen stores after exercise) and stimulating increased growth hormone release5. But most notably estrogen is responsible for an upgrading of the androgen receptor6 allowing hormones that act on the androgen receptor to exert a larger anabolic effect....what the hell is your point. Glutamine supposedly does the same thing. That doesnt mean much.


Again the gains from Drol and Test is cause your a fat bloated douchebag. If you call that gains, good for you pal. Why is it that Drol goes synomynous with unkeepable gains?? hmm... Its cause them same people lose their water and cry about how they lost all their LEAN GAINS...LOL

Why do I need to post studies? You and and your friend Big Cat can think what you want. You already have contradicting studies. If I post a study it will only show that there is indeed a disagreement, isnt that obvious already? I got better shit to do than look up redundant studies when I already have my own living proof (MY BLOODWORK) for you. Why dont you goto medline and look around yourself. STUIDES ARE A DIME A DOZEN! They arent hard to find. Type it the things you want it to say and search long enough and you will find one proving your point...big deal....

 

[ready2explode]

You havent backed anything up. You posted your big cat or whoever he is stuff. Wow...if he said it, then its true...lol!

LOL im gonna bite my tongue throughout this thread...bro I posted what Big Cat wrote in one of his profiles regarding estrogen AND THEN i posted studies that backed up what he wrote. Just cuz I didnt think of it myself doesnt mean that it isnt true or that what I posted doesnt have at the very least some merit to it.

LOL, ya I dont know what an aromatic protien is...ok. What the hell do you think is responsible for aromatation?? Do you think it just magically does it??? OMG Dont accuse me of sharing your ignorance next time.

The ENZYME that is responsible for aromatization is called aromatase. This is why fem and adex are referred to as anti-AROMATASES instead of anti-ESTROGENS as you keep calling them...nice try at calling me stupid...

Believe me, I know why nolva can be used. And anyways, LOW estrogen causes negative feedback, you said high. you are wrong.

NO, you are wrong. Maybe I didnt explain it well enough...how bout somethin from BC's profiles again..."After a cycle is over, the level of androgens in the body drop drastically. The body compensates with an overproduction of estrogen to keep steroid levels up. Estrogen as well inhibits the production of natural testosterone, and in the period between the return of natural testosterone and the end of a cycle, a lot of mass is lost. So its in everybody's best interest to bring back natural test as soon as humanly possible. Clomid and Nolvadex will reduce the post-cycle estrogen, so that a steroid deficiency is constated and the hypothalamus is stimulated to regenerate natural testosterone production in the body."

Nolva doesnt control the estrogen, it makes it inactive. Anti-Aro lower it. Thats not the same thing. They dont both control the estrogen in your body.

Now you're getting picky so I'll do the same. First off, nolva doesn't make estrogen inactive - only aromasin does this is why aromasin is referred to as an aromatase INACTIVATOR. Nolva simply has a higher affinity to estrogen receptors (in some tissues) therefore estrogen will not be able to bind with them. Fem and adex work by occupying the aromatase enzyme. This is the enzyme responsible for aromatization. And yes, all of these drugs in some way shape or for control estrogen in your body. Whether you're on nolva or adex, estrogen cant exert any of its negative sides.

You keep saying..."It can be responsible for better glucose utilization3,4 (repleting lost glycogen stores after exercise) and stimulating increased growth hormone release5. But most notably estrogen is responsible for an upgrading of the androgen receptor6 allowing hormones that act on the androgen receptor to exert a larger anabolic effect....what the hell is your point. Glutamine supposedly does the same thing. That doesnt mean much.

LOL glutamine increases GH...lol that was a good one...oh and glutamine upgrades the androgen receptor LMAO buddy you need to learn when to shut your mouth...

Again the gains from Drol and Test is cause your a fat bloated douchebag. If you call that gains, good for you pal. Why is it that Drol goes synomynous with unkeepable gains?? hmm... Its cause them same people lose their water and cry about how they lost all their LEAN GAINS...LOL

I never said that you wouldn't hold more water or gain more fat. What i did say is that because of that estrogen you will also gain more muscle. Now that is what I call gains. Oh and one more thing, drol doesnt aromatize...thoughtcha should know that...

