Cialis Question....

[CCI]

Hey guys, I'm thinking about getting some Cialis. I'm doing my PCT right now and I just want to know if its okay to do it now and how do I take it? My sex drive and libido are way down....I miss the Test! I'm taking Clomid and Nolva....got 12 days to go. Thanks in advance.....

[IronPumper80]

I noticed results off of 25mg. Start low and work up bro.

[jbigdog69]

Luiquid Cialis is great...just 8 little squirts and its on baby!!! lol

[OzPower]

25-50mg p/day did the trick!

[CCI]

So do I pop one everyday or every 3 days just like a multi, or do I take it before sex? I read the effects last for 36 hours....thats crazy!

[SexyKitty]

So do I pop one everyday or every 3 days just like a multi, or do I take it before sex? I read the effects last for 36 hours....thats crazy!

You can take Cialis no more than once per day but it's not really necessary since the efficacy does last for 36 hours (You don't have a hardon for 36 hours, you just have the ability to get one). Men who need it for ED take it 3x/week and this essentially gives them a normal sex life.

Keep one thing in mind.....Cialis ONLY WORKS IN THE PRESENCE OF SEXUAL STIMULATION, this of course could be anything depending on who you are. IT IS NOT A LIBIDO ENHANCER, it works by increasing blood flow to the penis. It will not make you feel horny unless you experience some kind of placebo effect but if you are horny it will certainly help you get a massive erection.

[Ntpadude]

You can take Cialis no more than once per day but it's not really necessary since the efficacy does last for 36 hours (You don't have a hardon for 36 hours, you just have the ability to get one). Men who need it for ED take it 3x/week and this essentially gives them a normal sex life.

Keep one thing in mind.....Cialis ONLY WORKS IN THE PRESENCE OF SEXUAL STIMULATION, this of course could be anything depending on who you are. IT IS NOT A LIBIDO ENHANCER, it works by increasing blood flow to the penis. It will not make you feel horny unless you experience some kind of placebo effect but if you are horny it will certainly help you get a massive erection.

Oh man, I was reading in the paper last week about some dudes that took cialis... after getting a blowie from Girlfriend, then doing the nasty doggie style for a second cumming, some guys still have a hard on from hell that they cant get rid of. This story was funny because one guy got on his hands and knees and prayed to God to let his little fellow get some rest.

You being a woman might not know this but after a man orgasms 2 times, it can be somewhat uncomfortable to downright painful to get another hard on again without at least having a 24 hour recovery period.

[BASK8KACE]

Some people react better to Cialis; others, Viagra; and still others, Levitra.

Of the 3, Cialis most specifically effects the workings of the penis. The other two (Levitra and Viagra) are more general in their effects, thus cause vision disturbances, flushing, headaches, etcetera.

Cialis works really well for me. I hits me pretty hard an hour after I take it and again 24 hours later. Generally lasts 2.5 days.

Viagra seems to work best for me 3-4 hours after I take it, which is odd because the window of effectiveness is only for a few hours.

I've played around and taken a 100mg Viagra the day after I took 20mg of real Cialis, and it was amazing (I don't suggest mixing them like this, because you don't know the risks/reactions). I blew a load, stayed hard for the next few minutes, immediately f'kd again and shot again. The skin was so tight on my cock that it felt like it was gonna explode.

[CCI]

Thanks for the replies guys.

[John88Test]

just got some liquid cialis last week...it is quite an amazing drug....works like a charm

[partyboynyc]

i love C liek a fat chick loves cock! i mean, like a fat kid loves cake, ****!

[promiscio]

"if you get an erection that last over four hours, though uncommon, please seek immediate medical attention"
So that commercial came on and my lil girl cousin (10yrs old) asks me what a four hour erection is?

[partyboynyc]

"if you get an erection that last over four hours, though uncommon, please seek immediate medical attention"
So that commercial came on and my lil girl cousin (10yrs old) asks me what a four hour erection is?

it's the sole reason she'll never be allowed to have a male baby sitter

[hung-solo]

it's the sole reason she'll never be allowed to have a male baby sitter

she would find out the hard way i'm sure........... that was kind of sick

[tryingtogetbig]

Some people react better to Cialis; others, Viagra; and still others, Levitra.

