Results 1 to 11 of 11
Thread: am i correct
-
06-10-2004, 11:38 AM #1Associate Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Posts
- 474
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
-
06-10-2004, 11:39 AM #2
that's why i usually only recommend arimidex to people who are gyno prone.
-
06-10-2004, 11:44 AM #3Associate Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Posts
- 474
Originally Posted by chrisAdams
-
06-10-2004, 11:51 AM #4Associate Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Posts
- 474
anyone offer info ?
-
06-10-2004, 12:07 PM #5
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.
-
06-10-2004, 12:09 PM #6Member
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Location
- not too far from you
- Posts
- 504
Originally Posted by chrisAdams
-
06-10-2004, 12:53 PM #7
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.
-
06-10-2004, 02:39 PM #8Originally Posted by einstein1905
Well spoken my man
-
06-10-2004, 03:21 PM #9Originally Posted by einstein1905
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?
-
06-10-2004, 03:35 PM #10Originally Posted by monstercojones
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.
-
06-10-2004, 04:31 PM #11Originally Posted by njk
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Zebol 50 - deca?
12-10-2024, 07:18 PM in ANABOLIC STEROIDS - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS