Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1
    Two4the$$ is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,717

    If estrogen actually helps build muscle...

    Why doesn't someone do a test with a NON aromatizing steroid , add some estrogen (birth control pills?) to the mix, and campare group results between the with and without columns. Then we'll know if estrogen is really a bulking aid.

    Secondly, why is it that women can take oral hormones, birth control, and they don't need to be 17AA? Why is there a bias to deactivate the male hormones in the liver and not the female?

  2. #2
    hemidog66's Avatar
    hemidog66 is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    367
    good question.MAybe hooker or swole could answer such a thing

  3. #3
    Rickson's Avatar
    Rickson is offline AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    5,165
    Because the sides men experience from estrogen wouldn't be worth any possible additional growth.

    It isn't biased to women you won't get pregnant if you take the pill either I promise.

  4. #4
    Two4the$$ is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,717
    Well, I hate to flame a Mod, but your answer defies logic. People here actually use aromatizing drugs because they make you bigger... and many believe that estrogen plays an important role in that. Thus, adding a small dose of estrogen to EQ could result in true bulking. it's possible. And even though I don't have a particular use for it yet, the knowledge would foster creative endeavors that may be interesting.

    And secondly, the bias I was referencing wasn't the effect on birth control, it was actually why women's body's don't deactivate their primary sex hormone, estrogen or progesterone doesn't have to be 17AA to avoid deactivation by the liver. Whereas male hormones do. Why?

  5. #5
    Nicky B's Avatar
    Nicky B is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    your fridge
    Posts
    1,617
    Well estrogen helps with strenght. Why do you think you get much stronger while dbol alot the estrogen water weight is the main reason.

  6. #6
    Two4the$$ is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,717
    Right, that's one element likely gained from Est., which basically means that while you're stronger, your body is getting signals (from increased workload) to make more muscle... or something like that. Maybe there are other effects too. This could be interesting.

  7. #7
    smiler is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,751
    yea ok. this is why all your girlfriends/ wifes are stonger than you right? mass estrogen. sorry to stongly dissagree but imo estrogen dosent help with any part of bb. i get rid of as much as i can....a-dex

  8. #8
    Nicky B's Avatar
    Nicky B is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    your fridge
    Posts
    1,617
    Quote Originally Posted by smiler
    yea ok. this is why all your girlfriends/ wifes are stonger than you right? mass estrogen. sorry to stongly dissagree but imo estrogen dosent help with any part of bb. i get rid of as much as i can....a-dex
    You forget the huge amounts of test you also have floating around thats why your gf would probably not be stronger then you. And the water weight from test is why you get a huge strenght increase and build muscle.

  9. #9
    smiler is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,751
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicky B
    You forget the huge amounts of test you also have floating around thats why your gf would probably not be stronger then you. And the water weight from test is why you get a huge strenght increase and build muscle.
    precisely. loads of test...very little estrogen =big muscles

  10. #10
    Logan13's Avatar
    Logan13 is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    6,864

    truman

    Quote Originally Posted by TrumanHW
    Why doesn't someone do a test with a NON aromatizing steroid , add some estrogen (birth control pills?) to the mix, and campare group results between the with and without columns. Then we'll know if estrogen is really a bulking aid.

    Secondly, why is it that women can take oral hormones, birth control, and they don't need to be 17AA? Why is there a bias to deactivate the male hormones in the liver and not the female?
    1) I agree with what has already been said, side effects out-weight any positives in relation to adding estrogen into the male body. Truman, you are always thinking, but don't make it too difficult.

    2) For the same reason that you can take some aspirin, although it is not a 17AA. The liver does not break down the working chemical structure.

    BTW, I have some info. for you.
    -Logan13

  11. #11
    Rickson's Avatar
    Rickson is offline AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    5,165
    I don't take what you are saying as a flame in any way. This has actually been tried in the past. There are some who argue that estrogen adds to mass but many feel it doesn't add much to lean muscle mass. There is also a difference between having a drug aromatize and actually taking outside drugs. There are several negatives that come with to much estrogen for the male including excessive bloating and increasing SHGB reducing AAS bioavailability. If you feel you want more estrogen then I recommend only using Nolvadex to keep a relatively high systemic rate of estrogen in the body with an aromatizing AAS. Here is a study showing the effects of the lack of estrogen on muscle mass.


    Estrogen suppression in males: metabolic effects.

    Mauras N, O'Brien KO, Klein KO, Hayes V.

    Nemours Research Programs at the Nemours Children's Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida 32207, USA. nmauras@nemours.org

    We have shown that testosterone (T) deficiency per se is associated with marked catabolic effects on protein, calcium metabolism, and body composition in men independent of changes in GH or insulin -like growth factor I production. It is not clear,,however, whether estrogens have a major role in whole body anabolism in males. 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 [(13)C]leucine and (42)Ca/(44)Ca, 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. There was a 58% increase in serum T (P = 0.0001), sex hormone-binding globulin did not change, whereas LH and FSH concentrations increased (P < 0.02, both). Serum bone markers, osteocalcin and bone alk****e phosphatase concentrations, and rates of bone calcium deposition and resorption did not change. In conclusion, these data suggest that in the male 1) estrogens do not contribute significantly to the changes in body composition and protein synthesis observed with changing androgen levels; 2) estrogen is a main regulator of the gonadal-pituitary feedback for the gonadotropin axis; and 3) this level of aromatase inhibition does not negatively impact either kinetically measured rates of bone calcium turnover or indirect markers of bone calcium turnover, at least in the short term. Further studies will provide valuable information on whether timed aromatase inhibition can be useful in increasing the height potential of pubertal boys with profound growth retardation without the confounding negative effects of gonadal androgen suppression.