Of the 3, Cialis most specifically effects the workings of the penis. The other two (Levitra and Viagra) are more general in their effects, thus cause vision disturbances, flushing, headaches, etcetera.

Cialis works really well for me. I hits me pretty hard an hour after I take it and again 24 hours later. Generally lasts 2.5 days.

Viagra seems to work best for me 3-4 hours after I take it, which is odd because the window of effectiveness is only for a few hours.

I've played around and taken a 100mg Viagra the day after I took 20mg of real Cialis, and it was amazing (I don't suggest mixing them like this, because you don't know the risks/reactions). I blew a load, stayed hard for the next few minutes, immediately f'kd again and shot again. The skin was so tight on my cock that it felt like it was gonna explode.

Beg to differ with you, but Levitra is 50X more focused on the PDE5 enzyme than cialias. (I'll gladly provide the clinical studies for proof if really interested) Ever wonder why Levitra recommended starting dose is 10mg?

Levitra has fewest side effects of all 3. Cialias ranks the worst when it comes to headaches, muscle aches, etc. In addition, if you take a drug that has a half life of 18 hours, any bad sides you acquire could possibly last for 36 hours. Not, IMO, the best drug to take. Many Urologists that I speak with on a daily basis say that Levitra will be the only one left on the market when all is said and done.

Levitra has NO indications for vision problems either like viagra. The vision is affected by the PDE6 enzyme....whereas Levitra is more focused and doesn't cross over as bad. Cialias effects the PDE10 enzyme....resulting in transient lower back pains and leg pains. All of these are on their Product Inserts for each drug.

It kind of scares me how popular Cialias is on the UL market, considering it's not the cleanest (when dealing with efficacy and sides) of the 3 drugs to begin with. But, for some reason everyone on here continues to push it.

peace,

ttgb

[Dally]

a massive erection.

thats why were together ... isnt it.

[BASK8KACE]

Beg to differ with you, but Levitra is 50X more focused on the PDE5 enzyme than cialias. (I'll gladly provide the clinical studies for proof if really interested) Ever wonder why Levitra recommended starting dose is 10mg?

peace,

ttgb

Please post the information that you have about this. (You mentioned that you have studies you could post).

I am definitely interested in the studies because I've searched the net briefly and cannot find anything that contradicts what I have posted about Cialis being the most selective of the three.

[sinista63]

Please post the information that you have about this. (You mentioned that you have studies you could post).

I am definitely interested in the studies because I've searched the net briefly and cannot find anything that contradicts what I have posted about Cialis being the most selective of the three.

i agree with bask8kace. the references i'm about to list seem to indicate that tadafanil is the most selective of the three drugs.

Porst H. Int J Impot Res. 2002 Feb;14 Suppl 1:S57-64.

Eardley I, Cartledge J. Int J Clin Pract. 2002 May;56(4):300-4

Brock G. Educational forum-II. Can J Urol 2001; 8(6):1419-1420

there might be more data available in:
Curr Urol Rep. 2003 Dec;4(6):472-8
but i haven't been able to secure the article yet

please list any sources that provide information to the contrary. i would definitely like to review them and incorporate them into my own practice.

[SexyKitty]

Beg to differ with you, but Levitra is 50X more focused on the PDE5 enzyme than cialias. (I'll gladly provide the clinical studies for proof if really interested) Ever wonder why Levitra recommended starting dose is 10mg?

Levitra has fewest side effects of all 3. Cialias ranks the worst when it comes to headaches, muscle aches, etc. In addition, if you take a drug that has a half life of 18 hours, any bad sides you acquire could possibly last for 36 hours. Not, IMO, the best drug to take. Many Urologists that I speak with on a daily basis say that Levitra will be the only one left on the market when all is said and done.

Levitra has NO indications for vision problems either like viagra. The vision is affected by the PDE6 enzyme....whereas Levitra is more focused and doesn't cross over as bad. Cialias effects the PDE10 enzyme....resulting in transient lower back pains and leg pains. All of these are on their Product Inserts for each drug.