Why do I need to post studies? You and and your friend Big Cat can think what you want. You already have contradicting studies. If I post a study it will only show that there is indeed a disagreement, isnt that obvious already? I got better shit to do than look up redundant studies when I already have my own living proof (MY BLOODWORK) for you. Why dont you goto medline and look around yourself. STUIDES ARE A DIME A DOZEN! They arent hard to find. Type it the things you want it to say and search long enough and you will find one proving your point...big deal....

You need to post studies in order to back up your claim. You claim nolva does not inhibit gains on a cycle. Therefore you claim that estrogen plays no role in your gains of a cycle. Now I am saying proove it...why do I have to spell it out for you? Big Cat knows his shit and I have his profiles in my favorites for a quick link to things. What studies are contradicting? If you post a study it would show that there is some merit to what you're saying. You're rite (again lol) that there is a disagreement. Now find some professionals that will back you up - I did (the studies, not big cat). If you have your proof (blood work) then POST IT. But i do not know where in your blood work its going to say - he wouldn't have gained more on his cycle if he hadn't of used nolvadex. Nice try, but you went off topic huh? referring back to the cholesterol values that I already agreed with you would be better using nolva than adex? LOL all im askin you to do is post some scientific info that says estrogen does not play a role in the amount of muscle mass you would gain on a cycle...thats all...just do it and if you cant SHUT UP

 

[Billy_Bathgate]

I suggest studying some type of chemistry, biochem, and biology classes before trying to argue.

Ok to your coments..

If your gonna try to argue with me, use your own thoughts please. Are you Big Cats poster boy or something? You didnt even post the study. You copied his references.

The ENZYME that is responsible for aromatization is called aromatase. This is why fem and adex are referred to as anti-AROMATASES instead of anti-ESTROGENS as you keep calling them...nice try at calling me stupid...

Ok, they are anti-aromatase inhibitors at that. The general accepted slang on here is anti-e though.

Open up a Organic Chem book. What do you think an enzyme is made up of? protiens. ENZYME PROTIENS!

Heres one of your studies for you on the biomechanics discussion aromatase protien levels!

Clin Breast Cancer 2000 Sep;1 Suppl 1:S68-73

Comparison of in vitro exemestane activity versus other antiaromatase agents.

Soudon J.

Anastrozole, letrozole, and exemestane are the most selective and potent oral antiaromatase agents currently available. However, in vitro and in vivo studies comparing these agents are lacking. Anastrozole and letrozole are reversible, competitive nonsteroidal type II inhibitors, whereas exemestane is an irreversible steroidal type I inactivator. The study was conducted to determine the impact of this characteristic on in vitro residual aromatase activity and protein levels after incubation of JEG-3 cells with aminoglutethimide (a type II inhibitor), anastrozole, exemestane, or letrozole. Aromatase activity was measured after various incubation times with each antiaromatase agent at a concentration 10 times higher than IC50 (concentration giving 50% inhibition). Only exemestane induced a residual inhibition of aromatase activity after its removal, without any change in the aromatase protein level . Aromatase activity increased after preincubation of JEG-3 cells with either aminoglutethimide or anastrozole without any change in the aromatase protein level . The aromatase protein level increased rapidly when cells were incubated with letrozole and aromatase activity inhibition disappeared immediately after removal of the drug. The breakthrough effects in aromatase activity or [/B[ protein levels observed after treatment with reversible inhibitors may be a factor in therapeutic failure with these agents. These results suggest a possible advantage for exemestane because it is the only clinically available oral irreversible aromatase inactivator.

Since you like things a little backwards, I unbolded the key words for you.

NO, you are wrong. Maybe I didnt explain it well enough...how bout somethin from BC's profiles again..."After a cycle is over, the level of androgens in the body drop drastically. The body compensates with an overproduction of estrogen to keep steroid levels up. Estrogen as well inhibits the production of natural testosterone, and in the period between the return of natural testosterone and the end of a cycle, a lot of mass is lost. So its in everybody's best interest to bring back natural test as soon as humanly possible. Clomid and Nolvadex will reduce the post-cycle estrogen, so that a steroid deficiency is constated and the hypothalamus is stimulated to regenerate natural testosterone production in the body."

