Anti-E's, do they kill strength?

**Jray1der** · 02-08-2006, 02:11 PM

I was wondering about this and I really dont have the knowledge to answer it, but maybe you guys have some input about it. But does the use of any anti-e's hender some of your strength gains?

**cmax** · 02-08-2006, 04:57 PM

No, not in my experience. In fact, I have found that taking anti-e's alone have increased my strength gains. You have more free test in your system.

I was taking arimidex for 6 weeks to increase my natural test levels and it actually increased my strength gains and when I stopped taking arimidex I actually lost some strength.

**Jray1der** · 02-08-2006, 05:48 PM

anyone else with experiences?

**hosam4ever** · 02-08-2006, 05:56 PM

it may hender some weight & muscle gains but not strength

**Jray1der** · 02-08-2006, 06:01 PM

I've heard things in the past, stories if you will, about women who displayed natural feats of strength like, her child under a car and she raised the car off her child and other things as well. That one always seem to come to mind. If this is believed to be true, how can an estrogen rich body perform such a thing? And I know people will chime in and say it was probably a massive adrenal rush. But seriously, could that be just it? Dammit, I wish I would have paid more attention in biology. LOL

**Tren Bull** · 02-08-2006, 06:04 PM

they wont kill your strength, but it will slightly hinder your gains while on cycle, depending on how much anti e you are taking

**endpoint** · 02-08-2006, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by Jray1der

I've heard things in the past, stories if you will, about women who displayed natural feas of strength like, her child under a car and she raised the car off her child and other things as well. That one always seem to come to mind. If this is believed to be true, how can an estrogen rich body perform such a thing? And I know people will chime in and say it was probably a massive adrenal rush. But seriously, could that be just it? Dammit, I wish I would have paid more attention in biology. LOL

You have things in your muscles and tendons (golgi tendons and muscle spindles) which actually protect your joints, ligaments, muscles and tendons from contracting to hard or fast (to stop a tear or rupture in either of the 4 tissues). A muscle has a higher contracting ability that what we use everyday (even in the gym) amoung other things (like neuromuscular co-ordination etc) these safety devices stop massive contractions.
There is potential for massive strength in everyone...it has to have the right chain of events which switch off the safety devices (as well as trigger a greater contraction)

**O.M.E.G.A** · 02-08-2006, 06:22 PM

I think they do in excess

I know they can make joints dry

**smiler** · 02-08-2006, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by endpoint

You have things in your muscles and tendons (golgi tendons and muscle spindles) which actually protect your joints, ligaments, muscles and tendons from contracting to hard or fast (to stop a tear or rupture in either of the 4 tissues). A muscle has a higher contracting ability that what we use everyday (even in the gym) amoung other things (like neuromuscular co-ordination etc) these safety devices stop massive contractions.
There is potential for massive strength in everyone...it has to have the right chain of events which switch off the safety devices (as well as trigger a greater contraction)

huh???

**powerliftmike** · 02-08-2006, 06:44 PM

Nolvadex and Clomid can inhibit gains, but AIs can even increase gains (tho less bodyweight since less fat and water).

**Jray1der** · 02-08-2006, 06:46 PM

??? So you are saying this hasnt anything to do with chemical reaction within the body? Well, looks like I wasted a shitload of money on gear then if I had it in me all along. LOL!

Originally Posted by endpoint

You have things in your muscles and tendons (golgi tendons and muscle spindles) which actually protect your joints, ligaments, muscles and tendons from contracting to hard or fast (to stop a tear or rupture in either of the 4 tissues). A muscle has a higher contracting ability that what we use everyday (even in the gym) amoung other things (like neuromuscular co-ordination etc) these safety devices stop massive contractions.
There is potential for massive strength in everyone...it has to have the right chain of events which switch off the safety devices (as well as trigger a greater contraction)

**endpoint** · 02-09-2006, 01:07 AM

Originally Posted by Jray1der

??? So you are saying this hasnt anything to do with chemical reaction within the body? Well, looks like I wasted a shitload of money on gear then if I had it in me all along. LOL!

There are many chemical reations and actions that steroids help

BUT i was just trying to shed light on why extrodanary feats of strength can take place. Its not the only reason....but a basic one for this forum.