It kind of scares me how popular Cialias is on the UL market, considering it's not the cleanest (when dealing with efficacy and sides) of the 3 drugs to begin with. But, for some reason everyone on here continues to push it.

peace,

ttgb

I beg to differ. You MUST be a Levitra rep or an employee of Bayer, otherwise there is no way you would come up with this answer. There have been absolutely NO head to head studies for any of the PDE5's comparing efficacy so you cannot make these claims comparing efficacy of the three OR side effects. Cialis actually is extremely safe and tolerable, only 1.7% of people dropped out of the trials due to side effects, not a very big number at all. Wheras 3.5% of people dropped out of the Levitra trials.

By the way....do your research.....side effects are not dictated by half life or amount if time the drug is in system but rather peak concentration. The peak concentration of Cialis is about 2 hours just like all 3 PDE5's therefore sides will only occur in the beginning whereas the efficacy continues for 36 hours.

Another thing....don't confuse "potency" with "efficacy". Potency is the relative pharmacological activity of a dose of a compound compared with the dose of a different agent producing the same effect (e.g., aspirin, acetaminophen, and ibuprofen). It is an imprecise term with respect to sexual performance. In this context, the term actually has 2 meanings—(1) the ability of a man to perform sexual intercourse or (2) the power of a drug to produce the desired effect.
Efficacy is the ability of an agent to produce a specific effect or result.
Just because you need less of something doesnt meen it works better....It's is like comparing friggen apples to oranges.


Sorry for the rant....just hate it when I hear such weighted info. Bottom line is that Cialis is an awesome drug, low sides, lasts 36 hours and NO interaction with food or alcohol.

[BASK8KACE]

Sinista63 & SexyKitty,

Thank you both for the support of my statement and the additional information.

[tryingtogetbig]

I'll get back with you guys when I have more time regarding studies and efficacy results. While there are no "head to head" studies that have been released to the Lilly reps yet, there are many pieces of literature and doctor studies that are available for all. I enjoy a good debate whereas everyone knows the issues. Bottomline is that all 3 are great drugs...I never said otherwise. But, bask8kace alluded to cialias being the "better" of the 3...which is what I wanted to disagree with.

Sexykitty...you are correct on most of your statements...but a little biased on many. I look forward to comparing notes with each other. And, there is NO way a drug can have 36 hour efficacy and not the potential of side effects the entire time the drug is in the body. Not possible.

Also....I wasn't attacking or insulting anyone. I was very careful when differing with bask8kace in my post to make sure I didn't sound insulting. I didn't tell him to "do your research" or anything like that. Hopefully everyone can keep it that way. If you reread your post sexykitty....I think you'll understand what I am referring to. This board is open for ALL opinions...not just yours. If you disagree...then disagree...just don't make it persoanl.

I have tried all 3 of the d!ck hardening drugs....and I am talking from experieince. Sexykitty.....??? I guess I know now why cialias is pushed so hard here on AR. We have a Lilly rep throwing their weight around.
peace,

ttgb

[kubano28]

so bros and syst. where do u get that liquid cialis????,any one???

[tryingtogetbig]

so bros and syst. where do u get that liquid cialis????,any one???

most of the UG guys carry it bro. That's the cheapest way. Or just do a google search and lots of options should come up.

[BASK8KACE]

Beg to differ with you, but Levitra is 50X more focused on the PDE5 enzyme than cialias. (I'll gladly provide the clinical studies for proof if really interested) Ever wonder why Levitra recommended starting dose is 10mg?

I'll get back with you guys when I have more time regarding studies and efficacy results. While there are no "head to head" studies that have been released to the Lilly reps yet, there are many pieces of literature and doctor studies that are available for all. I enjoy a good debate whereas everyone knows the issues. Bottomline is that all 3 are great drugs...I never said otherwise.

Tryingtogetbig,

I took no offense from your statements or disagreements. However, I do take issue with you offering to present studies then you saying you "have to get back to us" when more than one person has asked you to show the studies to which you referred because it makes it seem like you don't have those studies which you claimed you could readily produce.