Apartently negative feedback is misunderstood to you. What it means, is when your body is LOW in estrogen, it will compensate by making more testosterone which will in turn rise estrogen. You body does not start making testosterone when you have high levels..thats makes little sence! That is why you take Clomid or Nolva as your own acrticle states, TO LOWER THESO THAT THE NEG FEEDBACK WILL OCCUR. Youve agured twice now that high estrogen causes it... you contradicting the own article that you posted, which btw was not you explaining, it was you cut and pasting.

LOL glutamine increases GH...lol that was a good one...oh and glutamine upgrades the androgen receptor LMAO buddy you need to learn when to shut your mouth...

Wow, now Im impressed by your intellegent statement. That was a cheasy analagy for a purpose. Looks like somehow that wasnt obvious enough for you.

Now you're getting picky so I'll do the same. First off, nolva doesn't make estrogen inactive - only aromasin does this is why aromasin is referred to as an aromatase INACTIVATOR. Nolva simply has a higher affinity to estrogen receptors (in some tissues) therefore estrogen will not be able to bind with them. Fem and adex work by occupying the aromatase enzyme. This is the enzyme responsible for aromatization. And yes, all of these drugs in some way shape or for control estrogen in your body. Whether you're on nolva or adex, estrogen cant exert any of its negative sides.

If estrogen cant bind to something, is it active reguarding estrogen function? Dont think too hard about it, its a reutorical. Aromasin isnt called an inactivator because it inactivates estrogen. Its a suicidal anti-aromatase. It means once it chemically binds and alters with the Aromatase PROTIEN, yes the protien, it permanetly deactivates the Aromatase enzyme. Thats why its called an inactivator, not because it inactivates estrogen. It doesnt do a thing to estrogen itself cause there is none there on the level it works!

I never said that you wouldn't hold more water or gain more fat. What i did say is that because of that estrogen you will also gain more muscle. Now that is what I call gains. Oh and one more thing, drol doesnt aromatize...thoughtcha should know that...

Now thats funny! Go ahead and cycle 400mg Estradiol/wk and tell us all what happens. I bet you gain alot of muscle BAHHAHAH!

Drol doesnt aromatize? Hmm what is that estrogen and progesterone increase doing there. Silly Drol, it should know better! LOL. It actually does aromatize though, sorry.

You need to post studies in order to back up your claim. You claim nolva does not inhibit gains on a cycle. Therefore you claim that estrogen plays no role in your gains of a cycle. Now I am saying proove it...why do I have to spell it out for you? Big Cat knows his shit and I have his profiles in my favorites for a quick link to things. What studies are contradicting? If you post a study it would show that there is some merit to what you're saying. You're rite (again lol) that there is a disagreement. Now find some professionals that will back you up - I did (the studies, not big cat). If you have your proof (blood work) then POST IT. But i do not know where in your blood work its going to say - he wouldn't have gained more on his cycle if he hadn't of used nolvadex. Nice try, but you went off topic huh? referring back to the cholesterol values that I already agreed with you would be better using nolva than adex? LOL all im askin you to do is post some scientific info that says estrogen does not play a role in the amount of muscle mass you would gain on a cycle...thats all...just do it and if you cant SHUT UP

You want me to waste my time posting studies to this? FINE! I will right after you post full length studies including all the data and controls. If Im gonna waste my time proving a point that you can read your self on, then your gonna make it worth my time. No more copying big cats articles or similar. Full articles. Abstracts will suffice, but they better have the full data. So forget about your big cat links that you have saved. Save them for someone else who enjoys copyright infringed thoughs of that sort.


What did I specifically say about my blood work? I said, I am a senior in pre-med. I have "friends" that are docs and are cool enough to hook me up with free blood work were I do my shadowing and volunteer work. They dont have actual hard copies of it to give to me cause then they put themselves at risk for getting in trouble! Theres nothing special, its just my cholesterol in the accepted range values.


