Nolva 19ors - good or bad?

[some1else]

So I would like a definite answer to this question..

Nolva with 19ors .. good, bad, or gives you gyno.


- So every thread I read there are 80% saying "dont use nolva gives you gyno.." and maybe 1% says "it wont cause gyno" .. the other %percentage.. idk, i made it up lol
Having said this, I have also read "19ors debunked" thread here forums.steroid(DOT)com/showthread.php?445217-Progesterone-and-prolactin-induced-gynecomastia#.UOOEWuiiZ2W , but with so many people saying "will give you gyno" , my question remains..


Will it give you gyno, will it not, or are there a gazillion people misinformed?

[kelkel]

I could be wrong but I believe most of the studies were done on women, which doesn't totally translate to men. I'd love to see a more definitive study myself if someone has one and can post it up please. Control your E though and you then don't have to worry about Nolva until pct!

[ecruz]

This is True^^^^

[some1else]

anyone else?

[Turkish Juicer]

You ought not to use Nolvadex during any cycle, it is a SERM, not an AI, meaning doesn't inhibit the production of excess estrogen but only blocks it from estrogen receptors.

When you are cycling 19-nors, you should use an AI, such as Arimidex or Aromasin, in order to inhibit the production of excess estrogen, so that you don't get estrogen related side effects, including gyno.

Nolvadex is a PCT agent after all.

[songdog]

I believe wat was said is if you get signs of Gyno while using a 19Nor.That Nova isnt effective you should use Caber or Prami.I believe Swifto has a good read on this.

[DanB]

may be of some relevance
http://forums.steroid.com/showthread...a#.UOSIfqxZiVp

[gixxerboy1]

You ought not to use Nolvadex during any cycle, it is a SERM, not an AI, meaning doesn't inhibit the production of excess estrogen but only blocks it from estrogen receptors.

When you are cycling 19-nors, you should use an AI, such as Arimidex or Aromasin, in order to inhibit the production of excess estrogen, so that you don't get estrogen related side effects, including gyno.

Nolvadex is a PCT agent after all.

i agree. Its not even an issue because there is no need to use it on your cycle

[clarky.]

Never had any probs with nolva after tren cycles i only use it for pct ai on cycle

[pjliftsalot]

I personally think the issue is highly overstated. Anything I ever read showed that initially after a slight upregulation in progesterone receptors after2-3 weeks nolva caused a down regulation in PRG receptor. Now I think an ai should be used to manage estrogen - but if you get gyno a serm is the way to go and I wouldnt hesitate to take it 19 nor or not. Id take it right alongside an ai.

[DanB]

I personally think the issue is highly overstated. Anything I ever read showed that initially after a slight upregulation in progesterone receptors after2-3 weeks nolva caused a down regulation in PRG receptor. Now I think an ai should be used to manage estrogen - but if you get gyno a serm is the way to go and I wouldnt hesitate to take it 19 nor or not. Id take it right alongside an ai.

I beleive Anthony Roberts is the culprit for overstating and clever play on words here a few years ago, the thread i linked above is aimed at dismissing the misinformation he started

[some1else]

Yea, I wouldn't use nolva as an ai.

So then as long as ur running caber and an ai during 19or, then you can use nolva as a pct, correct?

Or just no nolva, and something else for 19or?

[Turkish Juicer]

Yea, I wouldn't use nolva as an ai.

So then as long as ur running caber and an ai during 19or, then you can use nolva as a pct, correct?

Or just no nolva, and something else for 19or?

Yes, as long as you are running Caber or Prami during a 19-nor cycle and an AI, Nolvadex is not at all needed as a OCT compound.

You can, and you should use Nolvadex for PCT, along with Clomid, however.

Lastly, as long as your overall estrogen levels (E2 levels in particular) are in check during a 19-nor cycle, you won't even need to run Caber or Prami, although having it under your hand would be wise.

I strongly recommend you prefer Aromasin for your AI, there are so many advantages of this tech-advanced AI I wouldn't even know where to start...