If you read through my posts, you'll find that when I make statements that are contrary to others, I always have information to back it up--references, website addresses, etcetera.

I don't like it when people cannot support their arguements/statements, especially after a person grandly claims they have proof (but cannot produce that proof). Unfounded statements--those without proof--is how rumors and misinformation get started and passed around.

I don't mind when people disagree with me--that's part of the beauty of these boards: discussions. However, I really do have a problems with statements that are not adequately supported.

When you get a chance, post your references so I can look them up and learn.

[BASK8KACE]

But, bask8kace alluded to cialias being the "better" of the 3...which is what I wanted to disagree with.

I have tried all 3 of the d!ck hardening drugs....and I am talking from experieince.

One more thing:

I never claimed that Cialis is the best (nor alluded to that). I said I believed it was the most specific of the three (Viagra, Levitra and Cialis) when considering how each causes sustained erections. I only said that Cialis works really well for ME. Furthermore, you'll find in my original post in this thread that I wrote, "Some people react better to Cialis; others, Viagra; and still others, Levitra."

I tend to stay away from saying things like "the best" as if it were fact unless:
(1) I can seriously back up such a broad statement with solid proof or
(2) The situation is obviously about my personal opinion and not facts.

Many of the people who claim to have used Viagra, Cialis or Levitra are using underground lab copies. My experiences with the hardening drugs have been with the real, brand-name products obtained from a legit pharmacy, via a prescription from my doctor.

Each person is affected differently, so your and my personal experiences with these drugs aren't proof or fact, and I certainly never claimed that my opinon is fact. However, I would be interested to know whether your experience with the drugs have been from underground labs or from the brand-name manufacturers.

If Cialis is not chemically the more specific of the three (for causing sustained erections), then please (again) post your references, supporting information, etcetera, so I can learn.

[tryingtogetbig]

Some people react better to Cialis; others, Viagra; and still others, Levitra.

Of the 3, Cialis most specifically effects the workings of the penis. The other two (Levitra and Viagra) are more general in their effects, thus cause vision disturbances, flushing, headaches, etcetera.

This was the statement that I was responding to. I am going to post the studies, etc that I have....so don't go getting upset. It will take me several hours sitting here digging through my information and posting it up...which I offered to do and will....I just haven't had the time (nor desire) to do this yet this weekend. Surely you can understand that......

I completely agree with you that each individual will have their own seperate opinions on each drug. Also, I have never tried the Underground Lab versions of any of the 3....all I have tried are the actual drugs themselves. The underground lab versions kind of scare me...which was another thing I was alluding to in my initial post. If something isn't quite right or same quality, then the sides could last for 36 hours (not saying they will....just simply that they could).

Anyway, I have always respected your opinion and advice....so I truly hope that you haven't taken offense to my opinion being different. I'll be posting what information I have here soon and I'll send you a PM when I do it.

peace,

ttgb

[tryingtogetbig]

I don't like it when people cannot support their arguements/statements, especially after a person grandly claims they have proof (but cannot produce that proof). Unfounded statements--those without proof--is how rumors and misinformation get started and passed around.

Also, sexykitty didn't post any references, sources, websites, etc....so I assume that you take issue with her information as well?? I know that she is supporting your position....but surely you would still want more than her word to justify your case.

Not trying to be a smart as$ here....just keeping things equal.

peace,

ttgb

[SexyKitty]

Also, sexykitty didn't post any references, sources, websites, etc....so I assume that you take issue with her information as well?? I know that she is supporting your position....but surely you would still want more than her word to justify your case.

Not trying to be a smart as$ here....just keeping things equal.

peace,

ttgb

I would be more than happy to post references. Will come back with some.

BTW, don't take things so personally. As you said, people are entitled to their own opinions, my opinion was that your response was biased and scentifically untrue therefore I rebuttled.

[BASK8KACE]

Also, sexykitty didn't post any references, sources, websites, etc....so I assume that you take issue with her information as well?? I know that she is supporting your position....but surely you would still want more than her word to justify your case.

