Originally Posted by
cvictorg
Clomid; the big lie!
Is this popular post-stack drug a bad idea ?
By Nelson Montana
There's no mistaking the fact that the bodybuilders of today dwarf those of just 20 years ago. Still, looking back even further at some of those great black and white photographs of old-timers like Arnold and Zane and Draper, we can clearly see that in spite of lacking the advantages of today' s young lions, they were still able to build serious size. Not only were they muscular, but they were also well developed with tiny waists and symmetrical lines. I have to laugh when some kid who weighs barely 165 pounds puts down the legends of the game simply because they weren't as big as Ronnie or Gunter or Markus. A favorite crit icism of Arnold is that his legs were weak. Granted, they might not have been up to par with his incredible upper body, and they didn't possess the size of today's top contenders, but Arnold would do full squats with over 400 pounds, and when he was in contest shape his thighs looked pretty damn awesome.
Beyond the solid strength and the non-bloated sinewy muscularity of the muscle stars of the '60s and '70s, there's another often-over looked trait. None of them had gyno. Think about it. You'd be hard pressed to find a picture taken before 1975 in which anyone showed signs of gynecomastia, yet nowadays it's as common as fake boobs on a Hollywood starlet. What is even more intriguing about this phenomenon is that back in the '60s and '70s no one used anti-estrogens. That's because they weren't yet invented. Today anti-estrogens are considered a must as prevention against estrogenic side effects for anyone who uses anabolic/androgenic steroids. Still time and time again you see bad cases of gyno. Why is that?
One reason is the ever increasing dosages of today's bodybuilders, and I'm not just referring to the top competitors. The casual gym goer with less than a year of training is turning to steroids in dosages that far exceed those of Sergio Oliva, Mike Mentzer, or any body builder prior to 1980. Apparently being as big as Sergio isn't enough. The joke is, these guys aren't even close to looking half as good as their iron ancestors. In a misguided effort to play safe and maintain their ill gotten gains, they either include an anti-estrogen along with their cycle or conclude it with a four I felt I was being responsible. The Clomid couldn't hurt, or so they said. There was just one little problem with this procedure. It seemed to negatively affect the recovery and return of libido, testicular size, sperm count, seminal volume and normal testosterone level. These effects made no sense. They went against all the conventional thinking. Maybe I was just a weird exception to the rule. One doctor suggested I might have some bizarre feedback loop that gave the drug its negative effects. Maybe I was crazy. Maybe not.
The simple truth of the matter is this: The thinking on Clomid is based on some very sketchy evidence which has been parroted endlessly among the bodybuilding com munity. In a way I'm at fault myself. A few years ago I co-wrote an article with steroid expert Brock Strasser that spread throughout the Internet. It was entitled "The Steroid Summit." In that piece I mentioned Clomid and the fact that I had noticed a definite decrease in ejaculate volume, indicating that Clornid wasn't doing what it was supposed to do. Brock replied, "Oh yeah, Clomid will definitely increase ejaculate," and he went on to say how male porn stars are using it to enhance their "bursts of drama," so to speak. We were tackling a lot of topics and I didn't want to dispute his contention so I let it go. At any rate, wouldn't you know . .. the rumor about porn stars and Clomid ran rampant. I started hearing it everywhere, even in places unassociated with bodybuilding.
I knew I couldn't be the only person experiencing negative effects from Clomid, so I did a survey, of over 100 bodybuilders I questioned, about one in four experienced in the use of steroids and aromatase blockers admitted that Clomid didn't have the effects they were hoping for. Many also claimed that Nolvadex, which has a very similar structure to Clomid but is more specific to the breast site, caused a loss in libido and a weak ejaculation. Even among those who felt it helped them, I heard complaints about "emotional distress" and "weepiness," both of which suggest an increase in estrogen. So how can anyone be sure Clomid is actually beneficial? Still the rumors persist.
Ages when doctors prescribed leeches to cure a disease. If the patient got sicker from the treatment, the solution was more leeches! Ridiculous? Of course. Some ideas never change.
Several major problems are associated with Clomid, as well as Nolvadex, or any other estrogen-blocker. These compounds are indiscriminate in how much estrogen they block. So what's bad about that? Well, the whole point of using an anti-estrogen is to protect against the spillover of estrogen that comes with the excessive use of androgens. If the body can't metabolize all that testosterone, it aromatizes into estrogens. The experts fail to address the fact that the amount of aromatization varies greatly from individual to individual. If the steroid dosages are moderate, there might not be any aroma tization of any consequence, and the anti estrogens may lower levels below what they were normally. Keep in mind the very im portant fact that a little estrogen in men is necessary for a healthy libido. (It's also necessary for other purposes such as bone density and skin tone, but I can't think of anything more important to most men than their penises.)
More recently some researchers have suggested that estrogen may play a role in the proliferation of androgen receptors. This theory may explain why some experienced steroid users claim they get decreased results when they add an anti-estrogen to their stack.
