Is anti-e necessary at 700mg?

[chris2wire]

Thinking of raising my test prop from 70mgED to 100mgED and end cycle a lil early...

Havent used an anti-e yet, but I have experienced fat gain (even though I eat right) and am experiencing bloat. These are estro related obviously... Will they become more pronounced at 700mg a week?

Should I take an anti-e?

[chris2wire]

bump. someone discuss

[dragon69]

well ya, more test would aromitize more. Just add some anti-e

[MatrixGuy]

Thinking of raising my test prop from 70mgED to 100mgED and end cycle a lil early...

Havent used an anti-e yet, but I have experienced fat gain (even though I eat right) and am experiencing bloat. These are estro related obviously... Will they become more pronounced at 700mg a week?

Should I take an anti-e?

Are you running nolva bro? I would at least run 10/20mg ED. If bloat is still a problem run some l-dex at .25mg ED.

[toolman]

Absolutely... you should use an anti e on every cycle! Aside from keeping away a set of D cups, nolva will keep your lipid profiles in check. It can only help you and does not interfere with gains.

[MarkinHouston]

10-20mg nolva ED, bro.

[dtr98]

i go with 10mg nolva ed and 1.25mg letro eod

[Dark Bird]

A little nolva cant hurt.

[chris2wire]

Thanks... Good idea. I always pictured it for gyno only, never considered the other stuff....

[Nicky B]

i go with 10mg nolva ed and 1.25mg letro eod

That might be alittle to much. I would just go with .25mg of armidex or 20mg of nolva.

[Alpha-Male]

go with adex, fa sho, save nolva for pct...

[toolman]

go with adex, fa sho, save nolva for pct...

Now why would you say this? Nolva is best while on cycle. As long as you are using that much test, you absolutely are going to have estrogen conversion. You would rather have him let his LDL/HDL levels go up, gyno risks, etc. all the things estrogen can do to men on cycle. What the heck for when the stuff is so cheap and counters all of this?

[Alpha-Male]

it is speculated that nolva hinders gains, and if he's not prone to gyno, then why the **** take it...get some proviron instead...that's why..

[toolman]

nolva is proven to hinder gains, and if he's not prone to gyno, then why the **** take it...get some proviron instead...that's why..

OK, genius, show me the proof that nolva hinders gains...In fact, give me any scientific reasoning for that. How will he know if he is prone to gyno at a new dosage. I guess you believe a pound of cure is worth more than an ounce of prevention. Further lets talk about lipid profiles. Why let your body run at bad HDL/LDL rates when you do not have to. I am so sick of these guys that say Nolva hinders gains. Tells me they don't do alot of research and they listin to gym rats. At worst, nolva will lower your igf levels of the liver, but not enough to affect any gains seriously.

[Alpha-Male]

OK, genius, show me the proof that nolva hinders gains...In fact, give me any scientific reasoning for that. How will he know if he is prone to gyno at a new dosage. I guess you believe a pound of cure is worth more than an ounce of prevention. Further lets talk about lipid profiles. Why let your body run at bad HDL/LDL rates when you do not have to. I am so sick of these guys that say Nolva hinders gains. Tells me they don't do alot of research and they listin to gym rats. At worst, nolva will lower your igf levels of the liver, but not enough to affect any gains seriously.

i dont think we're gonna find any study entitled "nolvadex adminstration with AAS hindered overall gains", however, as clearly stated, it does hinder igf-1, which could possibly keep you from maximizing gains...proviron is a much better pick, especially with test, and keeping adex on hand should help. most people can tell immediately how a new dose will affect them, and that's why you keep it on hand, "genius". he's only going from 70mg/day to 100mg/day...what sort of drastic effects do you think these doses are gonna have on his lipid profile? and at 10 weeks, what's the problem...trust me guy, i've done alot more research than you think...giving someone all sides of a coin is what a "discussion board" is all about...numbnuts...

[Alpha-Male]

At worst, nolva will lower your igf levels of the liver, but not enough to affect any gains seriously.