Not trying to be a smart as$ here....just keeping things equal.

peace,

ttgb

TTGB,

Again: I don't take offense to your disagreeing with me. I wrote that already more than once.

I took time to search the web after you responded and couldn't find anything contrary to what I stated. All I'm asking is that you post the information that you volunteered without any provocation from me or anyone else. You're the one who announced that you had references. I merely asked for them.

If you're going to argue a point, then argue it. Please refrain from taking pot shots over inane points. For example...

You worte that you're not trying to be a smart ass about pointing out that I didn't ask SK for references. But you are being a bit of a SA because you know quite well that one generally doesn't ask someone who's on the same side of your arguement for proof especially since somoene who agrees with SK and me has posted references:

Sinista63 posted these:
1. Porst H. Int J Impot Res. 2002 Feb;14 Suppl 1:S57-64.
2. Eardley I, Cartledge J. Int J Clin Pract. 2002 May;56(4):300-4
3. Brock G. Educational forum-II. Can J Urol 2001; 8(6):1419-1420

So, why would I ask her for more?

Don't misunderstand my tone for being upset with you. I'm glad you disagree--perhaps I'll learn something from this.

But, I do firmly state that I have a problem with:
1. You claiming to have proof then not posting it so far.
2. You taking unnecessary pot shots over ridiculous points (my not asking SK for proof when proof has already been supplied by another).

[tryingtogetbig]

I would be more than happy to post references. Will come back with some.

BTW, don't take things so personally. As you said, people are entitled to their own opinions, my opinion was that your response was biased and scentifically untrue therefore I rebuttled.

Just like all of you keep telling me....I like forward to you taking the time to post them. Trust me....I know it takes time to dig all your references up and post them.

Also, nothing taken personal....just turned off by your rudeness in your original post....that's all.

peace,

ttgb

[tryingtogetbig]

TTGB,

Again: I don't take offense to your disagreeing with me. I wrote that already more than once.

I took time to search the web after you responded and couldn't find anything contrary to what I stated. All I'm asking is that you post the information that you volunteered without any provocation from me or anyone else. You're the one who announced that you had references. I merely asked for them.

If you're going to argue a point, then argue it. Please refrain from taking pot shots over inane points. For example...

You worte that you're not trying to be a smart ass about pointing out that I didn't ask SK for references. But you are being a bit of a SA because you know quite well that one generally doesn't ask someone who's on the same side of your arguement for proof especially since somoene who agrees with SK and me has posted references:

Sinista63 posted these:
1. Porst H. Int J Impot Res. 2002 Feb;14 Suppl 1:S57-64.
2. Eardley I, Cartledge J. Int J Clin Pract. 2002 May;56(4):300-4
3. Brock G. Educational forum-II. Can J Urol 2001; 8(6):1419-1420

So, why would I ask her for more?

Don't misunderstand my tone for being upset with you. I'm glad you disagree--perhaps I'll learn something from this.

But, I do firmly state that I have a problem with:
1. You claiming to have proof then not posting it so far.
2. You taking unnecessary pot shots over ridiculous points (my not asking SK for proof when proof has already been supplied by another).

Do you know what any of these references refer to? Also....I'm not sure what you are getting at here bro. I told you twice that I will gladly post the references very soon when I have the time. Geez...what are you trying to get at bro? You keep harping on me about posting my references when I told you I will....so chill out bro. I'm really not wanting a fight here with you over this.

....and....why is my asking for sk's references such a big deal....even if she agreees with you.....like I said....let's try to keep things equal.

Where are your references to your initial post?

peace,

ttgb

[SexyKitty]

Just like all of you keep telling me....I like forward to you taking the time to post them. Trust me....I know it takes time to dig all your references up and post them.

Also, nothing taken personal....just turned off by your rudeness in your original post....that's all.

peace,

ttgb

Sorry...but since my life does not revolve around AR (and no....I am not implying yours does) so I will take my time. My original point was not rude nor was it a personal attack. It was simply argumentative to your point which I very strongly disagreed with.