Post a study showing estrogen plays NO role, I never said that, Im saying not a significant role. You come up with a way to prove that in a study, and Ill set it up at my own lab and do it for you. You cant though. Its an unconcrete theory which is unprovalble. You can take all the estrogen out of someone and see how they gain, but you have no control. Which why there is no point in posting any studies anyways. Go take a poll on whatever board you want and find out if anyone has ever gotten really low gains from using and anti-estrogen. Thats my best advice for proof for you.


If I were to post any more studies, they would be this. 1. showing X amount of IGF fluctuation, 2. showing y amount of IGF fluctuation, 3. showing z amount of IGF fluctuation. All it is saying is that your 1/5 is not a definate number. Which is what I said to start with.

There are no studies done on BB's with the affect of Nolva during a cycle. So I wont be posting that. Ill tell you what I do though. Lets say your daily dose of IGF-1 is 100mcg, which is way higher, but for sake of argument. You say 1/5 is significant in terms of IGF. Well lets put that up against test. Say your body has roughly 100mg of test. You get the cash and Ill get you some IGF-1 long R3 and you do 20mcg ED for 8wks. Then I will do 120mg of testosterone suspension per wk for 8wks. Then we can compare the gains. .... I hope that you are able to see the point here. Dont go counting your pennies cause this was a hypothetical statement. A 20% decrease in IGF is insignificant when compared to say 500 to 1000mg of test per wk.


Who are you? What are you qualifications? Id like to know how many hrs of organic youve studied in school or on your own, same with bio chem, and biology. How much clinical or lab work have you done studying biochemical mechanisms??? I want to really know if my time is being that wasted arguing this with you. I dont care what big cats qualifications are either. This is not an argument with him. What makes you knowledgeable in this....let us hear this. If your gonna tell me "just do it and if you cant SHUT UP" you better damn well be pretty intellegent in the above sciences to make a statement like that!

 

[Billy_Bathgate]

Oh, dont bother posting your big cat profile on androl I have read it. It states there is conversion of estrogen and porgestrone, albiet very low levels, but any level is aromatation. I agree that most of the estrogen created is from self activation on the ER. So dont waste your time trying to argue with me on that.

 

[LongBall]

Wow guys, I appreciate the discussion. My cycle is set and so is my mindset.I am using liquidex and having Nolvadex on hand.This was not the purpose of my post I was using this as a means to answer a question I had been thinking about. With the amount of experience we have on this board (years & cycles) I knew there had to be some guys that had tried it both ways. I was just looking for those points.

Ready2Explode and Billy Bathgate
Thanks Bros'
You have both thrown knowledge and some experience on here. No need to get pissy with each other if you don't agree and for the most you didn't. Just a good discussion about some contradicting points. That is why I came here.


LongBall

 

[ready2explode]

Again Billy_Bathgate you didnt show me a single things that says estrogen doesn't play a role in the muscle gained in a cycle...there is no need to argue...

Longball...if you block estrogen - you will lose some gains. Best idea is to use the least amount of whatever drug you're going to use in order to control your estrogen. This will ensure that you will gain as much muscle as possible while on your cycle without growing tits...you will gain some extra fat though...its ur call

 

[Billy_Bathgate]

LOL you are a joke! You dont prove that something doesnt play a role, YOU PROVE THAT IT DOES! Thats how science works! After thtat point is set, than you can disprove it. So bring on your studies!

WHAT ARE YOUR CREDINTIAL!!!! LETS HERE THEM. IF YOU ARE SO SMART, WHY DONT YOU TELL US ALL!!! DONT TELL ME TO SHUT UP F YOU CANT BACK YOUR MOUTH UP!!!

I TOLD YOU. POST A STUDY SHOWING THAT ESTROGEN IS SO NESSICARY, OR ONE SHOWING NOLVA DECREASEING IGF SIGNIFICANTLY AND THEN I WILL POST MY STUDIES!!