Normal growth and development in the absence of hepatic insulin -like growth factor I
Shoshana Yakar*, Jun-Li Liu*, Bethel Stannard*, Andrew Butler*, Domenici Accili, Brian Sauer, and Derek LeRoith*,§
* Section on Cellular and Molecular Physiology, Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology Branch, and Laboratory of Biochemistry and Metabolism, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and Developmental Endocrinology Branch, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-1770

Communicated by J. E. Rall, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, April 23, 1999 (received for review January 28, 1999)

The somatomedin hypothesis proposed that insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) was a hepatically derived circulating mediator of growth hormone and is a crucial factor for postnatal growth and development. To reassess this hypothesis, we have used the Cre/loxP recombination system to delete the igf1 gene exclusively in the liver. igf1 gene deletion in the liver abrogated expression of igf1 mRNA and caused a dramatic reduction in circulating IGF-I levels. However, growth as determined by body weight, body length, and femoral length did not differ from wild-type littermates. Although our model proves that hepatic IGF-I is indeed the major contributor to circulating IGF-I levels in mice it challenges the concept that circulating IGF-I is crucial for normal postnatal growth. Rather, our model provides direct evidence for the importance of the autocrine/paracrine role of IGF-I.

whether or not it's ever proven, inhibited igf-1 levels in my opinion are not optimal, especially when there are better alternatives.

[Alpha-Male]

not a huge effect on lipid profiles, nothing dangerous that i can see...

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/reprint/75/4/1092.pdf

"T supplementation resulted in a significant decline (P <
0.05) in serum total cholesterol and low density lipoprotein
(LDL) cholesterol (Table 4). There also was a tendency for
high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and apolipoprotein-
A-l levels to decline with T treatment, but these changes
were not significant. The LDL/HDL cholesterol ratio and
serum triglyceride levels did not change significantly. For all
lipoprotein and hematological parameters, placebo treatment
TABLE 4. Effect of T supplementation on serum hematological
parameters and lipoproteins was not different from baseline, and no treatment sequence effects were seen."

"IGF-I accompanies increases in muscle mass and strength (17). In frail elderly, progressive resistance training that increases muscle mass and strength also increases intramuscular IGF-I concentrations (19). Clinically, we previously demonstrated that older men given testosterone for 1 mo increased IGF-I transcripts in muscle while decreasing the inhibitory IGF-binding protein (23). The present study agrees with our previous work in that IGF-I protein expression increased at 1 mo and further demonstrates that this increase was maintained throughout the 6 mo of testosterone administration. This confirms that the increase in IGF-I mRNA noted in our earlier study (23) translates into an actual increase of IGF-I protein. A corollary to these studies found that young men who were made hypogonadal for 10 wk by Lupron showed a decrease in muscle strength and a decrease in intramuscular IGF-I mRNA concentration (14). Taken together, these data indicate a mechanistic importance of IGF-I on muscle anabolism"

why would you want to inhibit igf-1???

[toolman]

Normal growth and development in the absence of hepatic insulin -like growth factor I
Shoshana Yakar*, Jun-Li Liu*, Bethel Stannard*, Andrew Butler*, Domenici Accili, Brian Sauer, and Derek LeRoith*,§
* Section on Cellular and Molecular Physiology, Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology Branch, and Laboratory of Biochemistry and Metabolism, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and Developmental Endocrinology Branch, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-1770

Communicated by J. E. Rall, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, April 23, 1999 (received for review January 28, 1999)

The somatomedin hypothesis proposed that insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) was a hepatically derived circulating mediator of growth hormone and is a crucial factor for postnatal growth and development. To reassess this hypothesis, we have used the Cre/loxP recombination system to delete the igf1 gene exclusively in the liver. igf1 gene deletion in the liver abrogated expression of igf1 mRNA and caused a dramatic reduction in circulating IGF-I levels. However, growth as determined by body weight, body length, and femoral length did not differ from wild-type littermates. Although our model proves that hepatic IGF-I is indeed the major contributor to circulating IGF-I levels in mice it challenges the concept that circulating IGF-I is crucial for normal postnatal growth. Rather, our model provides direct evidence for the importance of the autocrine/paracrine role of IGF-I.

whether or not it's ever proven, inhibited igf-1 levels in my opinion are not optimal, especially when there are better alternatives.