[Metalject]

I know many here disagree with this, but I always say use a SERM for on cycle protection if it can get the job done. It can't always get the job done, but it will more often than many people think. True, it won't reduce serum estrogen levels as it doesn't inhibit aromatization, but if it's attaching to the receptors it makes the estrogen in relation to those areas meaningless. If it wasn't effective for this purpose, it wouldn't be the most commonly used medication in breast cancer patients. Further, it's also true it won't do a lot for water retention, but this can often be controlled in other ways when a cycle is moderate...sensitivity plays a role but it can work. Lastly, the reason I prefer SERM's over AI's is due to the cholesterol effects. AI's when used with any steroid that aromatizes will exasperate negative cholesterol issues. SERM's, however, will actually promote better cholesterol levels due to their ability to act as estrogen in the liver while working as an anti-estrogen in other parts of the body. This is important IMO as cholesterol is the number one concern for any steroid user, or at least it should be. However, most worry about visually related side effects more so than cholesterol, which is backwards IMO. Again, SERM's won't always work and I'm not implying that they always will.

BTW, why are people saying Nolvadex will cause gyno? I must be missing something.

[Turkish Juicer]

@Metalject:

1. SERMs don't get the job done as well as AIs do, which you seem to be aware of. Most people who run AAS cycles, don't run their compounds at low doses and majority of them use a generous amount of Testosterone, which is an aromatizing compound, hence it is more rational to prefer an AI over a SERM for controlling estrogen.

2. Strongest part of your argument is rooted in the ''unfavorable health effects of AIs'' rhetoric. However, there are numerous human studies available which confirm that low doses of new generation AIs such as Arimidex and Aromasin neither have an impact on plasma lipid levels nor detrimental effect on cholesterol levels and the atherogenic indices.

3. The weakest part of your argument is the part where you didn't consider to look up adverse health effects of SERMs before critically approaching AIs in that regard. Both Nolvadex and Clomid can be terrible for your health on multiple levels. Since I don't have the time to get into the details of what these are, a quick Google research will reveal many recent and non-recent human studies which clearly depict this to be the case. In a nutshell, Nolvadex is toxic, at any dose, has caused liver cancer is a portion of patients in the past. Clomid can cause permanent vision impairment issues at doses as low as 50mg and as quickly as 5 days into its use, and there are other adverse health effects of these two.

4. If an AI user is so concerned about cholesterol, then why use AAS in the first place? I am assuming that you are well-aware of the fact that Testosterone is synthesized from cholesterol, meaning that you are injecting yourself cholesterol every time you cycle. So, don't you think this is an oxymoron?

5. Here is a millon $ question: What are we supposed to use during PCT if we have already employed SERMs during our cycle? More SERMs? If yes, what about further increased toxicity from these compounds since we are so health conscious now?

[Turkish Juicer]

Clomid & Nolvadex: Toxic Side Effects Exposed - Liver damage, Impotence, Cancer, Loss Of Vision

By Eric M. Potratz

Eric M. Potratz has developed his education in the field of endocrinology and performance enhancement through years of research, counseling, and real world experience. Over the past five years he has been a private consultant for hundreds of athletes and bodybuilders alike.

The use of Clomid and Nolvadex, as Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERMs), has gradually become well established in the steroid using community. The popular push of these drugs has almost made them mandatory. They have essentially become hormonal vitamins – vitamins that can do no wrong and provide seemingly endless benefits of testosterone support, bloat reduction, gynecomastia prevention and cholesterol health. It seems that we are all well educated about the benefits of Clomid and Nolvadex, so in this segment, I will present the risks and consequences from the short and long term use of Clomid and Nolvadex.