    Publication Types:
    Clinical Trial

    PMID: 10902781 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

  12. #12
    hexadec's Avatar
    hexadec is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    105
    I think some birth control pills are alkylated.

  13. #13
    chris2wire is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    640
    Let me throw in...

    I think estrogen from any other source other than conversion is unhealthy and bad for a male. This is the exact reason that estrogen is solubized from synovex when it is converted. Actual estrogen is bad for the male body.

    Its the estrogen that comes out of testosterone aromatizing that is good and helps enormously with gains.

    This is all opinion, but it makes sense.

  14. #14
    powerlifter's Avatar
    powerlifter is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,651
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickson
    I don't take what you are saying as a flame in any way. This has actually been tried in the past. There are some who argue that estrogen adds to mass but many feel it doesn't add much to lean muscle mass. There is also a difference between having a drug aromatize and actually taking outside drugs. There are several negatives that come with to much estrogen for the male including excessive bloating and increasing SHGB reducing AAS bioavailability. If you feel you want more estrogen then I recommend only using Nolvadex to keep a relatively high systemic rate of estrogen in the body with an aromatizing AAS. Here is a study showing the effects of the lack of estrogen on muscle mass.


    Estrogen suppression in males: metabolic effects.

    Mauras N, O'Brien KO, Klein KO, Hayes V.

    Nemours Research Programs at the Nemours Children's Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida 32207, USA. nmauras@nemours.org

    We have shown that testosterone (T) deficiency per se is associated with marked catabolic effects on protein, calcium metabolism, and body composition in men independent of changes in GH or insulin -like growth factor I production. It is not clear,,however, whether estrogens have a major role in whole body anabolism in males. 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 [(13)C]leucine and (42)Ca/(44)Ca, 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. There was a 58% increase in serum T (P = 0.0001), sex hormone-binding globulin did not change, whereas LH and FSH concentrations increased (P < 0.02, both). Serum bone markers, osteocalcin and bone alk****e phosphatase concentrations, and rates of bone calcium deposition and resorption did not change. In conclusion, these data suggest that in the male 1) estrogens do not contribute significantly to the changes in body composition and protein synthesis observed with changing androgen levels; 2) estrogen is a main regulator of the gonadal-pituitary feedback for the gonadotropin axis; and 3) this level of aromatase inhibition does not negatively impact either kinetically measured rates of bone calcium turnover or indirect markers of bone calcium turnover, at least in the short term. Further studies will provide valuable information on whether timed aromatase inhibition can be useful in increasing the height potential of pubertal boys with profound growth retardation without the confounding negative effects of gonadal androgen suppression.

    Publication Types:
    Clinical Trial

    PMID: 10902781 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

    nice post Rickson - diplomatic response also

  15. #15
    hellapimpin's Avatar
    hellapimpin is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    SOuthern Cali
    Posts
    2,361
    hrmmm..this is definitly a topic of discussion on boards for a long time...always 2 sides... I don't know personally but i did want to add one more to my post count.thanx

  16. #16
    elite2kr is offline Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    694
    so why not have your mamory glands removed so you cant obtain gyno and then just not worry about anti e's?

  17. #17
    Two4the$$ is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,717
    Rickson ... I achieved what I set out to produce. :-) I got you to engage in the conversation. Generally, thats one of my motives for cross examining a unsubstantiated reponse, and I appreciate your input AND, as mentioned, your diplomacy. Kudos.

  18. #18
    dragon69 is offline Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    877
    back to the original question, I can answer this one.

    birth control pills DO degrade in the liver as does ANY hormone or drug. The difference is: chicks don't usually take 250-500mg estrogen twice a week as we do with shots of test. The estrogen/progesterone dosages are small, just enough to do the job.

    It's the supraphysial test dosages that make it degrade at that rate.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    Quote Originally Posted by TrumanHW
    Why doesn't someone do a test with a NON aromatizing steroid , add some estrogen (birth control pills?) to the mix, and campare group results between the with and without columns. Then we'll know if estrogen is really a bulking aid.

    That's been done with Cattle already. The researchers found that gains (total weight) improved with Estrogen added to a non-aromatizing androgen (Tren A), but that those steers gained alot more fat when compared to steers taking only the androgen without added estrogen.

  20. #20
    superstretch74 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    111
    me likey test, me no likey est

  21. #21
    Froggy's Avatar
    Froggy is offline Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    In the Fog with birddog
    Posts
    725
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    That's been done with Cattle already. The researchers found that gains (total weight) improved with Estrogen added to a non-aromatizing androgen (Tren A), but that those steers gained alot more fat when compared to steers taking only the androgen without added estrogen.
    Yep Yep...If you want to get BIG...& FAT...load up on the estrogen Bro...

    Hey, but the fat ones look better at closing time...

  22. #22
    Two4the$$ is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,717
    Hooker, again, you never cease to amaze me. I think many people missed the objective of my post... which was "understanding" the effects of estrogen. Not that I was in the process of mulling over taking birth control pills or some other form of estrogen to get big.

    Obviously there was enough merit in understanding the effects of estrogen on muscle building to budget studying it... so for those of you who did nothing but bash, open your minds. The point was to UNDERSTAND the effects, and once that is achieved, then come up with the application. This is how advancements occur.

    I wasn't under the impression that it would be outright good, but, I was interested in understanding why some people, authorities, believe estrogen aids in muscle building. This explains it, and as usual, it took a guy like Hooker and Rickson to recognize the plight and answer it without judgment...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •