PCT question - Noldva instead?

[amadeus]

Have access to cheap Nolva and **** expensive Clomid. Is it still posible to use Nolva instead? I know that the mechanisms of these are quite different but still saw some advice on the possibilities of using nolva for the PCT.

[TheMudMan]

it takes a lot longer to recover your HPTA functions while just using Nolva........ Run the clomid and nolvadex together.

[48ngoin]

I've read the same thing, but what was not mentioned was running both together....the study is Nolvadex vs Clomid in HPTA function and recovery. I'm running both...Your endocrine system is worth the few extra bucks.

As usual, MudMan is correct.

[TheSevnthWarrior]

Back in the day, we didn't have Clomid, PCT sucked...more than usual.
I would never run PCT w/o Nolva, but these guys that say Nolva alone is as good or better than Clomid alone, are just Flat Wrong, and I'm being nice about it!
Clomid/Nolva/Tribulus
TSW

[Sorken]

Didn't know Nolva could help the HPTA recovery..

[einstein1905]

Didn't know Nolva could help the HPTA recovery..

LLewelyn wrote an article that claims nolva to be better than clomid, but he only selectively cites 3 papers which support his point, and they're all from circa 1979. He ignores anything recent or contradictory. So now many people have seen that and are confused.
Current school of thought is clomid + nolva as most have mentioned.

[Froggy]

I agree with The7thWarrior; For PCT, Nolvadex is not a replacement for clomid, but can be used along with it.

[Gearhead007]

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

[Billy_Bathgate]

You can recover with Nolva fine. It just takes a bit longer. Ive done it about every way there is. For nolva alone, I would use 60mg for 2 wks, 40mg for 4.

I prefer clomid over nolva, and prefer both over either.

[realgains]

When will the clomid is better than Nolva myth ever die!

They are both serms and do exactly the same thing only nolva is clearly the more powerful of the two at blocking estrogen at the breast AND at the hypothalamus at any given dose.

IT DOESN'T MATTER bro's and thats the plain truth.....

I know MANY MANY vets that actually prefer nolva because it is cheaper and doesn't seem to cause as many mood swings and acne.

I have used them both but now use mainly nolva.....frankly I can tell no diff.

The real key here is not clomid over nolva or nolva over clomid but rather if you are preventing testicular atrophy during a cycle with hcg ....or at least reversing it with hcg before starting clomid or nolva......this should be your concern and not fighting over two drugs that do the same thing well.

RG

[einstein1905]

When will the clomid is better than Nolva myth ever die!

They are both serms and do exactly the same thing only nolva is clearly the more powerful of the two at blocking estrogen at the breast AND at the hypothalamus at any given dose.

IT DOESN'T MATTER bro's and thats the plain truth.....

I know MANY MANY vets that actually prefer nolva because it is cheaper and doesn't seem to cause as many mood swings and acne.

I have used them both but now use mainly nolva.....frankly I can tell no diff.

The real key here is not clomid over nolva or nolva over clomid but rather if you are preventing testicular atrophy during a cycle with hcg ....or at least reversing it with hcg before starting clomid or nolva......this should be your concern and not fighting over two drugs that do the same thing well.

RG

To say nolva and clomid do the same thing because they're both SERMs is like saying Deca and test do the same thing because they both bind the AR. Their primary effects are similar...that's it. Just like femara vs arimidex ...their primary roles as AIs are similar, although one is clearly stronger. Their secondary effects are not identical. I use both nolva and clomid, so I'm not arguing one vs the other, but they are not one in the same.

[realgains]

To say nolva and clomid do the same thing because they're both SERMs is like saying Deca and test do the same thing because they both bind the AR. Their primary effects are similar...that's it. Just like femara vs arimidex...their primary roles as AIs are similar, although one is clearly stronger. Their secondary effects are not identical. I use both nolva and clomid, so I'm not arguing one vs the other, but they are not one in the same.

Did I say that they were the same bro?

I said that they are both SERMS and do the same thing at the hypothalamus and breast.


Read this abstract by good bro BigCat........