Upon examination of the research available for Clomid (clomiphene) and Nolvadex (tamoxifen) we find that the research is quite extensive, and contradicting.21 We see many early studies with tamoxifen done on breast cancer patients, which show an acceptable "safety profile", with an apparent lack of adverse effects.22 On the other hand, many of the early in vivo animal studies showed severely toxic effects, with the development of cancer in the liver, uterus, or testes upon tamoxifen administration.30-34,41 However, this evidence was largely disregarded by ex vivo (test tube) research on human cell-lines which appeared to show a lack of toxic effects.21

For example, tamoxifen was generally accepted as being non-toxic to human liver upon the conclusion that tamoxifen did not cause noticeable DNA adducts (damage) during short-term ex vivo studies with human liver cells.35,36 This was in contrast to the in vivo animal studies showing dramatic carcinogenic effects on the liver.30-34,41 As scientists learned that the toxic effects from tamoxifen are from the metabolism and buildup of the a-hydroxytamoxifen, 4-hydroxytamoxifen and N-desmethyltamoxifen metabolites. It became apparent that ex vivo research was largely flawed due to low-rate metabolism.21 The carcinogenic effects of tamoxifen proved to be even more unusual and elusive, when it was hypothesized that tamoxifen had both genomic and non-genomic toxicity, which affecting different animals, in different organs.21 This created an obvious clinical challenge for measuring genotoxicity in a test tube. Eventually, it was established that tamoxifen was a bona-fide carcinogen in all species, at least in one way or another.21,37-39 Recent human studies have shown tamoxifen treated women to have 3x the risk of developing fatty liver disease, which appeared as soon as 3 months into therapy at only 20mg/day.24-26 In some cases, the disease lasted up to 3 years, despite cessation from tamoxifen therapy. Five and ten year follow-ups with patients on long term tamoxifen therapy showed cases of deadly hepatocellular carcinoma.27-29 In a 2000 case study involving tamoxifen induced liver disease, D.F Moffat et al made a profound statement –


"In addition, hepatocellular carcinoma in tamoxifen treated patients may be under-reported since there may be reluctance to biopsy liver tumours which are assumed to be secondary carcinoma of the breast."

In other words, it appears that the liver carcinoma from a large number of breast cancer patients on tamoxifen therapy has been misdiagnosed as a metastasis infection from the breast cancer itself.28 Upon closer examination it was found that the cancerous lesions in the livers of the long-term tamoxifen therapy case studies were identical to those seen in the early animal studies showing tamoxifen to be a potent hepatotoxin.28-34 Although the effects took much longer to manifest, it became obvious that tamoxifen was toxic to the human liver.

Another well known risk of tamoxifen therapy is the increased risk of developing endometrial cancer (uterine cancer).23,42 This is due to tamoxifen actually acting as an estrogen agonist in the uterus, presumable from the 4-hydroxytamoxifen metabolite.33,40 This estrogenic metabolite triggers abnormal growth of the uterus and the formation of cancer causing DNA adducts.33 As male bodybuilders we assume this presents no risk. On the contrary, the implications are quite scary when we realize the male equivalent to the uterus is the prostate -- differentiating from the same embryonic cell line and sharing the same oncogene, Bcl-2, and high concentration of the estrogen receptor. It is likely that tamoxifen has the same estrogenic action, and DNA damaging effects within the prostate.60-62 It is no wonder that tamoxifen failed as a treatment for prostate carcinoma.43

Aside from restoring testosterone levels post cycle, tamoxifen is often used to combat gyno during cycle when "flare ups" occur. While tamoxifen may provide immediate inhibition of growth, and serve as valuable tool, it also has the ability to up-regulate the progesterone receptor.54-56 This is a true contradiction, which dramatically increases your chances of bringing upon gyno in future cycles when utilizing Nandrolone (Deca) or Trenbolone, both of which act upon the progesterone receptor. It is interesting to speculate: is tamoxifen use directly related to the increased gyno occurrences seen with modern day steroid users?