[tryingtogetbig]

Sorry...but since my life does not revolve around AR (and no....I am not implying yours does) so I will take my time. My original point was not rude nor was it a personal attack. It was simply argumentative to your point which I very strongly disagreed with.

alright then....cool. And, I do understand why you haven't posted your sources yet....time consuming. I understand. I haven't made time yet either. It'll be interesting to compare notes when we have time though.

peace,

ttgb

[CCI]

HOLY ****! I just wanted to know if I can take Cailis during my PCT!!! WOW! Anyways, I ordered some liquid Cailis....how do I take it. Thanks!

[BASK8KACE]

alright then....cool. And, I do understand why you haven't posted your sources yet....time consuming. I understand. I haven't made time yet either. It'll be interesting to compare notes when we have time though.

peace,

ttgb

The only reason I'm harping on it, TTGB, is because you offered to post your souces in your original post, then you tried to turn the spotlight on SK and obfuscate the issue when people asked you for those sources (the sources that YOU offered). You spoke very boldly about the sources you were willing to post as if you had them at your fingertips and alas you did not. You wrote, "I'll gladly provide proof if intersted."

I'm harping on this, because I don't like when people say or allude to things in their posts (such as "I have tons of sources/proof") to make thier points or opinions seem like valid fact then cannot or will not produce those sources they claim to have.

If you look back through my posts, you'll find that I've caught people like this before and they all have the same answers: I cant find the sources right now...I had them in this huge text book, but I don't know where the book is. Oh, I'm busy and I don't have time to post. Then these people wait until the thread dies so they won't have to follow through.

I cannot stand when people flounder like that.

I don't mind people making mistakes--everyone makes mistakes. I also don't mind people disagreeing with me--goodness knows I've been wrong. But, when people ask me for souces I provide them OR I make the distinction between what is my opinion and what is fact. I also admit when I'm wrong if I find info contrary to what I state.

Personally, I believe you might be correct about SOME of what you stated (and I'm looking to learn more), but I'm making an issue of this because I think people should share their beliefs, opinions and what they think/know is fact. They should make distinctions between what is opinion and what is fact, but they should not make their opinions seem like fact by referring to references that they don't have.

[tryingtogetbig]

....but I'm making an issue of this because I think people should share their beliefs, opinions and what they think/know is fact. They should make distinctions between what is opinion and what is fact, but they should not make their opinions seem like fact by referring to references that they don't have.

I was coming back on here to post references when I read this....seemed funny to me. This was in your original post that I took issue with:

Of the 3, Cialis most specifically effects the workings of the penis. The other two (Levitra and Viagra) are more general in their effects, thus cause vision disturbances, flushing, headaches, etcetera.

Is this opinion....or fact.....?? Where are your references to back it up. I was never dodging a bullet...I didn't "boldy delcare" I have references....and I don't care what people have done in the past and I'm not going to go reading through your posts to find what they have done. I told you I would post them when I have time....period. That was barely 36 hours ago and you've been harping on me like crazy.

My references to sk and to you were simply to point out that you guys are merely stating somewhat factual opinions without reference....which is what both of you trashed me over. Can you no see that?

anyway....I'm going to start posting references now like I said I would.

peace,

ttgb

[BASK8KACE]

...I didn't "boldy delcare" I have references...

Beg to differ with you, but Levitra is 50X more focused on the PDE5 enzyme than cialis. (I'll gladly provide the clinical stucies for proof if really interested)...

I hope you realize that I'm giving you a hard time only to make a point.

(...And to post whore).

But, I'd still like to see the references you said you were just about to post.

anyway....I'm going to start posting references now like I said I would.

Where are they??

[tryingtogetbig]

Okay.....TTGB's reasons why he doesn't believe Cialis (especially generic) should be the #1 choice of hard dick drugs among AS users:

The points I made in my initial post referred to mainly efficacy and side effects. I'll start off with side effects.