Pharmaceutical Name: Clomiphene (as citrate)
Molecular weight of base: 405.9663
Molecular weight of ester: 192.125 (citric acid, 6 carbons)

Pharmaceutical Name: Tamoxifen (as citrate)
Molecular weight of base: 371.5212
Molecular weight of ester: 192.125 (citric acid, 6 carbons)


Characteristics:

While practically similar compounds in structure, few people ever really consider Clomid and Nolva to be similar. Its not just a common myth in steroid circles, but even in the medical community. This misconception originates from their completely different uses. Nolvadex is most commonly used for the treatment of breast cancer in women, while clomid is generally considered a fertility aid. In bodybuilding circles, from day one, clomid has generally been used as post-cycle therapy and Nolvadex as an anti-estrogen.

But as I intend to demonstrate this is in essence the same. I believe the myth to have originated because Nolva is clearly a more powerful anti-estrogen, and the people selling clomid needed another angle to sell the stuff, so it was mostly used as a post-cycle aid. But few users really understand how clomid (and also Nolvadex, logically) works to bring back natural testosterone in the body after the conclusion of a cycle of androgenic anabolic steroids . After a cycle is over, the level of androgens in the body drop drastically. The body compensates with an overproduction of estrogen to keep steroid levels up. Estrogen as well inhibits the production of natural testosterone, and in the period between the return of natural testosterone and the end of a cycle, a lot of mass is lost. So its in everybody's best interest to bring back natural test as soon as humanly possible. Clomid and Nolvadex will reduce the post-cycle estrogen, so that a steroid deficiency is constated and the hypothalamus is stimulated to regenerate natural testosterone production in the body. That's basically how the mechanism works, nothing more, nothing less.

Both compounds are structurally alike, classified as triphenylethylenes. Nolvadex is clearly the stronger component of the two as it can achieve better results in decreasing overall estrogen with 20-40 mg a day, than clomid can in doses of 100-150 mg a day. A noteworthy difference. Triphenylethylenes are very mild estrogens that do not exert a lot, if any activity at the estrogen receptor, but are still highly attracted to it. As such they will occupy the receptor and keep it from binding estrogens. This means they do not actively work to reduce estrogen in the body like Proviron , Viratase or arimidex would (by competing for the aromatase enzyme), but that it blocks the receptor so that any estrogen in the body is basically inert, because it has no receptor to bind to.

This has advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantage is that when use is discontinued, the estrogen level is still the same and new problems will develop much sooner. The advantage is that it works much faster and has results sooner than with an aromatase blocker like Proviron or arimidex. Therefor, when problems such as gynocomastia occur during a cycle of steroids one will usually start 20 mg/day of Nolva or 100 mg/day of clomid straight away, in conjunction with some Proviron or arimidex. The proviron or arimidex will actively reduce estrogen while the clomid or Nolvadex will solve your ongoing problem straight away. This way, when use is discontinued there is no immediate rebound.

So which one should you use? Well personally, I'd have to say Nolvadex. Both as an on-cycle anti-estrogen and a post-cycle therapy. As an anti-estrogen its simply much stronger, demonstrated by the fact that better results are obtained with 20-40 mg than with 100-150 mg of clomid. For post-cycle, this plays a key role as well. It deactivates rebound estrogen much faster and more effective. But most importantly, Nolvadex has a direct influence on bringing back natural testosterone, where as clomid may actually have a slight negative influence. The reason being that Tamoxifen (as in Nolvadex) seems to increase the responsiveness of LH (luteinizing hormone) to GnRH (gonadtropin releasing hormone), whereas clomid seems to decrease the responsiveness a bit1.

Another noteworthy fact about Nolvadex is that it acts more potently as an estrogen in the liver. As you remember, I mentioned that clomiphene and tamoxifen are basically weak estrogens. Well, tamoxifen is apparently still quite potent in the liver. This offers us the positive benefits of this hormone in the liver, while avoiding its negative effects elsewhere in the body. As such Nolvadex can have a very positive impact on negative cholesterol levels2 in the body, and therefore too should be considered a better choice than clomid. It will not solve the problem of bad cholesterol levels during Steroid use , but will help to contain the problem to a larger degree.

Another reason why I promote the use of Nolvadex over Clomid post-cycle (as if being 3-4 times stronger and having more of a direct effect on restoring natural test wasn't enough) is because it's a lot safer. Not just because it improves lipid profiles, but also because it simply doesn't have the intrinsic side-effects that Clomid has. Clomid causes more acne for sure, but that's mainly because you need to use a 3-4 times higher dose. But Clomid seems to also affect the eyesight. Long-term clomid therapy causes irreversible changes in eyesight3 in users. Irreversible. For me that alone is reason enough to prefer Nolvadex.