When we bring our attention to Clomid, we find less research is available on long term human toxicity, probably because of the relatively short term (3-4 week) clinical application for ovarian stimulation,59 although long term follow ups with patients who received Clomid for ovulation induction have shown an increased risk of developing uterine cancer.74 This is to be expected, since many of the same carcinogenic tendencies found with tamoxifen are the same effects seen with clomiphene.44,45,57,58 Upon analysis of anecdotal reports from Clomid and Nolva users, we see the typical short term side effects of low libido, erectile dysfunction, and emotional instability – despite many men showing normalized testosterone and estrogen levels during the use of these SERM’s. Research on male breast cancer patients also shows frequent reports of low libido, thrombosis (arterial blockage), and hot flashes with tamoxifen use.47 Another common side effect associated with both SERMs, but more common with Clomid, is the loss of visual accuracy and development of visual "tracers", due to the ocular toxicity.46

As the medical community became more aware of the side-effects associated with clomiphene and tamoxifen treatment, newer and safer SERMs, such as toremifene and Raloxifene hit the developmental fast track. Toremifene appears to be less liver toxic, but it is an analog of tamoxifen, so it also carries many of the related genotoxic effects.48,49 Raloxifene appears to be even safer by being the least liver toxic, and not having any potential issue with the uterus or prostate.50-52 Unfortunately, Raloxifene has been associated with a higher incidence of thromboembolism52 (arterial blockage), and also has very low oral absorption, making it an expensive alternative at a typical 120mg/day dose.53 Still, Raloxifene could presumably be equally effective as Clomid or Nolvadex at restoring HPTA function, while imparting less side effects.53 Newer SERMs are already being evaluated such as bazedoxifene, arzoxifene, and lasofoxifene, in hopes of reducing risk even further.

Another SERM that may be useful for post cycle therapy is resveratrol.87,88 Resveratrol is a natural polyphenol extracted from grape skin, that has recently been under heavy research for its cancer fighting effects in the breast, prostate and liver.63-69 Contrary to Nolva or Clomid, resveratrol appears to actually have beneficial effects on the liver,70 as well as having multiple benefits on cardiovascular health by limiting LDL oxidation and improving endothelial function.71-73 Improved blood vessel function may be a mechanism by which resveratrol improves erectile function in many men. Research also suggests that resveratrol may actually extend life, by reducing oxidative stress on organs such as the heart,77 and preventing the metabolic syndrome by fighting insulin resistence.79,80 It’s becoming well known that insulin resistance is a leading cause of low testosterone.82 More specifically, improving insulin sensitivity will increase your leydig cell sensitivity, and therefore increase the testes response to LH.81

It should be pointed out that resveratrol may not be the best choice to combating emergency gyno, due to its lower binding affinity to the human ER of about 90x less than tamoxifen, and about 30x less than clomiphene.75,76 However, considering that resveratrol is a pure estrogen antagonist at the pituitary,89 while Clomid has mixed agonist/antagonistic effects,90-94 resveratrol could be a suitable substitute for PCT. Aside from acting as a SERM, resveratrol can also help control estrogen by actually limiting aromatase enzyme production.82 Based on the research, it appears that at least 100mg/day would needed to increase LH, FSH and testosterone production.84

Admittedly, no steroid users are dropping dead from a 4 week protocol of Nolva or Clomid, and many will say "the consequences far outweigh the benefits" -- but why deal with the potential consequences when alternatives are available?

[t-dogg]

So if both are bad for you, then why use them at all?

[Atomini]

I have not read any of the replies here, but in regards to the whole issue of using 19-nors with Nolvadex, I answered this in a different thread recently. I'll copy and paste my response here:

There are several different 'misconceptions as to what Nolvadex does when used in conjunction with a 19-nor such as Nandrolone or Trenbolone. One of them, I have heard from people say that Nolvadex increases Prolactin levels in the body. Nolvadex DOES NOT increase Prolactin levels. It was once misunderstood by the majority of the AAS-using community that Nolvadex in fact bound to and acted on Progesterone receptors, and therefore people fell into this misconception that Nolvadex when used with a 19-nor (once again, such as Trenbolone or Nandrolone) will increase the potential for gynecomastia (specifically, Progesterone related). Unfortunately, nobody looked at the study that this misconception originated from, otherwise they would have seen that first of all, Nolvadex acts as a mixed Estrogen receptor agonist/antagonist, and the same for Progesterone receptors. In some tissues, such as the endometrium (uterus), the upregulation of the Progesterone receptor is expected and does occur, as the endometrium is very sensitive to estrogen - this is where part of the confusion comes from. The other part of the misunderstanding is that in other tissues (such as breast tissue) Nolvadex is an antagonist (blocks the Estrogen receptor) - this should be common knowledge to you by now! The Progesterone receptor is synthesized in response to Estrogen. So when the Estrogen receptor is blocked (in breast tissue), the Progesterone receptor will ALSO down regulate. This does not happen in cancer patients but does in healthy, normal subjects. The problem is this: the study that stated Nolvadex upregulated the Progesterone receptor in breast tissue was concerned only with breast cancer patients, NOT HEALTHY MALE SUBJECTS(1). The hormone and receptor interactions in breast cancer patients behave VERY different from normal healthy individuals. Cancers cause the body to do very strange things that are out of the ordinary (and sometimes even the exact opposite) processes, and this is a perfect example of one of them.