If you are going to cut and paste articles, then choose wisely...In fact, read the title...Normal growth and development in the absence of hepatic insulin-like growth factor I

We are not talking about an absence....we are talking a slight reduction. As for the increase in lipid profile from 70-100mgs a day, I am talking about the initial 70 a day as well since that is substantially more test than you create naturally.

I am glad you researched for articles and that is too be commended. I also agree with your statement about there being two sides of a coin. However the simple fact is you made a statement that it is "a proven fact that Nolva hinders gains" and that is completely false. Yes there are two schools of thought but the vast majority states that Nolva is the safest way to go and that it does not seriously hinder your gains as earlier believed. Setting aside lipid profiles ( which I can post many articles that say the opposite of yours as well as my own blood tests on cycle prior to using nolva every cycle)and many other negative sides of higher estrogen levels, gyno is far easier to treat than prevent. Once you have it, you have it. Why take the risk for an extra pound or two.I am 40 years old, 220 lbs and cut like you if that is you in your avtar. I have used Nolva for the past few years in every cycle and have noticed no decrease in gains versus the years prior to learning of it's importance. If, as you say and I will agree...that is why I asked for the study...there is no scientific study done, then all we have to speak from is experience. I have spent years cycling without it and years cycling with it. My cholesterol level is now much lower on cycle, my BP stays lower and though I never had gyno prior, as my dosages have increased lately I still have not had gyno. I am my own guinea pig and my reading and results speak for themselves. That is why, like the majority of the people out there, will recommend Nolva on every cycle.

[toolman]

not a huge effect on lipid profiles, nothing dangerous that i can see...

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/reprint/75/4/1092.pdf

"T supplementation resulted in a significant decline (P <
0.05) in serum total cholesterol and low density lipoprotein
(LDL) cholesterol (Table 4). There also was a tendency for
high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and apolipoprotein-
A-l levels to decline with T treatment, but these changes
were not significant. The LDL/HDL cholesterol ratio and
serum triglyceride levels did not change significantly. For all
lipoprotein and hematological parameters, placebo treatment
TABLE 4. Effect of T supplementation on serum hematological
parameters and lipoproteins was not different from baseline, and no treatment sequence effects were seen."

The flaw in this article, or the part posted if it is larger, is that they are talking of supplementation. If we are talking about clinical supplementation we are talking about 200 mgs every other a week or less in some cases. The dosages we all use in cycles are substantially more than this and it greatly affects lipid profiles at that dose. If you ever do a before, during and after blood test for every cycle, you will see it quite clearly.

[Alpha-Male]

The flaw in this article, or the part posted if it is larger, is that they are talking of supplementation. If we are talking about clinical supplementation we are talking about 200 mgs every other a week or less in some cases. The dosages we all use in cycles are substantially more than this and it greatly affects lipid profiles at that dose. If you ever do a before, during and after blood test for every cycle, you will see it quite clearly.

ahh, very true, however, if i remember correctly, in Hooker's profile on letro, it is purported to positively affect lipid profiles...i will look into it today...

[Alpha-Male]

If you are going to cut and paste articles, then choose wisely...In fact, read the title...Normal growth and development in the absence of hepatic insulin-like growth factor I

We are not talking about an absence....we are talking a slight reduction. As for the increase in lipid profile from 70-100mgs a day, I am talking about the initial 70 a day as well since that is substantially more test than you create naturally.

I am glad you researched for articles and that is too be commended. I also agree with your statement about there being two sides of a coin. However the simple fact is you made a statement that it is "a proven fact that Nolva hinders gains" and that is completely false. Yes there are two schools of thought but the vast majority states that Nolva is the safest way to go and that it does not seriously hinder your gains as earlier believed. Setting aside lipid profiles ( which I can post many articles that say the opposite of yours as well as my own blood tests on cycle prior to using nolva every cycle)and many other negative sides of higher estrogen levels, gyno is far easier to treat than prevent. Once you have it, you have it. Why take the risk for an extra pound or two.I am 40 years old, 220 lbs and cut like you if that is you in your avtar. I have used Nolva for the past few years in every cycle and have noticed no decrease in gains versus the years prior to learning of it's importance. If, as you say and I will agree...that is why I asked for the study...there is no scientific study done, then all we have to speak from is experience. I have spent years cycling without it and years cycling with it. My cholesterol level is now much lower on cycle, my BP stays lower and though I never had gyno prior, as my dosages have increased lately I still have not had gyno. I am my own guinea pig and my reading and results speak for themselves. That is why, like the majority of the people out there, will recommend Nolva on every cycle.

