Surprised by the return of this great guy!

[JaneDoe]

Austinite is back? I wanted to know from him what he thinks about not using AI in the cycle. After all, in his posts, he defended the idea of ​​always using it in the cycle. But with the passing of the years, new learnings have appeared, maybe he has a new way of thinking about aromatase inhibitors, right ???

[Chicagotarsier]

I am not aware of any weightlifter that supports high estrogen on cycle. I am unaware of any doctor that supports high estrogen in males. If Austin did change his outlook on this it would be interesting to hear the reasoning.

[JaneDoe]

I am not aware of any weightlifter that supports high estrogen on cycle. I am unaware of any doctor that supports high estrogen in males. If Austin did change his outlook on this it would be interesting to hear the reasoning.

Dave Palumbo said that aromatase inhibitors are counterproductive to growing ...And the great GH that has always taught us here the role of estrogen to grow, that is, with inhibited estrogen, the gains are precarious
Estrogen has a great anabolic role in this game, then read GH posts. I only use Novaldex which only blocks estrogen receptors does not lower or inhibit

[JaneDoe]

The idea of ​​keeping e2 within the range is intended for sedentary people who do not use steroids. Doctors will always preach blunder, they are the same ones who say you will get prostate cancer if you use exogenous testosterone.

[Quester]

The benefits of high E2 on a cycle are very limited and can be attained simply by keeping estrogen in range. As far as this is concerned, GH made broad claims in order to support his points but never provided evidence to the contrary regarding Supra-physiological levels of E2 vs keeping it in range.
-
A benefit of GH's claim is that it is generally accepted that crashing E2 is bad.
-
When questioned, he never provided any evidence but instead rallied his supporters to attack the questioner and support "bro-science." This is the same "bro-science" that supported crashing E2, in the past.
-
Just because something is new or novel doesn't make it better, it should be treated with the same skepticism that one uses to evaluate knowledge by convention. Always ask for the science, evidence supported by experiential knowledge should always be valued as a starting step toward the scientific process which relies upon proof via resilience of a theory against all attempts to disprove. Or, more specifically in this case (super high E2), of which new studies can't support because there is limited scientific inquiry into the subject, the theory should be in agreement with other known foundational principles, i.e. physiology.
-
Yes, I would love to hear from Austinite, on anything. He has great wisdom and therefore doesn't need to rally his troops when questioned about a theory he has (anybody remember the TMAO and Arginine spat...my bad). Wisdom and knowledge has staying power.
-
When one relies upon the wisdom of convention to make (and enforce) their argument, other arguments become easier to make. That isn't what knowledge is built upon, that tactic suppresses knowledge.
-
Davimeireles, I have always appreciated your curiosity and thirst for knowledge. I'm happy your here too!