Lastly, one should be aware that use of these compounds can reduce the gains made on steroids. Nolvadex more so than clomid, simply because it is stronger. Estrogen is responsible for a number of anabolic factors such as increasing growth hormone output, upgrading the androgen receptor and improving glucose utilization. This is why aromatizing steroids like testosterone are still best suited for maximum muscle gain. When reducing the estrogen levels, we therefore reduce the potential gains being made. For this reason one may opt to try clomid during a cycle instead of Nolvadex. Although I would imagine that the problem that needed solved would be of more concern, in which case Nolva remains the weapon of choice. It's a plain fact that there is a high correlation between gains and side-effects. Either you go for maximum gains and tolerate the side-effects, or you reduce the side-effects, and with it the gains. That's life, nothing is free.


For the money and per mg the clear winner is Nolva but as I said before it really doesn't matter which one you use....just use them.


Many of you know SWALE....he is a very good bro and a doctor that treats and works with steroid users...he prefers Nolva as the "emotional" sides(mood swings in SOME men) seems to be more pronounced with clomid.
www.allthingsmale.com



RG

[Pheedno]

Clomid is the superior SERM at stimulating LH as it's selective to the suprapituitary. Nolva is selective to bone, liver, and breast.
In every study I've seen showing Nolvas effect on HPTA as a benefit, the duration has been 3-12 months of administration, which is not applicable to our PCT needs. Studies I've seen with shorter durations of administration, nolvas effect was insignificant to LH stimulation, or an actuall decrease was seen. Clomid on the other hand, has a much faster reaction

Another thing of concern is that since higher doses and longer durations of Nolva are needed, you run into the possiblity of dramatic igf decreases. This has not been shown with clomid to my knowledge

[realgains]

Here is a good post by Bill Llewllyn Author of Anabolics 200 through 2004

Note that in the study he refers to that both clomid and nolva raise T in normal mlaes to the same level but nolva does it with a snaller dose.

Also note that over time CLOMID actually desensitizes the pituitary to GnRH while nolva does the opposite to some degree.

The complete abstract can be found at PubMed


NOTE: The dose of clomid used in this study MAY be a toxic dose (150mg) so that may be why clomid caused a slight desensitization of the pituitary to GnRH.....the again maybe it isn't a toxic dose and clomid actually DOES have this effect over time.





Introduction


I have received a lot of heat lately about my preference for Nolvadex over Clomid, which I hold for all purposes of use (in the bodybuilding world anyway); as an anti-estrogen, an HDL (good) cholesterol-supporting drug, and as a testosterone -stimulating compound. Most people use Nolvadex to combat gynecomastia over Clomid anyway, so that is an easy sell. And for cholesterol, well, most bodybuilders unfortunately pay little attention to this important issue, so by way of disinterest, another easy opinion to discuss. But when it comes to using Nolvadex for increasing endogenous testosterone release, bodybuilders just do not want to hear it. They only seem to want Clomid. I can only guess that this is based on a long rooted misunderstanding of the actions of the two drugs. In this article I would therefore like to discuss the specifics for these two agents, and explain clearly the usefulness of Nolvadex for the specific purpose of increasing testosterone production.



Clomid and Nolvadex


I am not sure how Clomid and Nolvadex became so separated in the minds of bodybuilders. They certainly should not be. Clomid and Nolvadex are both anti-estrogens belonging to the same group of triphenylethylene compounds. They are structurally related and specifically classified as selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) with mixed agonistic and antagonistic properties. This means that in certain tissues they can block the effects of estrogen, by altering the binding capacity of the receptor, while in others they can act as actual estrogens, activating the receptor. In men, both of these drugs act as anti-estrogens in their capacity to oppose the negative feedback of estrogens on the hypothalamus and stimulate the heightened release of GnRH (Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone). LH output by the pituitary will be increased as a result, which in turn can increase the level of testosterone by the testes. Both drugs do this, but for some reason bodybuilders persist in thinking that Clomid is the only drug good at stimulating testosterone. What you will find with a little investigation however is that not only is Nolvadex useful for the same purpose, it should actually be the preferred agent of the two.