You know what I think. I dont think you can. I think you only know how to copy Big Cats profiles! You havent posted 1 study. A study include the full information. What you posted you stole from Big Cats references!!! I want to see something original from you with all the standard information.

Longball, the amount of estrogen that you are able to block using Ari (or any of the others) will not decrease your gains. Thats is stupid argument from the past. Sorry your thread got hyjacked, but I hate it when newbies like this guy give out bad and idiotic advice that can jeopardize ones gains (high cholesterol, edema) just because they think they can actually gain a significant amount more.

 

[ready2explode]

LOL lets take it nice and slow for you

Estrogen is responsible for:

1.) glucose utilization

2 studies that back this up are: Aromatization of androgens to estrogens mediates increased activity of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase in rat levator ani muscle, Endocrinol 106 (2), 440-43, 1980

The pentose phosphate pathway in regenerating skeletal muscle, Biochem J 170, 17, 1978

2.) stimulating increased growth hormone release

A study to back that up is: Weisberger, Ho, Activation of the ****totropic axis by testosterone in adult males : evidence for the role of aromatization, J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 76, 1993, 1407-12

3.)upgrading of the androgen receptor

A study to back that up is: Rance, Max, Modulation of the cytosolic androgen receptor in striated muscle by sex steroids, Endocrinol 115, 1984, 862-6

Now lets see some studies that disprove what I just posted...common bro stop being rediculous...you cant prove ur point (obviously) just drop it...it doesnt matter what my credentials are or where the hell i got my information...I posted soemthing with scientific proof to back it up...you haven't done anything...common bro...

This is my last post on this thread...I did mean good...to try and teach some one something that I found...I'm sorry it got out of hand mods and LongBall

 

[hhajdo]

ready2explode, it's true that completely suppressing E would have many negative effects, but such a high level of suppression is achieved only in postmenopausal women, not men.



The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 85, No. 7 2370-2377
Estrogen Suppression in Males: Metabolic Effects1
Nelly Mauras, Kimberly O. O’Brien, Karen Oerter Klein and Valerie Hayes

...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 [13C]leucine and 42Ca/44Ca, 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.....

...Three subjects also received 3 mg Arimidex in an identical paradigm, yet there was a similar percent decline in E2 concentrations and a reciprocal increase in testosterone concentrations as with the 0.5- and 1-mg doses.....

----------------------------------------------------------------

1: J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001 Jun;86(6):2869-74

The effect of aromatase inhibition on sex steroids, gonadotropins, and markers of bone turnover in older men.

Taxel P, Kennedy DG, Fall PM, Willard AK, Clive JM, Raisz LG.

Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Center on Aging, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut 06030-1317, USA. taxel@nso.uchc.edu

....Fifteen eugonadal men over 65 yr were treated for 9 weeks with 2.0 mg/day of anastrozole, an aromatase inhibitor. After 9 weeks of treatment, there were significant decreases in estradiol, estrone, and sex hormone-binding globulin levels by 29%, 73%, and 16%, respectively, and total testosterone increased significantly by 56%. Despite the limited decrease of estrogen and the increase in testosterone....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------l
letrozole + test

The role of sex steroids in the regulation of insulin sensitivity and serum lipid concentrations during male puberty: a prospective study with a P450-aromatase inhibitor.

Wickman S, Saukkonen T, Dunkel L.
We treated boys with constitutional delay of puberty either with testosterone plus placebo or with testosterone plus an aromatase inhibitor, letrozole, which inhibits the conversion of androgens to oestrogens. We demonstrated previously that during treatment with testosterone plus letrozole the increase in testosterone concentration was more than 5-fold higher than during treatment with testosterone plus placebo. The concentrations of 17beta-oestradiol, IGF-I and IGF-binding protein-3 increased during testosterone-plus-placebo treatment, but during testosterone-plus-letrozole treatment the concentrations remained unchanged...

 

[Billy_Bathgate]

R2E, once again, I never said anything about it has no role. The whole point is me saying that while on cycle and using your anti-e's the amount that it is reduced is not going to significantly reduce your gains.