that is why i edited that orginal post, i should not have used the word "proven"...however, i do not think that in your own experiments with your body that you could have possibly controlled all necessary variables in order to make a claim that your gains were better or worse...no, what is proven is that nolva inhibits igf-1, and that's not something we want during a cycle, especially when there are viable alternatives in my opinion...220 at 40, huh? that's pretty good i guess, close to what i was my senior year in high school...

[toolman]

that is why i edited that orginal post, i should not have used the word "proven"...however, i do not think that in your own experiments with your body that you could have possibly controlled all necessary variables in order to make a claim that your gains were better or worse...no, what is proven is that nolva inhibits igf-1, and that's not something we want during a cycle, especially when there are viable alternatives in my opinion...220 at 40, huh? that's pretty good i guess, close to what i was my senior year in high school...

There are many things we do not want on cycle, and I would rather have a lower igf, risking minimal loss to gains, than a nice set of D's.

Lol...Let's see how you look at 40!!!

[CRUISECONTROL]

Absolutly take an anti-e whatever it is I take nolva. You can never be too carefull with your body!!!!!! Gyno sux!!!!! Don't risk it

[Alpha-Male]

There are many things we do not want on cycle, and I would rather have a lower igf, risking minimal loss to gains, than a nice set of D's.

Lol...Let's see how you look at 40!!!

well, you'll be 50, so i'm assuming still better than you

proviron and letro has worked just fine for me and many others...the only D's belong to my wife...

[Swifto]

Absolutly take an anti-e whatever it is I take nolva. You can never be too carefull with your body!!!!!! Gyno sux!!!!! Don't risk it

I agree.

Gyno is far easier to prevent than it is to treat. Why take the chance when Anti-E's are cheap and widely available.

[Alpha-Male]

OK, genius, show me the proof that nolva hinders gains...In fact, give me any scientific reasoning for that. How will he know if he is prone to gyno at a new dosage. I guess you believe a pound of cure is worth more than an ounce of prevention. Further lets talk about lipid profiles. Why let your body run at bad HDL/LDL rates when you do not have to. I am so sick of these guys that say Nolva hinders gains. Tells me they don't do alot of research and they listin to gym rats. At worst, nolva will lower your igf levels of the liver, but not enough to affect any gains seriously.

well guy, apparently letro can actually raise igf-1 levels, and is proven, yes i said proven, to be much more effective at preventing sides like gyno...in fact, show me something that says nolva helps lipid profiles...regardless, there are other meds you can take if you have a big enough problem there, which i doubt, especially if your diet's in check...

[toolman]

well guy, apparently letro can actually raise igf-1 levels, and is proven, yes i said proven, to be much more effective at preventing sides like gyno...in fact, show me something that says nolva helps lipid profiles...regardless, there are other meds you can take if you have a big enough problem there, which i doubt, especially if your diet's in check...

Now I know why you are giving the bad advice...you obviously know nothing about Nolvadex . Further the letro you are recommending only will hurt your cholestrol.I just noticed you have been around a month here so some time and reading will do you well. Your opinion will change the same way mine did when I met someone who knew more about it.

There are countless articles on Nolvadex and it's effect on lipid profiles. GO to any of the medical trial sites, etc. and you will find them. Also, search it in here and you will see many good posts. One of the more learned guys in here, Bask8case, made an excellent post some time ago explaining the best anti-e's to use and in what combination. You can find it in the below thread

http://67.18.108.244//showthread.php...+lipid+profile

Note how this well learned man is responding to a statement as incorrect as yours, but from another gym rat...Somone keeps posting how letrozole is the strongest and doesnt negatively affect cholesterol. This is not true. Letrozole is NOT the strongest and it DOES affect cholesterol/lipid profile negatively.