Studies conducted in the late 1970's at the University of Ghent in Belgium make clear the advantages of using Nolvadex instead of Clomid for increasing testosterone levels (1). Here, researchers looked the effects of Nolvadex and Clomid on the endocrine profiles of normal men, as well as those suffering from low sperm counts (oligospermia). For our purposes, the results of these drugs on hormonally normal men are obviously the most relevant. What was found, just in the early parts of the study, was quite enlightening. Nolvadex, used for 10 days at a dosage of 20mg daily, increased serum testosterone levels to 142% of baseline, which was on par with the effect of 150mg of Clomid daily for the same duration (the testosterone increase was slightly, but not significantly, better for Clomid). We must remember though that this is the effect of three 50mg tablets of Clomid. With the price of both a 50mg Clomid and 20mg Nolvadex typically very similar, we are already seeing a cost vs. results discrepancy forming that strongly favors the Nolvadex side.



Pituitary Sensitivity to GnRH


But something more interesting is happening. Researchers were also conducting GnRH stimulation tests before and after various points of treatment with Nolvadex and Clomid, and the two drugs had markedly different results. These tests involved infusing patients with 100mcg of GnRH and measuring the output of pituitary LH in response. The focus of this test is to see how sensitive the pituitary is to Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone. The more sensitive the pituitary, the more LH will be released. The tests showed that after ten days of treatment with Nolvadex, pituitary sensitivity to GnRH increased slightly compared to pre-treated values. This is contrast to 10 days of treatment with 150mg Clomid, which was shown to consistently DECREASE pituitary sensitivity to GnRH (more LH was released before treatment). As the study with Nolvadex progresses to 6 weeks, pituitary sensitivity to GnRH was significantly higher than pre-treated or 10-day levels. At this point the same 20mg dosage was also raising testosterone and LH levels to an average of 183% and 172% of base values, respectively, which again is measurably higher than what was noted 10 days into therapy. Within 10 days of treatment Clomid is already exerting an effect that is causing the pituitary to become slightly desensitized to GnRH, while prolonged use of Nolvadex serves only to increase pituitary sensitivity to this hormone. That is not to say Clomid won't increase testosterone if taken for the same 6 week time period. Quite the opposite is true. But we are, however, noticing an advantage in Nolvadex.



The Estrogen Clomid


The above discrepancies are likely explained by differences in the estrogenic nature of the two compounds. The researchers' clearly support this theory when commenting in their paper, "The difference in response might be attributable to the weak intrinsic estrogenic effect of Clomid, which in this study manifested itself by an increase in transcortin and testosterone/estradiol-binding globulin [SHBG] levels; this increase was not observed after tamoxifen treatment". In reviewing other theories later in the paper, such as interference by increased androgen or estrogen levels, they persist in noting that increases in these hormones were similar with both drug treatments, and state that," …a role of the intrinsic estrogenic activity of Clomid which is practically absent in Tamoxifen seems the most probable explanation".

Although these two are related anti-estrogens, they appear to act very differently at different sites of action. Nolvadex seems to be strongly anti-estrogenic at both the hypothalamus and pituitary, which is in contrast to Clomid, which although a strong anti-estrogen at the hypothalamus, seems to exhibit weak estrogenic activity at the pituitary. To find further support for this we can look at an in-vitro animal study published in the American Journal of Physiology in February 1981 (2). This paper looks at the effects of Clomid and Nolvadex on the GnRH stimulated release of LH from cultured rat pituitary cells. In this paper, it was noted that incubating cells with Clomid had a direct estrogenic effect on cultured pituitary cell sensitivity, exerting a weaker but still significant effect compared to estradiol. Nolvadex on the other hand did not have any significant effect on LH response. Furthermore it mildly blocked the effects of estrogen when both were incubated in the same culture.



Conclusion


To summarize the above research succinctly, Nolvadex is the more purely anti-estrogenic of the two drugs, at least where the HPTA (Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Testicular Axis) is concerned. This fact enables Nolvadex to offer the male bodybuilder certain advantages over Clomid. This is especially true at times when we are looking to restore a balanced HPTA, and would not want to desensitize the pituitary to GnRH. This could perhaps slow recovery to some extent, as the pituitary would require higher amounts of hypothalamic GnRH in the presence of Clomid in order to get the same level of LH stimulation.