The studys (if you call them that, more like headlines) dont prove anything. It says nothing about how much it is effected. I do not see any of the protocol. POST THE FULL STUDIES AND QUIT COPING BIG CAT. What the hell is wrong with you?

Step by step

Study 1) A. Its in rats. B. Is it male or female. C. Is it in an abundance of anabolic state D. How much E are we talking about. E. How was the effects of glucose measured F. How many rats were used G. What sort of increase exactly (1% or 50%) H. What other mechanisms are responsible. I. What conditions were the rats in compared to the control J. What was the age and weights

Study 2) It doesnt say a thing. Its a statement. There is nothing there. No data, no conclusions, no methods...WTF? Thats garabage.

Study 3) Same as number 2

You havent proved anything. POST THE DAMN STUDIES. Quit copying big cats references. Those are not studies! A proper study includes the following:

Title
Introduciton or Background
Hypotheses
Materials and Methods
Data
Results
Conclusion
References

YOU HAVE NONE! You have the damn TITLES! Post the studies. Youve made it obvious that you dont know what your talking about. You just copying things that someone else wrote. I bet you dont even know how to look up a study and post it anyways.

You keep trying to get me to disprove somethign that you havent proved yet. Prove the things you are saying and I will. You havent dont that yet though, so Im sitting here waiting on you to get on with it. Hurry up, Im waiting.


Really, I suggest studying some biology and organic chemistry before you try and run your mouth next time. You only make yourself look really unintelligent.

 

[Billy_Bathgate]

thank you hhajdo for posting them.

 

[ready2explode]

wow its nice to talk to someone who actually has a brain...

hhajdo...I see the point you are trying to get at, but the original question asked by LongBall was, "Does arimidex (or liquidex) negatively effect any possible gains?" I said yes because estrogen contributes to gains. This was all i was trying to say. 1gram of test without any type of estrogen control will yield a greater amount of muscle than 1gram of test + adex.

Now the point i think you're trying to get at is that there is a significant amount of estrogen when on your cycle even when using an anti-aromatase, is that rite? If this is true, then we're on the same page. I recommend using the least possible anti-e's to get the most benefit from estrogen while still warding away gyno. Now the more you suppress estrogen, the less gains you are going to make.

 

[ready2explode]

R2E, once again, I never said anything about it has no role. The whole point is me saying that while on cycle and using your anti-e's the amount that it is reduced is not going to significantly reduce your gains.

No that is not what you said. To quote you, "Nolva does NOT inhibit gains. Thats one of the oldest myths out there...Nolva does NOT lower estrogen." You didnt say nolva will not "significantly reduce your gains" you said it "does NOT". His question asked if it reduce gains...if you answered "yes, but not significantly" then you could argueably be rite. But, you can't argue that estrogen plays NO ROLE in contributing to gains and thats what you were trying to do.

 

[Billy_Bathgate]

It doesnt inhibit them in a point of a noticable view.


Hurry up and post your full studies so I can disproove them. Im still waiting on you.



I dont have a brain? Fuck you mother fucker what are your credintials? I done told you mine. I know more about this than you could ever wish to be. You some dumb ass fucking little kid that has nothign better to do than copy someone elses articles and try to come off as know what your talking about. Quit being a bitch running your mouth and post your fucking stuides that supposedly back up your claims?

This was all i was trying to say. 1gram of test without any type of estrogen control will yield a greater amount of muscle than 1gram of test + adex.

PROVE IT THEN YOU DUMBFUCK!!! POST THE FULL DAMN STUDY. Your making you own statements here, so you fucking can back it up. Dont go copying shit either. Post the full study.

Now the more you suppress estrogen, the less gains you are going to make.

PROVE IT BITCH! You havent proved a damn thing yet. All you have done is run your mouth and copy big cat.

You havent even read he studies that big cat linked to you. You just copied the references and assume that if big cat says they back them up than they do! Are you in Highschool still???????

 

[hhajdo]

There's no need to start a flame war here...
Enough info was presented, members can read it & make their own decision.