I said it before and you agreed by editing your post. Nolva is not proven to affect your gains. Further, Nolva does many other things that are very positive on cycle. You are acting like my 13 yr old daughter who insists she is right when she is obviously wrong.

[Alpha-Male]

God you ****in idiot, did you even read that thread? it's advocating Aromasin over everything else, including Tamoxifen ...and just cuz i've only been on this board a little while, doesnt mean i'm a newbie old man...i've frequented many boards over the past several years, and i've been using a little over ten...why havent you posted anything to back your claims? i've done the research, i know what the most effective anti-e is, and it isn't nolvadex ...dood, you can combat gyno with proviron , which has many other benefits when running test...and letro has been proven, listen to my words ****head, PROVEN to be more effective than tamoxifen...just google the two in scholar and you'll see what i'm talking about. do you realize how many other negative sides you get from the sauce besides some moderately funked lipid profiles? upon cessation, values are back to normal...like i said before, there are alternatives, and nolva isnt the best in my opinion...yeah, i edited my post, cuz i don't give bad advice and i made a bad word choice, I just like to let people know that there's more than one way to skin a cat...what this is, is some over the hill shit-talker who thinks he knows it all, and damn, i do feel sorry for your daughter...where are your studies????????????????

[Alpha-Male]

Effects of the Aromatase Inhibitor Letrozole on Normal Breast Epithelial Cell Proliferation and Metabolic Indices in Postmenopausal Women
A Pilot Study for Breast Cancer Prevention1
Catherine Harper-Wynne, Gillian Ross, Nigel Sacks, Janine Salter, Nazar Nasiri, Jhangir Iqbal, Roger A’Hern and Mitch Dowsett2
Academic Departments of Biochemistry [C. H-W., J. S., J. I., M. D.], Radiotherapy [G. R.], Surgery [N. S.], Histopathology [N. N.], and Statistics [R. A.], Royal Marsden Hospital, London SW3 6JJ, United Kingdom


Abstract
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Patients and Methods
Results
Discussion
References


The aromatase enzyme converts androgens to estrogens and is the therapeutic target for aromatase inhibitors in postmenopausal patients with estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. Third-generation inhibitors such as letrozole are being considered as potential prophylactic agents for breast cancer. The rationale for their preventive application would be aided by knowledge of their effects on the normal breast and on other estrogen-dependent processes such as bone and lipid metabolism. Thirty-two women without active breast disease were recruited to 3-month treatment with letrozole (2.5 mg/day). Core-cut biopsies from the breast and blood samples were collected before and at the end of treatment. Plasma estradiol levels were markedly suppressed in all but two patients, who were excluded from the efficacy assessment. There was no significant change in the proliferation marker Ki67 (mean change, -23%; 95% confidence interval, -50% to +23%) or estrogen receptor in breast epithelial cells with treatment. Similarly, there were no significant changes in plasma levels of insulin-like growth factor I or lipid profiles. However, there was a significant increase (25%) in the levels of the bone resorption marker C-telopeptide crosslinks (CTx). We conclude that any prophylactic effect of letrozole is not likely to be dependent on antiproliferative effects on normal breast. Studies in healthy patients will need to recognize the potential for enhanced bone resorption.

[Alpha-Male]

Safety issues surrounding the use of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer




Abstract text

Third generation aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are now established therapy in advanced oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer. As the use of AIs expands to include adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer and breast cancer prevention, tolerability and effects on other organs such as bone will become as important as the antitumour properties of the drugs. In direct comparisons with tamoxifen, AIs have a better toxicity profile with fewer patients stopping therapy because of drug-related side effects. There is a lower incidence of thromboembolic events and vaginal bleeding compared with tamoxifen . Although published information about the side effects of AIs is scarce, it is likely that they will have adverse effects on bone and possibly also on lipid metabolism. Subprotocols of ongoing adjuvant trials are investigating these effects. It is likely that the choice of which third generation AI to use will be largely determined by its tolerability and safety profile, since it is likely that the currently available drugs have similar efficacy

[toolman]