Scientists once thought anti-estrogens such as Clomid and Nolvadex decreased IGF-I, but no concrete evidence has validated this idea. Nevertheless, studies done on rats found that androgen receptor binding was dramat ically increased after the administration of estradiol, increasing the anabolic potency of the androgenic steroid. If nothing else, this result shows that estrogen is, on some level, directly or indirectly involved in the process of promoting muscle growth. There's also the added element of strength and size gains due to the water retention that estrogen inflicts. And just as a kicker, anti-estrogens may also increase sex hormone-binding globulin, which is the last thing you want when coming off a cycle.
The effects of Clomid may be even worse than other anti-estrogens since Clomid is a mild estrogen itself. The basic theory behind its use - which is sounding more and more stupid every day - is essentially that the Clomid will occupy the estrogen receptor sites, thus preventing the formation of more estrogen. Maybe. Just as likely, especially in cases where estrogen level is normal, the Clomid will simply add more estrogen. This effect may explain some people's apparent aversion to Clomid and its estrogen-like side effects. Incidentally, this is the same premise for the natural anti-estrogen DIM (di-indole methane), a substance found in cruciferous vegetables. DIM also works as a weak estro gen, occupying the receptor site and preventing stronger estrogens from binding. As with : Clomid, in some men it improves estrogen : profiles while in others it simply adds more : estrogen, exacerbating the problem of estrogen dominance. So at best its use, much like its counterpart Clomid, is a crap shoot.
Two alternatives to Clomid are far superior for the prevention of excess estrogen. One is mesterolone, better known as Proviron, which is an androgen that cannot aromatize. Proviron doesn't block estrogen but keeps it from bind ing and then removes it along with other waste products. Unfortunately Proviron is also suppressive, so you can't use it for too long after a cycle.
The other, more logical choice is the anti arornatase Arimidex which, instead of occupying the estrogen site or blocking its action, prevents excess testosterone from converting to estrogen in the first place. But Arimidex is far from benign. It's a very powerful drug that may suppress estrogen to a dangerously low level, resulting in bone loss, increased LDL, and greater risk of heart attack.
In regard to the use of natural alternatives toward maintaining estrogen, two substances have been proven outstanding in keeping estrogen within normal ranges. One is 5,7 dihydroxyflavone and the other is Calcium D-Glucarate. They both work like Proviron or Arimidex (yet more mildly, of course) in that they help remove excess estrogen without obliterating it entirely. Calcium D-Glucarate can be found in health-food stores, but it isn't available everywhere. Even harder to come by may be 5,7 -dihydroxyflavone, which is best absorbed along with bioperine. A search on the Internet for 5,7-dihydroxyflavone, Bioperine and Calcium D-Glucarate for postcycle purposes may yield a few options and would be well worth your time. Even if you don't use steroids, they can help lower estrogen, resulting in a leaner, harder physique. A common misconception exists that lower estrogen will lead to higher testosterone, but that isn't necessarily so. You can certainly have low estrogen and low testosterone, so one isn't always an indicator of
the other, yet this is the premise which many people follow. Curiously, although Clomid is the one compound regarded as beneficial in this area, very few studies have been conducted on the ability of Clomid to restore testicular fimction, mostly because Clomid wasn't designed for that purpose. The few studies that do exist are fraught with skewed information. The few studies that do exist are fraught with skewed information. For example, in one study the subject was over the age of 50-not the best indication of what is effective in a young athlete. In another widely quoted study the testing was performed on a chronically suppressed man who was attempting to regain normal function after five years of nonstop steroid use. After four months of Clomid treatment his natural testosterone doing so, we can draw conclusions. All too often, though, steroid gurus draw them incor rectly.
The following information is from an abstract on the use of Clomid among 14 men between the ages of 21 and 35.
In plain English this statement means that not everyone reacts to, Clomid treatment in the same way, and sperm levels must be abnormally suppressed for the drug to be of any benefit. Even in sit uations where that is the case, the side effect was lowered follicle-stimulating hormone, which controls the amount of luteinizing hormone., we release and in turn regulates how much testosterone we have. This is why so many bodybuilders claim to crash after coming off Clomid. Some antagonists to my theories claim the crash is due to a suppressed HPTA, But that is not true. I have personally used Clomid between cycles and experienced the same negative side effects.
If estrogen management were as easy as just taking a pill every day, no bodybuilders would ever get gyno. But they do. Many bodybuilders with a propensity for ***** tits simply have the lumps removed by surgery. Be that as it may, perhaps the biggest pro Clomid argument comes from men who've used it and never got gyno. There's no way of knowing, however, whether they would have gotten gyno without it. The reasoning, it seems, is more of a good luck claim than Science.
Clomid is also notorious for causing vision disturbances - a serious concern. It has fallen out of favor with many professional bodybuilding competitors. Since their livelihood depends on the effectiveness of such substances, we may infer that Clomid doesn't pan out as well as its reputation would suggest.
For safe, sane prevention of excess estrogen, rely on the old ****m "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." If you suffer from excess estrogen, that's a sure sign you either don't react well to steroids or you're simply taking too much.
Don't be reckless and then expect Clomid to save your ass. It may work, and it may not. At any rate, with safer alternatives available, it hardly seems worth the risk.
Reply With Quote