Here is the link for the entrie study: http://www.usrf.org/news/030303_PDE5...nhibitors.html

Here is the second from the bottom paragraph:
In brief, efficacy is approximately 70% with all 3 drugs. The side effect profile is similar among the 3 drugs, except that blue discoloration of vision (overlap with PDE-6 in the retina) is seen only with Viagra (<0.5%) and muscle aches only with Cialis (~5%). Otherwise, vasodilatory side effects (headaches, nasal congestion, flushing) are common with all, but are mild, and only rarely cause men to drop out of clinical trials (2-3% quit rate). All 3 will carry a contra-indication in men using organic nitrates. Otherwise, the long half-life of Cialis (17.5 hours) is noteworthy, earning this drug the nickname ‘weekender,’ as a single dose taken on Friday would still be exerting an effect Sunday (or even Monday).

Another very interesting article and side effects:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=12836729

An excerpt from the article:

Two additional agents in this class (tadalafil [Cialis], vardenafil [Levitra]) have been developed recently and are under regulatory review. Tadalafil is a long-acting PDE-5 inhibitor, which is effective for up to 36 hr in the majority of men. Vardenafil has a similar duration of action to sildenafil, but is more potent and selective biochemically. Both drugs appear to be generally safe and well tolerated, with a similar side-effect profile to sildenafil.


Another article dealing with side effects among the 3:http://www.formularyjournal.com/form....jsp?id=100921

This file is a .pdf, so I can't copy and past from it.
-On page 2, far right column it says "vardenafil". Read under there and it talks about levitra being more focused on the pde5.
-On page 4, bottom left hand side it refers to Cialis side effects and it's affinity to the pde11 enzyme, which they say is probably the reason that 6% of patients complain of back pain.


Another reference to Cialis back pain side effect and it not being as focused as Levitra and/or Viagra: http://www.aafp.org/afp/20040715/steps.html

An excerpt from the article:

Tadalafil differs from sildenafil in its affinity for PDE6 and 11, which may account for fewer reported ocular effects and more reports of back pain with tadalafil than with sildenafil.


My conclusion is this. First off, all 3 are wonderful drugs...no doubt. My concern is over the 18 hour half-life of Cialis and it being in your system for up to 36 hours. I sure don't understand how you take a pill every 24 hours when the drug is still in your body for 36 hours...seems like a lot of overlap and buildup potential. Also, what if you are suffering any of the side effects listed? The potential for them to be there for the entire 36 hours (okay, maybe only 24 hours?), but you get my point. What about any drug interactions you have while on Cialis? Will the interaction last 36 hours? That's how long the drug is in your system.

But, it has a 36 hour coverage...and you only have to take it one time over the weekend? Big deal....among AS users, taking supplements is not really a problem.

And lastly regarding side effects is my concern over the purity and quality of the generic Cialis everyone is getting. I personally don't use generc anything, but the chances are likely that the chemicals generic companies use are not of the same quality as Lilly and what they use for their real Cialis pills. To me, in my opinion, lesser quality opens yourself up to a whole bunch of bad possiblitlies....and remember....it lasts for 36 hours!

Okay....I'll start a new post for dealing with efficacy.

peace,

ttgb

[BASK8KACE]

Thank you for taking the time to post these. This is what I like to see in discussions on this board--solid evidence and discussion.

I have not yet looked at the links you've posted. I will sit and read them when I get back.

[tryingtogetbig]

Okay, now when dealing with efficacy in regards to the 3 hard dick drugs, there is not a "head to head" study. So in order to distinguish 1 above the rest, you have to start looking at studies that deal with hard to treat patients (diabetic, post-prostatectomy, older men, etc) and half-dose studies.

A good article dealing with Cialis and Levitra: http://www.currentpsychiatry.com/200...e_pipeline.asp

Intersting statement from article dealing with pharmacokinetics:
A lower starting dosage is required with vardenafil than with sildenafil because of the former agent’s greater in vitro and in vivo potency, but whether this results in greater clinical efficacy or tolerability is unknown.


Interesting article about Levitra success with NON-Viagra responders (meaning Viagra didn't work for them). I think it was 80% of the non-responders had success with Levitra. Anyway, here it is:http://www.usrf.org/news/26JAN04_levitra/levitra.html

Exercpt from the article:
The study was a randomized trial of placebo vs vardenafil (Levitra) in 450 men who had failed to respond to Viagra, using various measures of efficacy, including ability to penetrate, ability to maintain, the key erectile function domain score, and an overall assessment. All showed statistically significant improvements with Levitra, compared to the placebo responses.