Therefore, it stands to reason that if you use Nolvadex to block the Estrogen receptor in breast tissue, it will also result in the downregulation of the Progesterone receptor!

Want to know how to effectively block gyno if you're on Tren and you happen to come down with gyno? USE NOLVADEX!

REFERENCES:
1. Aromatase inhibitors: cellular and molecular effects. Miller WR, Anderson TJ, White S, Larionov A, Murray J, Evans D, Krause A, Dixon JM. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2005 May;95(1-5):83-9.

[Turkish Juicer]

So if both are bad for you, then why use them at all?

Exact same question Eric M. Potratz asks in the end of his article.

His question is rhetorical; however, yours needs an answer: We typically advise these to be used because a) We know from first hand experience as well as from numerous studies that both Nolvadex and Clomid work very well for the very purpose of restarting HTPA during PCT, b) We also know they work even better when used together, c) Both compounds are highly accessible around the globe and usually as OCT products, d) They have been used in the medical field for a considerable amount of time by now with good results and basically not many experts up until now started to question their adverse health effects, e) It is an oxymoron to advise people for their AAS cycles and advise against the use of toxic PCT compounds since roids too are toxic on multiple-levels, f) Almost every steroid forum member likes to parrot when it comes to PCT protocols, just like they like parrot about other stuff that revolves around AAS ... and etc.

I know for a fact that Toremifene is the newer generation hence more tech-advanced version of Nolvadex without the toxicity, but I too am clueless about what the pharmaceutical substitute for Clomid would be, if there is one.

[jimmyinkedup]

It should be mentioned that Eric M. Potratz was the owner of a suppelement company aand his sole purpose for writing the above was to , you guessed it, sell more supplements. (among other things in this case)
The dosages and duration that we use serms for would be considered more than safe - they already are by the medical community in dozens of gyno treatment studies.
If I get gyno - Im taking a serm. Probabaly raloxifene. My second choice would be tamoxifen.

[Metalject]

@Metalject:

1. SERMs don't get the job done as well as AIs do, which you seem to be aware of. Most people who run AAS cycles, don't run their compounds at low doses and majority of them use a generous amount of Testosterone, which is an aromatizing compound, hence it is more rational to prefer an AI over a SERM for controlling estrogen.

Yes, AI's are more effective, you're right I agree with that. My point is that they're not always needed. Just because something's more effective doesn't mean it's always needed...you have to take the whole picture into account. Heavy dose cycles with high levels of testosterone will typically need an AI. How much? Depends on the guy, but many could probably get by with less than they think. Cycles with test in the 500mg range, I truly believe a lot more could get by with SERM's if they tried.

2. Strongest part of your argument is rooted in the ''unfavorable health effects of AIs'' rhetoric. However, there are numerous human studies available which confirm that low doses of new generation AIs such as Arimidex and Aromasin neither have an impact on plasma lipid levels nor detrimental effect on cholesterol levels and the atherogenic indices.

You're right, AI's do not typically have a strong, negative effect on cholesterol, but this is when AI's are used alone. When used with testosterone it appears to exasperate the negative effect on cholesterol, particularly HDL suppression. This applies not only to performance level dosing but TRT level doses. In Llewellyn's Anabolics book he notes a study on this very issue. Patients were given 280mg of Test-e for 12wks and it had no statistical negative effect on cholesterol. However, with the same dose of Test-e for the same length of time patients that were given an AI were noted to have a 25% reduction in HDL cholesterol. Obviously the AI conjoined with testosterone is what caused this suppression as it was the only thing that changed.