Well your one study is for post menopausal women and your other is breast cancer (which is not as common to men as it is women)so I am not sure how that will relate to men. Further, I am not concerned of Vaginal bleeding as mentioned in a negative side in your second post....as for you, like I said, you rant like a 13 year old daughter. Like I tell her..."You were wrong sweetheart....deal with it." Guys like you come and go...or stay around and learn. Rant and rave all you want. This all started with your incorrect post of Nolva is a proven gain alterer ( which noted that you have since edited after my bringing it to your attnetion of being wrong"and later your expression of ignorance doubting Nolva improves your lipid profiles. Clearly you are some young lad who nver does blood work on cycle or you would know better. Cut and paste all you want. Stick to your bad advice, as you are in the vast minority. My attack was not on other options of anti e...my point was your advice on Nolva was incorrect, unlearned and idiotic.

Now stop wasting our time with cutting and pasting google searches and posting studies that do not relate. Stick in the game and post from experience. Otherwise live in your own little world and Bask8cast, me and the vast majority are wrong

[Alpha-Male]

would love to see some pics of your punk ass...then that way, the bros could get a good glimpse of "what works best"...cut and paste, bro, i hate to tell ya, everything in that article you posted by bask8case was taken from somewhere else, and if you ever ventured outside this community, you'd find that opinions are highly varied on what's the best anti-e, etc to run during a cycle...i made one little comment that i quickly corrected, and what are you gonna say now, that women aren't humans? ****in moron, of course there arent any studies with men, cuz that's not what the medication was intended for...here's the bottom line, letro and adex are better, they just dont have a positivfe effect on lipid profiles...BIG ****IN DEAL...i still havent seen you post anything proving that lipid profiles fly that much outta whack when on, and especially if you're not Jay Cutler and you only running 500mg/wk of test with a little deca for 12 weeks...your levels arent gonna get that bad...and once and for all, Nolva does hinder igf-1 levels, letro/adex do not...so take that anyway you want...damn, your name is spot on, you are a ****in TOOL...

[toolman]

would love to see some pics of your punk ass...then that way, the bros could get a good glimpse of "what works best"...cut and paste, bro, i hate to tell ya, everything in that article you posted by bask8case was taken from somewhere else, and if you ever ventured outside this community, you'd find that opinions are highly varied on what's the best anti-e, etc to run during a cycle...i made one little comment that i quickly corrected, and what are you gonna say now, that women aren't humans? ****in moron, of course there arent any studies with men, cuz that's not what the medication was intended for...here's the bottom line, letro and adex are better, they just dont have a positivfe effect on lipid profiles...BIG ****IN DEAL...i still havent seen you post anything proving that lipid profiles fly that much outta whack when on, and especially if you're not Jay Cutler and you only running 500mg/wk of test with a little deca for 12 weeks...your levels arent gonna get that bad...and once and for all, Nolva does hinder igf-1 levels, letro/adex do not...so take that anyway you want...damn, your name is spot on, you are a ****in TOOL...

My pics are posted son, look for them. 245 lbs, you look like you barely weigh 160...but I shouldn't digress to your childish "I'm bigger than you". You are a young lad who is clueless. Im done responding to your moronic posts. You have edited your post and you stand corrected....move on!

[Alpha-Male]

dood, couldnt find your pics, maybe you can post a link, make it easy for me...sorry to disappoint you, i was 160 my freshman year in high school...currently 6'1" at your "supposed" weight...after a long layoff from RA and a herniated disc L5-S1, max was about 255 a couple years ago...that's the point old man, you're a ****in knowitall who's done nothing to back up his claims...God i hate you...

[toolman]

dood, couldnt find your pics, maybe you can post a link, make it easy for me...sorry to disappoint you, i was 160 my freshman year in high school...currently 6'1" at your "supposed" weight...after a long layoff from RA and a herniated disc L5-S1, max was about 255 a couple years ago...that's the point old man, you're a ****in knowitall who's done nothing to back up his claims...God i hate you...

"Do my research for me...find your posts for me...I hate you...." You sure your name isn't A Phemale instead of Alpha Male? You really do sound like a girl!!! Now your claim is that you weigh 220, but a month ago you weighed 245 when you signed up on here? Like I said before...another know nothing kid who is playing with his stats out in cyberspace. Now run along sweetheart and I may even take a photo for you tonight when I get home that is not 2 years ago or whenever you claim to be in the pink!

