10-13-2003, 01:18 PM #1Junior Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
Proviron vs. Nolvadex (hmm, this is interesting)
This is what somebody wrote to me on some other forum (sculpturedbyiron.com). Some of the things mentioned here (e.g. rebound effect/building tolerance to nolvadex ???) are kind of new to me… Please tell me if you agree.
Hey, bud, Nolvadex IS an anti-estrogen. See, there are basically two compounds in this category that people call anti-E's, there are Anti-Estrogens, like Nolvadex (Tamoxfien Citrate) and there are anti-aromatase's, like Proviron (Mesterolone). If anything, don't take Anti-Estrogens unless absolutely necessary. Anti-aromatases are better for more liberal, cycle-long use. So, if you were going with "one or the other", you'd want to use an anti-aromatase. Using an anti-estrogen when you aren't having estrogenic-based problems just sets you up for a rebound effect when you come off-cycle and builds a tolerance to the Alpha fatty receptors (where estrogen binds) and will make you more susceptible to estrogenic-based problems in the future.
Always have Nolvadex around, but don't plan to use it unless necessary. Same goes for Clomid, unless you're using it for post-cycle HPTA recovery, in which case, and this one has been in debate for years, I believe Nolvadex can be substituted for it.
Note that in your cycle, if run exactly as outline, you'd be on Clomid several weeks past the last administration of exogenous Testosterone, so you'd most likely not have to worry about excessive, unbound estrogen once you came off the Clomid. Still, I'd not run the Nolva throughout unless you already know you're prone to Estrogenic-based sides, and at 400mg/wk, you really shouldn't be.
10-13-2003, 01:27 PM #2Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
I agree! Anti aromatase are much better. Nolva binds to the estrogen receptor but once it's stopped the estrogen is then released... anti aromatase stops estrogen from even being made....
10-13-2003, 01:27 PM #3
interesting post, this has been one of my big lingering questions.
10-14-2003, 06:42 AM #4Junior Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
10-14-2003, 12:31 PM #5
Great post, very interesting info. I just learned something for sure. Bump
10-14-2003, 01:08 PM #6
It sounds logical, but I am not convinced scientifically.
I'm eager to read a careful, direct answer to this.
10-14-2003, 01:31 PM #7
I understand where you are coming from. Though, if one could know (for sure) when something is absolutely necessary, then this person is correct -- why would you take something that is not necessary? The trouble is in knowing for sure if it is indeed necessary.
I, personally, do not like to medicate when medication is not needed. I do understand using Nolvadex to keep any gyno from occurring, but not sure it needs to be taken prior to the fact - rather than the first initial sign (if any). Nolvadex does help with the bloat and such, so if it is being used for that, then it isn't medicating where medication is not needed.
I like the most direct path to my desired goal - least amount of medications as possible. This is different for each individual. For me, if I do not need something, I am not going to take it - we each have to make this determination for ourselves. This begins with careful study of the medications, and application to our own personal makeup and goals.
10-14-2003, 01:50 PM #8
Here's a little more elaboration on this matter by the original author of this. (Sorry D, if you were going to post this too - I just want to help keep this going for answers/opinions.)
Basically, if you run an anti-estrogen throughout your whole cycle, you aren't preventing the aromatization of andgrogens into estrogen, you're merely blocking that estrogen from binding to the estrogenic receptors in your body. Usually those are alpha fatty receptors (I believe, haven't look in some time, someone correct me if I'm off there). Well, what this does is just allow all the unbound estrogen to just "build up" in your system. Were you to come off test, etc. in week 8 or 12, or what-have-you, and stop all anti-estrogens at that time, you risk a pretty serious influx of estrogen to those receptors as there is now nothing there blocking it from binding (competing for the receptors, basically).
As far as a "tolerance" being built, if you constantly run anti-estrogens with every cycle, your body never has to "deal" with estrogen and it will become more sensitive to the effects of it. There are also anecdotal (word of mouth, not scientific) reports that excessive blocking of estrogen and/or DHT will hinder some of your gains from a cycle. I can't really confirm this in any research I've found, but the theory is relatively sound.
I hope that cleared it up a bit.
10-14-2003, 03:32 PM #9
bump ... any experts care to comment on this...
10-14-2003, 05:33 PM #10
Proviron is not an "anti-aromatase" . First all, I put that in paranthesis because I believe the word that was supposed to be used was aromatase inhibitor.
Proviron supposedly, still not really proved, has a higher affinity to the aromataze enzyme than testosterone does. By binding this, it prefents the enzyme in attacking estrogen. As you can imagine, very weak and not that effective.
Aromatase-inhibitors work on a cellular level. Nolva does bind to the ER, but its also a SERM. The ER does recognize it as an estrogen. Its not like its just blocked with nothing. In some places its agonistic, other antagonistic, hence the SERM name.
10-14-2003, 05:47 PM #11
You mentioned that Proviron is not an aromatase inhibitor (or as the other guy put it: anti-aromatase).
Could you please clarify that a little more...?
My understanding is that Proviron binds to the aromatase enzyme very strongly, and prevents testosterone from interacting with it and forming estrogen.
10-14-2003, 06:37 PM #12
It appears to be just a matter of semantics.
10-14-2003, 08:06 PM #13
Oops. I wrote that out wrong. I meant not really a true anti-aromatase, but technically, could be an aromatase-inhibitor, although not proven really so I woudlnt really classify it anyways. Proviron is very weak. Methyltest does the same thing btw. Call it if you want, but try to prove it and show me where its listed in a medical journal as an effective anti-aromatase and I shall stand corrected
Anti-aromatase isnt a means of action, but a class. Call it semantics if you want. There are big differences though in types. ********* vs non-********* and increase vs decrease in enzyme levels. Inhibitors vs inativators.
BTW, anti- is a Greek root meaning "opposite". Inhibit comes from Latin root meaning "restrain, or forbid"
Estrogen Receptor Inhibitor is what you could call Nolva if you wanted, but SERM kinda makes more sence.
10-15-2003, 02:41 PM #14Originally Posted by Billy_Bathgate
I studied Greek for 4 years at the college level...and knowing its common application to medicine...I have to say that the most common use of the term "anti" is "against" which is the same as "opposite" - indentical in this respect. (Side note: A defined term is not necessarily the same as its contextual meaning).
The reason I refer to semantics is that a subject can become so messed up in discussing words that the original question/answer/objective is lost. I am more concerned with what a person means by their words, than the words themselves. That is, I know what the person meant by anti-aromatase, so I can work with it. (It absolutely can be the same things as aromatase-inhibitor. To work against an enzyme is to inhibit it.) Surely there are differences in the terms, but not in the intended/applied meaning - i.e. the objective of the post). Afterall, it is helping to answer the question that is the objective. It helps the communication process quite a bit.
By the way, rather than post hundreds of instances stating that Priviron is an anti-aromatase, one can do a simple search on the terms "Proviron" along with "anti-aromatase" in their favorite search engine. The term is used profusely as it relates to Proviron.
BB, I know what you are saying...I just thought I'd inject my opinion too.
10-15-2003, 02:45 PM #15Originally Posted by SGFuryZ
You nailed it SGFuryZ!
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)