3. The weakest part of your argument is the part where you didn't consider to look up adverse health effects of SERMs before critically approaching AIs in that regard. Both Nolvadex and Clomid can be terrible for your health on multiple levels. Since I don't have the time to get into the details of what these are, a quick Google research will reveal many recent and non-recent human studies which clearly depict this to be the case. In a nutshell, Nolvadex is toxic, at any dose, has caused liver cancer is a portion of patients in the past. Clomid can cause permanent vision impairment issues at doses as low as 50mg and as quickly as 5 days into its use, and there are other adverse health effects of these two.

SERM's can elevate liver enzymes, to a degree, but we're talking about low dose use when used on cycle. Take for example Nolvadex, if liver toxicity, tumors and liver cancer were a huge concern wouldn't there be a large number of women over the last 50 years who would have experienced these effects? Breast cancer patients are often given 40mg of Nolvadex per day for several years, and in some cases, the therapy continues indefinitely in an effort to keep the cancer from reoccurring. If liver issues carried a high probability we'd see millions of women and men (men are sometimes given it for breast cancer) who had this happen to them due to breast cancer treatment.

Then you have Clomid and vision issues. You're right, it is possible but typically takes high dose use for long periods of time. For most data shows the odds of any visual disturbance being in the 1% range. Most data also shows the symptoms will clear rapidly if use is discontinued at the onset of symptoms. Last thing, for on cycle use if a SERM is used I'd personally go with Nolvadex of Fareston, so Clomid wouldn't even be an issue.

4. If an AI user is so concerned about cholesterol, then why use AAS in the first place? I am assuming that you are well-aware of the fact that Testosterone is synthesized from cholesterol, meaning that you are injecting yourself cholesterol every time you cycle. So, don't you think this is an oxymoron?

You're right, steroids can negatively affect cholesterol. Testosterone is the friendliest, orals are typically the harshest. However, this doesn't mean we cannot use steroids while maintaining healthy cholesterol levels and I see no reason in making it more difficult unless we have to. Can you use an AI with anabolic steroids and maintain healthy cholesterol levels? Of course, but many do not maintain healthy cholesterol levels when they cycle. They don't put in the effort and in the long run this can be hard on the body. Many are petrified of off-season cardio, which is kind of stupid in my opinion. Many really on high amounts of simple sugars in their diet, especially post workout and things of that nature.

5. Here is a millon $ question: What are we supposed to use during PCT if we have already employed SERMs during our cycle? More SERMs? If yes, what about further increased toxicity from these compounds since we are so health conscious now?

Yes, more SERM's. The toxicity should not be that high when using it on cycle as you'll only be using a small amount. If a low dose of a SERM won't work on cycle, more than likely you'll need an AI. Let's also keep in mind not all AI's are 100% liver friendly. Further, AI's come with other possible side effects that could be problematic when we're talking about years of use such as their ability to decrease bone mineral content. Anyway, the point, you'd only be using a low dose of a SERM on cycle and while the dose would be higher during PCT it would only be for a short period of time. If the individual's liver is healthy to begin with, he's strictly limiting alcohol and over the counter medication use he should be fine.

Comments above in red

[t-dogg]

Exact same question Eric M. Potratz asks in the end of his article.

His question is rhetorical; however, yours needs an answer: We typically advise these to be used because a) We know from first hand experience as well as from numerous studies that both Nolvadex and Clomid work very well for the very purpose of restarting HTPA during PCT, b) We also know they work even better when used together, c) Both compounds are highly accessible around the globe and usually as OCT products, d) They have been used in the medical field for a considerable amount of time by now with good results and basically not many experts up until now started to question their adverse health effects, e) It is an oxymoron to advise people for their AAS cycles and advise against the use of toxic PCT compounds since roids too are toxic on multiple-levels, f) Almost every steroid forum member likes to parrot when it comes to PCT protocols, just like they like parrot about other stuff that revolves around AAS ... and etc.