By the way...it is spelled "dude, not dood". The first time I thought you made a typo but seeing you repeat it... Must be some heck of a college you go to Einstein.

[Alpha-Male]

where do you see me claim i weigh 220? damn old man, your eyes going out on ya? and yes, i'm fully aware that it's spelled dude, i just happen to like spelling it that way...and you already used that "al phemale" dig in another post...saying things like "i hate you" are meant to be funny...yes, i'm studying Radiation Therapy at MD Anderson here in Houston at the Texas Med. Center so i'd say it is a pretty good school...i update my profile often, so you can see that as of a few days ago, i was at 245, which is where you claim you are at the moment...again, i havent hit 220 since my senior year in h.s. yeah, get your fag lover to take a good pic of you tonight and post it up for all to see...yeah, i doubt it...internet warrior, i'm here in Houston 24/7 you friggin' has been...bitch

i'm done, thought by now you could have at least settled with me accepting that i posted incorrectly, and admitting that it isn't proven to inhibit gains, but even in another post, Hook admits that it's proven to affect igf-1 and GH levels...so whatever, i thought you just might admit that there are alternatives available that may be better suited, but you're just a stubborn, old, tired-out, miserable jackass...

[toolman]

where do you see me claim i weigh 220? damn old man, your eyes going out on ya? and yes, i'm fully aware that it's spelled dude, i just happen to like spelling it that way...and you already used that "al phemale" dig in another post...saying things like "i hate you" are meant to be funny...yes, i'm studying Radiation Therapy at MD Anderson here in Houston at the Texas Med. Center so i'd say it is a pretty good school...i update my profile often, so you can see that as of a few days ago, i was at 245, which is where you claim you are at the moment...again, i havent hit 220 since my senior year in h.s. yeah, get your fag lover to take a good pic of you tonight and post it up for all to see...yeah, i doubt it...internet warrior, i'm here in Houston 24/7 you friggin' has been...bitch

i'm done, thought by now you could have at least settled with me accepting that i posted incorrectly, and admitting that it isn't proven to inhibit gains, but even in another post, Hook admits that it's proven to affect igf-1 and GH levels...so whatever, i thought you just might admit that there are alternatives available that may be better suited, but you're just a stubborn, old, tired-out, miserable jackass...

Love it...now you are referring to me as a fag?!? Thought that stuff was outgrown by 6th grade but you prove me wrong for once. I deduced you were stating to weigh 220 as I said earlier I did and your recent post said. I guess they don't teach communication during your radiation studies.

"Originally Posted by Alpha-Male
dood, couldnt find your pics, maybe you can post a link, make it easy for me...sorry to disappoint you, i was 160 my freshman year in high school...currently 6'1" at your "supposed" weight...after a long layoff from RA and a herniated disc L5-S1, max was about 255 a couple years ago...that's the point old man, you're a ****in knowitall who's done nothing to back up his claims...God i hate you..."

I never once said that there were not other options for anti-e's...I just said your statement about Nolva was incorrect. You agreed by editing and I would have left it at that, then you kept trying to challenge it again. You have been tested, you have been measured...and you have been found lacking.

Now let's be adults and make peace as this thread is getting out of hand.

[Alpha-Male]

this thread is long outta hand, and no, i didn't keep challenging anything, i merely added to the fact that even nolva is an inferior anti-e during a cycle, and i'm not the only guy here who believes that, don't wanna name drop, but the author of our profiles, see what he thinks...and yes, when some tool like you tells me he's gonna run home and take some pics, i immediately picture a fag, so if you're not gay, i apologize...but i think you need to come clean and be honest with yourself...you havent test or measured shit, jerkoff, just talked a whole mess of it...

[Alpha-Male]

[QUOTE=toolman]My pics are posted son, look for them. 245 lbsQUOTE]

here's where i thought you were claiming to be 245...shoulda know better...i didnt hear where you went to school, retard

[rager]

That was intersting guys... Both sides well done