Nolvadex also seems preferred from long-term use, for those who find anti-estrogens effective enough at raising testosterone levels to warrant using as anabolics. Here Nolvadex would seem to provide a better and more stable increase in testosterone levels, and likely will offer a similar or greater effect than Clomid for considerably less money. The potential rise in SHBG levels with Clomid, supported by other research (3), is also cause for concern, as this might work to allow for comparably less free active testosterone compared to Nolvadex as well. Ultimately both drugs are effective anti-estrogens for the prevention of gyno and elevation of endogenous testosterone, however the above research provides enough evidence for me to choose Nolvadex every time.

In next month's follow-up article I will be discussing the role anti-estrogens play in post-cycle testosterone recovery. Most specifically, I will be detailing what a proper post-cycle ancillary drug program looks like, and explain why anti-estrogens alone are not effective during this window of time.


References:

1. Hormonal effects of an antiestrogen, tamoxifen, in normal and oligospermic men. Vermeulen, Comhaire. Fertil and Steril 29 (1978) 320-7

2. Disparate effect of clomiphene and tamoxifen on pituitary gonadotropin release in vitro. Adashi EY, Hsueh AJ, Bambino TH, Yen SS. Am J Physiol 1981 Feb;240(2):E125-30

3. The effect of clomiphene citrate on sex hormone binding globulin in normospermic and oligozoospermic men. Adamopoulos, Kapolla et al. Int J Androl 4 (1981) 639-45

Nolvadex also seems preferred from long-term use, for those who find anti-estrogens effective enough at raising testosterone levels to warrant using as anabolics Nolvadex also seems preferred from long-term use, for those who find anti-estrogens effective enough at raising testosterone levels to warrant using as anabolics

[Pheedno]

Yeah, I've seen Bill's article, but do not agree to full extent.

Instead of posting all the studies, I'll just post a link to the conversation I had with a couple of others. You will find the full length studies that Bill used posted in this thread, after some studies I posted which are more applicable to PCT considering time frame of administration. As you read, pay attention to the duration of administration in the pro-tamox studies

http://www.MassMonsterz.com/forum/sh...threadid=24603

[realgains]

Good read but I don't see anything that really puts clomid above Nolva...seems like they both work well to me.

RG

[Pheedno]

Good read but I don't see anything that really puts clomid above Nolva...seems like they both work well to me.

RG

Thats why I use both

With the addition of L-dex so Nolva can be primarily concentrated to LH stimulation instead of ER binding in the breast tissue

[realgains]

Thats why I use both

With the addition of L-dex so Nolva can be primarily concentrated to LH stimulation instead of ER binding in the breast tissue

IMHO the very worst side of androgen use is the terrible effect they have on hdl. Curently I am trying POLICOSANOL daily while "on" to see it if helps prevent the hammering down of my hdl. Niacin at 2500mg per day really helps me get my hdl back on track while "off" but does nothing while "on".

Don't you think the addition of an estrogen inhibitor would hammer your lipid profile even more than it already is while "on" androgens bro....

Ah screw it...my hdl is already the ****s while "on" so whats another month or so with a poor hdl..... and maybe the adition of arimidex post cycle will help restore T quicker. Whats your clomid/nolva/dex formula bro?

BTW...I have used nolva and clomid while "on" and they had no effect on my hdl at all.

RG

[realgains]

bro.....I don't think any study should be downplayed because it happens to be "old"...like the now well known Llewllyn quote.

We have to see that in this study both nolva and clomid work to raise T.

One thing I can say against th study is that a high dose of clomid was taken (150mg) and that might be a toxic dose, but a normal dose of nolva was taken(20mg) so we have to figure that into the equation when we ponder clomids desensitization effect on the pituitary to GnRH.

To say that one SERM is much better than the other isn't accurate IMHO bro.

MY .02


RG

[Pheedno]

All studies are relevant, but the details such as duration are the bigger concern.

Niether is superior over the other in all aspects, but I believe each has a purpose for which it's best to be used

On the lipid issue...Nolva helped increase my HDL when I was running letrozole , which severely dropped it down into the teens. L-dex has never had an adverse effect on my lipids during or post cycle. This of course is greatly individualistic, but considering the first inibitence to HPTA recovery is estrogen, L-dex is a worthy addition for that aspect. AI's have also been shown to increase plasma testosterone and gonadotrophin concentrations.

