am i correct

am i correct in thinking that nolvadex is better to use as an anti-e during a cycle for the following reason: nolvadex in an inhibitor which means it binds to receptor sites escpecially in the nipple area ,so that the estrogen can not bind; therefore, you still have the free flowing estrogen in your body which is nedded for some growth , but it can not cause problems because it can not bind, while a-dex or liquidex stops the conversion of estrogen ; therfore, the needed free flowing estrogen needed for growth is depleted or lessened, causing some loss in gains. i think a-dex is good to use during pct with nolva so that the rebound effect does not occur. what do guys think of the idea? thanks

that's why i usually only recommend arimidex to people who are gyno prone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisAdams

that's why i usually only recommend arimidex to people who are gyno prone.

---

i think your missing my point, nolvadex does not hinder gains during a cycle like a-dex or liquidex does for the reasons i have mentioned. what do you guys think about this ?

anyone offer info ?

I'm not missing the point at all. Arimidex is considered the more potent anti estrogen. That's why i feel its use should be limited to those who are very prone to estrogen related side effects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisAdams

I'm not missing the point at all. Arimidex is considered the more potent anti estrogen. That's why i feel its use should be limited to those who are very prone to estrogen related side effects.

---

Yup and Letrozole is king

There is a happy medium somewhere. When we're on cycle, our estrogen levels are crazy high. This is good....to a degree, but it also itself can hinder gains, as hypertension (increased bp) can lead to less than optimal oxygenation of muscles during a workout. The low doses of Adex we use (1/4mg/day) are usually enough (when used with nolva) to just stay out of reach of estrogen levels that can be counterproductive, yet still allow for supraphysiological levels of estrogen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by einstein1905

There is a happy medium somewhere. When we're on cycle, our estrogen levels are crazy high. This is good....to a degree, but it also itself can hinder gains, as hypertension (increased bp) can lead to less than optimal oxygenation of muscles during a workout. The low doses of Adex we use (1/4mg/day) are usually enough (when used with nolva) to just stay out of reach of estrogen levels that can be counterproductive, yet still allow for supraphysiological levels of estrogen.

---

Well spoken my man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by einstein1905

There is a happy medium somewhere. When we're on cycle, our estrogen levels are crazy high. This is good....to a degree, but it also itself can hinder gains, as hypertension (increased bp) can lead to less than optimal oxygenation of muscles during a workout. The low doses of Adex we use (1/4mg/day) are usually enough (when used with nolva) to just stay out of reach of estrogen levels that can be counterproductive, yet still allow for supraphysiological levels of estrogen.

---

as always... well said and on point.

einstein... i've read that both nolva and adex supress igf levels... which is more of a hinderance? :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monstercojones

as always... well said and on point.

einstein... i've read that both nolva and adex supress igf levels... which is more of a hinderance? :unsure:

---

The AIs, letro and arimidex, actually increase IGF-1 levels (although there is one isolated study that shows adex to lower IGF-1, and that is the one that's always referenced). Although there are mixed results on whether or not nolva lowers IGF-1, we'll just say that it does. I've seen up to a 25% increase in IGF-1 for the AIs and about the same % decrease in IGF-1 due to nolva, so it's a wash (if we conclude that nolva actually does lower IGF-1).
Now, more importantly, IMO, this is referring to hepatic IGF-1 (measured via serum) and not IGF-1 synthesized within muscle. This is going off on a tangent, but it's topical. It's been shown that IGF-1 expressed within muscle does not change serum IGF-1 levels, even when artificially overexpressed in high levels. This suggests that IGF-1 does not leave muscle efficiently, so one could conclude that it doesn't enter muscle efficiently either. So, when we supplement with IGF-1 and shoot IM, we can see some site-specific anabolic effects and a more generalized reduced bf, but there really isn't a huge increase in LBM overall. I'm not saying that IGF-1 doesn't leave the muscle, but I believe it doesn't leave the muscle very well (or enter it very easily). The ability to lower overall body bf may very well be indirect.

GH has the ability to not only increase hepatic (and therefore serum) IGF-1, it also binds to GH receptors on skeletal muscle and cause increased IM IGF-1 synthesis.

This is just one of the reasons that I think subQ IGF-1 injections aren't the most conducive to anabolism.

I think too much attention is paid to hepatic IGF-1 with regards to LBM gains....I don't think it's that important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by njk

am i correct in thinking that nolvadex is better to use as an anti-e during a cycle for the following reason: nolvadex in an inhibitor which means it binds to receptor sites escpecially in the nipple area ,so that the estrogen can not bind; therefore, you still have the free flowing estrogen in your body which is nedded for some growth , but it can not cause problems because it can not bind, while a-dex or liquidex stops the conversion of estrogen ; therfore, the needed free flowing estrogen needed for growth is depleted or lessened, causing some loss in gains. i think a-dex is good to use during pct with nolva so that the rebound effect does not occur. what do guys think of the idea? thanks

---

SEEMS ON TRACK TO ME BRO. :)