I have seen figures quoted (a long time ago...and i cant find them again) where a typical muscle only uses 10% of its possible strength. We all have much more in us. But i want it out now!!!!!!!!

smiler: huh? i was writing a response to many questions asked in this thread. what did you have a problem with? It is a laymens explanation and has many faults but i thought it was enough to help answer one of (not the main) questions

**stupidhippo** · 02-09-2006, 06:00 AM

while u clearly know sumin but I think your incorrect in some things.. u cant assume everything u read that its hard fact.. I havent seen a single case of this "superhuman" strength proven ever, I dont count somebody pretty small lifting pretty much as this.. while some people may be able to get a little more out of their muscles in some cases but giving a 10 % estimate doesnt make sense.. It might apply to a person who has never lifted at all or sumin.. 1 kg of pure muscle has a pretty amazing contracting ability, thats for sure but a lot of it is lost in the way.. Id like to see ur references on ur arguments..

**Jray1der** · 02-09-2006, 11:38 AM

this is getting interesting, please do continue. Anyone else find this interesting?

**endpoint** · 02-10-2006, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by stupidhippo

while u clearly know sumin but I think your incorrect in some things.. u cant assume everything u read that its hard fact.. I havent seen a single case of this "superhuman" strength proven ever, I dont count somebody pretty small lifting pretty much as this.. while some people may be able to get a little more out of their muscles in some cases but giving a 10 % estimate doesnt make sense.. It might apply to a person who has never lifted at all or sumin.. 1 kg of pure muscle has a pretty amazing contracting ability, thats for sure but a lot of it is lost in the way.. Id like to see ur references on ur arguments..

Pick up any exercise physiology text book, or anatomy text book and you find your answers. I believe as part of weight training you should be reading these things anyway.

Go to a powerlifting meet or a weightlifting meet and you will have your answers. You look at a lower class weightlifter. they have small builds and small amount of muscle mass. but the way they utilise the muscles and the co-ordination that they have allows them to lift massive amounts of weight for such a small muscle size. Look at the current world weightlifting rankings.
a 105kg lifter clean and jerks 227.5 kgs while a weightlifter in the 85kg class can clean and jerk 216kgs
Thats a 20kg difference in bodyweight but only an 11kg difference in strength.

I can tell you as a weightlifter myself i have not gain mass on my legs yet they manage to get stronger and stronger.

Ps there are 1000s of real stories about feats of strength....search a online news journal sometime.

Ps 10% was a rough figure....not an actual number

**stupidhippo** · 02-10-2006, 05:52 AM

those feats u r talking about arent in any way superhuman... IMO.. U made it sound like this 105 guy could then clean and jerk way over 1000 kg's if the protective mechanisms were all switched off.. I read a lot of physiology books in school and IMO u clearly know sumin but u are exaggerating a point and making conclusions that IMO acnt be made like that.. IMO u have the basics right but u cant draw such conclusions. that 10 % figure especially bothered me. I believe that most advanced weight lifgters are close to the maximum potential they can achieve already.. that 10 % figure IMO can only apply to untrained individuals. then the switching off of the protecting mechanism can only do so much.. U r right in a sense that there are some ppl with huge muscles and suprisingly lil power behind and the otherway around but all of this cant be attributed to golgi tendons and spindles etc..

**Jray1der** · 02-10-2006, 11:39 AM

If i was questioning the physical aspects of weightlifting, such as what you are trying to turn my thread into(an obvious Hi-Jack)then your points are then deemed relevant. My question is simply in the subject line. "Anti-E's, do they kill strength?" But your analysis seems to be well thought of but maybe slanted a bit due to your personal perception. But this subject could be helpful to gain an understanding of estrogen pros and cons.

Originally Posted by endpoint

Pick up any exercise physiology text book, or anatomy text book and you find your answers. I believe as part of weight training you should be reading these things anyway.

Go to a powerlifting meet or a weightlifting meet and you will have your answers. You look at a lower class weightlifter. they have small builds and small amount of muscle mass. but the way they utilise the muscles and the co-ordination that they have allows them to lift massive amounts of weight for such a small muscle size. Look at the current world weightlifting rankings.
a 105kg lifter clean and jerks 227.5 kgs while a weightlifter in the 85kg class can clean and jerk 216kgs
Thats a 20kg difference in bodyweight but only an 11kg difference in strength.

I can tell you as a weightlifter myself i have not gain mass on my legs yet they manage to get stronger and stronger.

Ps there are 1000s of real stories about feats of strength....search a online news journal sometime.

Ps 10% was a rough figure....not an actual number

**endpoint** · 02-11-2006, 01:45 AM

Jray1der: sorry for hijacking your thread. as i said i dont know the answer to your main question. Sorry again.

stupidhippo: I dont know how to answer your questions in a way in which you would understand (you have trouble grasping some basic concepts and seem to not under stand that 10% was not an exact figure). I am not going to post in this thread anymore.

no offence intended, but i think its time you move on.