[einstein1905]

Pheedno deserves every bit of respect he gets. I just read the discussion at mass monsterz, and I had a couple of the studies he posted already saved, but he has done some real digging to come up with so many more I had missed. I get sick of seeing the LLewelyn article referenced all the time as if it's some religious text (except factual). He cites 3 antiquated papers, which support his preformed argument, while overlooking a massive body of literature contrary to his argument or that is ambiguous at best. His paper is his opinion of the opinions of the authors based on the data of those looking to get published.....now we have people forming opinions based on his opinions..... Take an impartial look at the original data on which these conclusions were based and draw your own conclusions rather than relying on 3rd party information, where a conclusion is already handed to you.
The literature isn't unanimously in favor of one compound over the other, but based on the studies as a whole, clomid appears to be superior for our purposes........stimulating LH production is probably the best indicator to me. the time frames of dosing in the studies mentioned are also of importance, as Pheedno mentioned. Clomid again appears superior, when factoring in
dose + duration vs. desired effect.

In the end, I still use both plus Adex.

[realgains]

Pheedno deserves every bit of respect he gets. I just read the discussion at mass monsterz, and I had a couple of the studies he posted already saved, but he has done some real digging to come up with so many more I had missed. I get sick of seeing the LLewelyn article referenced all the time as if it's some religious text (except factual). He cites 3 antiquated papers, which support his preformed argument, while overlooking a massive body of literature contrary to his argument or that is ambiguous at best. His paper is his opinion of the opinions of the authors based on the data of those looking to get published.....now we have people forming opinions based on his opinions..... Take an impartial look at the original data on which these conclusions were based and draw your own conclusions rather than relying on 3rd party information, where a conclusion is already handed to you.
The literature isn't unanimously in favor of one compound over the other, but based on the studies as a whole, clomid appears to be superior for our purposes........stimulating LH production is probably the best indicator to me. the time frames of dosing in the studies mentioned are also of importance, as Pheedno mentioned. Clomid again appears superior, when factoring in
dose + duration vs. desired effect.

In the end, I still use both plus Adex.

Bro I never showed any disrespect for this good bro.

The studies he posted in that other threadare good but they do not prove that clomid is better than nolva IMHO.....they prove that clomid is good.

Both Serms work very well bro. I use nolva becuase it is cheaper per mg and less is needed IMHO.

RG

[Pheedno]

I don't think he was implying that you showed disrepect for towards me; but rather just a general statment, which I thank and hold in high regard.

Bill's article certainly has some points with validity. I just have a different opinion on the matter, and some of the things which he states are bad of clomid, I think occure because of its selective nature(such as the desensitization of the pituitary to GnRH, which has been refuted in another study)

This debate really never goes anywhere, as you will always be able to find one that contradicts the other(studies that is); but it's worthy to keep the mind fresh and guessing.

[einstein1905]

Bro I never showed any disrespect for this good bro.

The studies he posted in that other threadare good but they do not prove that clomid is better than nolva IMHO.....they prove that clomid is good.

Both Serms work very well bro. I use nolva becuase it is cheaper per mg and less is needed IMHO.

RG

Sorry, I wasn't implying that. I just meant that his conclusions are based on very thorough literature research as well as experience rather than 3rd party information (which I'm not saying you do either). Not to rehash the whole thing again, but for me it all comes down to efficiency. I want my test levels back as quickly as possible post cycle to maintain/maximize my gains. The combination of clomid, nolva, and an AI like Adex do this more efficiently than anything else I know of. Using HCG throughout a longer cycle can further increase the speed/efficiency of pct

[realgains]

Sorry, I wasn't implying that. I just meant that his conclusions are based on very thorough literature research as well as experience rather than 3rd party information (which I'm not saying you do either). Not to rehash the whole thing again, but for me it all comes down to efficiency. I want my test levels back as quickly as possible post cycle to maintain/maximize my gains. The combination of clomid, nolva, and an AI like Adex do this more efficiently than anything else I know of. Using HCG throughout a longer cycle can further increase the speed/efficiency of pct

Yes let us not forget that HCG use throughout a cycle to prevent testicular shrinkage, so that the testes can respond well to LH, is likely at least as importan,t and my opinion more important, than PCT post cycle(depending on cycle length).

RG