Thread: Cycling in Europe vs. USA!
08-19-2005, 12:41 AM #1New Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
Cycling in Europe vs. USA!
Hi all. I'm from Switzerland (...yes, the small country with cheese, watches, chocolate,...and Bodybuilders)!
I have some questions about the way of cycling in US:
-Why do you daily take Nolvadex in a low-dosage Testosterone cycle? Estrogene conversation is responsible for IGF-1 production, which has some important anabolic effects during a cycle...
-Aren't there medicaments which work more effectivly as Nolva? Arimidex -for example- aborts conversation to estrogen....remember: Nolva just blocks the estrogen, which has already been converted from Testosterone!
- Why do you stack Vitamin B6? Is this a natural conversion blocker? We stack high dosages of zinc (up to 150mg/d) for this effect.
It seems that you generally take higher dosages...
Ok, I'm looking forward to your answers...
Greets from Switzerland
08-19-2005, 02:33 AM #2
08-19-2005, 02:41 AM #3
Thats an interesting post, can anyone help him?
08-19-2005, 02:53 AM #4Originally Posted by jesse_james
08-19-2005, 03:28 AM #5
Could you please translate that in English if you wouldnt mind. I would like to know the answers also. Thanks!
08-19-2005, 03:41 AM #6
I'm also interested in what you said. His very questions have come up before and I'm quite interested as to what you said regarding Heir Visitors questions.
(That statement reflects my own paltry use of conversational German to make our visitor feel welcome...lol)
Seriously though, what is your take on his questions?
08-19-2005, 06:38 AM #7Originally Posted by ***xxx***
08-19-2005, 06:39 AM #8AR's Salad Tossing Connoisseur
Originally Posted by 8-MAN
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
08-19-2005, 07:31 AM #9
Nolvadex is a SERM and not an anti-e so it doesn't decrease systemic estrodiol levels it just works to compete for certain estrogen receptor sites such as in breast tissue. It also helps with lipid levels which is very important for most BB's. I personally think that the role estrogen plays in muscle building (as opposed to fat building) is overstated. Here is a study that helps support that.
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. firstname.lastname@example.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.
PMID: 10902781 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
08-19-2005, 12:17 PM #10Originally Posted by ***xxx***
Lastly, just like us, everyone has different theories and therefore different cycle layouts.
08-19-2005, 01:44 PM #11
A low dose of nolva is run more for lipids support than for actual estrogen blocking. Should gyno or unwelcome bloat appear, the nolva dose is upped by at least a factor of 4. In the liver, nolva functions sort of as an estrogen. Estrogen in at least small amounts is needed to keep HDL up. That is why letro is used only as a last resort, because it stops almost all aromatization and the HDL/LDL ratio can deteriorate. Perhaps this effect is not so noticeable when running nolva along with the letro. Arimidex has the same effect as letro, though not as pronounced. At least this is what we believe over here, in light of current research and collective experience.
B6 is generally only used with progestin type drugs such as tren or deca . Supplementation with B6, when not concerned with progestin, is not necessary. 200mg/ED is generally considered the max safe dose for prolonged use. One often hears of users taking 100mg/ED as a preventative measure.
Some of us use higher doses, some don't. We generally regard 500mg test per week as a moderate dose, useful but not troublesome. Advanced users often go over 2000mg/week. There is logic behind that. The body can only produce just so much SHBG, and once that is saturated with test, the rest is free test. So there is definitely a bump beyond which one can see gains on a whole new level. I have never gone that high, but I know I will someday.
Yeah nice cheese, but I can't afford your watches. I actually prefer Belgian chocolates, but they probably stole their methods from you guys.
NO PMs for SOURCES!
NO PMs for questions that should be asked on the board!
NO "Thank You" PMs, please.
PMs are for personal or sensitive questions or information, or for stuff that is not allowed to be posted on the board.
Inappropriate PMs will not be read or acknowledged. Repeated reporters will be offended.
08-20-2005, 12:05 PM #12
yeah, limiting estrogen is a very wise idea as most side effects can be in some way attributed to it. Having no estrogen in the body is dangerous, but this would be very rare to occur and only with Armidex type drugs would it be possible I should think.
Zinc, esp ZMA (zince, magnesium, b6) seems to help me keep endogenous test levels high, it also seems to help my prostate. I would highly recommend it.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)