Good article overall, but I am posting the half-dose studies from the very bottom: http://www.urologytimes.com/urologyt...l.jsp?id=94362

Results of the half-dose studies:
Improved erections were noted at the half-maximum dose in 72% of the men taking sildenafil; 70% taking tadalafil; 77% taking vardenafil; and 29% taking placebo. Sixteen patients (34%) preferred sildenafil, 50 mg; nine (19%) preferred tadalafil, 10 mg; and 22 (47%) preferred vardenafil, 10 mg.


This is just an abstract from a study, but still good read: http://www.biopsychiatry.com/pde5sex.htm

Exercpt from it:
Tadalafil is a long-acting PDE-5 inhibitor, which is effective for up to 36 hr in the majority of men. Vardenafil has a similar duration of action to sildenafil, but is more potent and selective biochemically.


This study is dealing with older men: http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/He...17erectile.htm

Excerpt from the article:
In terms of overall preference, most men rated vardenafil as the preferred option (47%) compared with tadalafil (19%) or sildenafil (34%) at the recommended starting dose. Vardenafil was also the preferred option at the maximum dose (43% compared to 40% taldalafil, 17% sildenafil).

From the same article:
*Of those who preferred vardenafil, the two reasons most commonly cited by patients were hardness of erection (89% at maximum dose, 90% at starting dose) and ease of getting an erection (84% at maximum dose, 86% at starting dose).
*Among those who preferred tadalafil, duration of erection was most commonly quoted (88% at maximum dose, 89% at starting dose).
*Those who preferred sildenafil, did so because of its lesser side effects (60% at maximum dose, 56% at starting dose).

This study is a very good one:http://www.geriatricsandaging.com/PD...04/0706cme.pdf

It is a pdf, but if you go to very last of page 1 and then continue on page 3 (there is a diagram on page 2 you have to skip).


Another really good article: http://www.jaapa.com/be_core/content...4erectdys.html

Exerpt from it:
Similarly, initial trials in diabetic patients suggest that vardenafil may have slightly greater efficacy than that seen in similar trials of diabetic patients given sildenafil. Greater efficacy in patients with diabetes has been putatively assigned to the greater potency of vardenafil at the PDE5 receptor.

From the same article:
Responsiveness of diabetic men to PDE5 inhibitors is typically less than in other populations. A study of tadalafil found that 56% and 64% of men with diabetes reported improved erections (at doses of 10 mg and 20 mg, respectively).4 Satisfactory completion of intercourse was reported in 44% and 56%, respectively.5 With vardenafil, a 12-week efficacy trial in diabetic men found that 57% and 72% of the men (at 10 mg and 20 mg, respectively) reported improved erections.6 In this same population, 49% to 54% reported successful intercourse attempts. Although these vardenafil efficacy rates in men with diabetes are superior to those reported with sildenafil, these drugs have not been compared within the same patients.


All 3 of the hard dick drugs are good, IMO. I had great efficacy and results from them all. My problem again with Cialis is the half life. Sexykitty stated above that all ED drugs require stimulation before they will work. Well, what she isn't taking into account is that most of us on here are on AS, and are very stimulated very easily because of the high levels of test in our bodies. Stimulation results in an enormous erection...and it doesn't go away very fast either. For me, this was a problem because I have to wear slacks all day...and when the drug stays in your system for 36 hours, well, you can see the dilemna. Viagra stays in your system 8-10 hours....Levitra 12-14 hours.

So, my point is this....if they all are very similar in regards to efficacy, why do you want something in your body for that long. Besides the chances of back pains, headaches, etc.....think about what can happen if you are at the gym less than 36 hours after taking the drug and that little hottie walks by.....

I'll post more if you want....just let me know. (and give me time!!)

Okay...all Pfizer, Lilly and Bayer reps can start tearing up my post now.

peace,

ttgb