I know for a fact that Toremifene is the newer generation hence more tech-advanced version of Nolvadex without the toxicity, but I too am clueless about what the pharmaceutical substitute for Clomid would be, if there is one.

Personally I use both. But they do seem to get alot of heat...

[AD]

@Metalject:

1. SERMs don't get the job done as well as AIs do, which you seem to be aware of. Most people who run AAS cycles, don't run their compounds at low doses and majority of them use a generous amount of Testosterone, which is an aromatizing compound, hence it is more rational to prefer an AI over a SERM for controlling estrogen.

2. Strongest part of your argument is rooted in the ''unfavorable health effects of AIs'' rhetoric. However, there are numerous human studies available which confirm that low doses of new generation AIs such as Arimidex and Aromasin neither have an impact on plasma lipid levels nor detrimental effect on cholesterol levels and the atherogenic indices.

3. The weakest part of your argument is the part where you didn't consider to look up adverse health effects of SERMs before critically approaching AIs in that regard. Both Nolvadex and Clomid can be terrible for your health on multiple levels. Since I don't have the time to get into the details of what these are, a quick Google research will reveal many recent and non-recent human studies which clearly depict this to be the case. In a nutshell, Nolvadex is toxic, at any dose, has caused liver cancer is a portion of patients in the past. Clomid can cause permanent vision impairment issues at doses as low as 50mg and as quickly as 5 days into its use, and there are other adverse health effects of these two.

4. If an AI user is so concerned about cholesterol, then why use AAS in the first place? I am assuming that you are well-aware of the fact that Testosterone is synthesized from cholesterol, meaning that you are injecting yourself cholesterol every time you cycle. So, don't you think this is an oxymoron?

5. Here is a millon $ question: What are we supposed to use during PCT if we have already employed SERMs during our cycle? More SERMs? If yes, what about further increased toxicity from these compounds since we are so health conscious now?

i really like this point. high cholesterol only becomes a problem when it causes blockage of blood vessels via atherosclerosis. and that process takes place over a long period of time, much longer than an average cycle. which means, the AI and the Test and the high Cholesterol will all be long gone before any blockage of blood vessels can take place.

[Metalject]

i really like this point. high cholesterol only becomes a problem when it causes blockage of blood vessels via atherosclerosis. and that process takes place over a long period of time, much longer than an average cycle. which means, the AI and the Test and the high Cholesterol will all be long gone before any blockage of blood vessels can take place.

You're absolutely right, it takes a long time for any damage to be done. However, most steroid users are going to use steroids and other hormones for a long time...I'm not saying they're on cycle permanently, but it's the total effect of years of use that can add up.

I should also say this, personally I don't care what people do. What I mean by that is I have no problem with people doing things how ever they want to. I cycled for years with very little regard to my health so I'm not going to stand on a soap box and pretend otherwise. My overall point is to simply share my thoughts and opinions as I see them.

[AD]

You're absolutely right, it takes a long time for any damage to be done. However, most steroid users are going to use steroids and other hormones for a long time...I'm not saying they're on cycle permanently, but it's the total effect of years of use that can add up.

I should also say this, personally I don't care what people do. What I mean by that is I have no problem with people doing things how ever they want to. I cycled for years with very little regard to my health so I'm not going to stand on a soap box and pretend otherwise. My overall point is to simply share my thoughts and opinions as I see them.

thats a good point too. doing a cycle itself presents the most sides. and all the OCT and PCT drugs have sides. if everyone is so worried about this and that... best is to not do that cycle in the first place

i personally prefer AI over nolva. but if anyone care to do a search, most if not all the threads posted as recently as 5-6yrs ago mentioned nolva as a standard OCT protocol. and i dont think those people who wrote those posts or cycled with nolva are sick or dead yet.

[Turkish Juicer]

This has been one fruitful and well-mannered discussion gentlemen, congrats to all

[clarky.]

This has been a good thread to read and some good info