Am I over dosing the anti-E?

[jabelar]

Once again you may be reading what I typed out of context, I guess it depends on your definition of anti-e. I never said people dont take anti-E's, I said nolva/clomid or more generally SERMs. Their use is becoming outdated. The preferred form of "anti-e" and an AI (aromatase inhibitor). Instead of letting E buuild up in your system and just blocking its effect You control the enzyme that creates E to begin with.

Okay, maybe I'll try going that direction.

They were? The drug is prescribed to POSTMENOPAUSAL women for osteoperosis. It selectivly acts as estrogen in the bones to prevent osteoperosis because the women arent producing enough E on their own.

No, that's not the primary purpose of these drugs. They were all developed for breast cancer. They castrate women for estrogen-sensitive cancers. The bone density effect was a bonus -- when women were castrated by the early forms of anti-estrogen drugs (like Femara) it immediately caused osteoperosis problems. So they tried to come up with something that would still castrate in terms of the breast cancer but would not cause the bone density problem. Tamoxifen and Raloxifene are the best in this regard.

Like any drug, the drug companies then tried to find other uses for selling the drug, and so that was the general osteoperosis use came about. But osteoperosis is not why these drugs were developed -- the primary purpose for these drugs is for younger women with full estrogen production.

To a degree we are all experiments however I just like to be well educated before I undertake mine, this means going way beyond the board for information.

I'm totally well educated in this area, at least in the sense that I've read all the medical journals about it for past 15 years. Also, I always keep checking all the juicing sites for stack recommendations.

Like I said, even this site (Elite Fitness) sent out an e-mail this week giving Tamoxifen a grade of "B-" which isn't that bad.

So reading all the medical literature and sites like this, and talking to people in my gym, and carefully analyzing my own experiences under medical monitoring (my doctors know I take this stuff) -- isn't that good research?

Honestly, I don't think you've researched it to the same degree because you weren't aware of the primary use of these drugs (cancer on pre-menopausal women), blatantly misinformed me about blot clot risks, and doesn't seem like you've taken them as much or as long as I have.

However, I do think that you may have a more modern view which I should consider. So I appreciate that and will try switching to an AI.

And just a word of advice, dont confuse "risk" with success. Also consider what success actually means. taking silly risks when young can screw you up for life so while short term goals may be achieved, it can very well come at the expense of long term health.

I'm actually a risk-analysis engineer. That is my profession and very successful at it.

The thing is that Nolva really is low risk compared to everything else juicers are taking, and is low risk compared to most medications generally. It actually has a significant effect -- if you run it alone it actually gives your natural testosterone a significant boost and you don't carry any water weight. It definitely prevents gyno as well. So the reward part is there. On the risk side, it is very commonly prescribed for osteoperosis as you mentioned, is commonly run by (old school I guess) bodybuilders, and has been researched since the 1970s. I subscribe to "worstpills.org" which is an organization that is against most drugs (they are responsible for recent recalls of diet drugs and smoking drugs that were causing suicides), and they give an okay rating to Tamoxifen.

I understand that risk doesn't mean a thing if you're actually affected. If there is only a one in a million chance but you get caught, it still sucks for you. But you also can't let that paralyze you because life if full of those risks -- do I not eat a hamburger because I'm afraid of the carcinogens, etc.

Personally I'm much more "scared" of the heart-related risks of AAS.

Ultimately risk is very personal. Sky diving is probably low risk, but not one that I will personally take because I'd feel really dumb if I was falling to my death thinking "I didn't have to do this". But I can't argue that other people shouldn't do it, because they may value the reward higher and be willing to accept the risk.

The need for most of the above can be totally avoided if cycling is done intelligently. Its only when vanity and ignorance get in the way that you need to medicine cabinet full of stuff.

I agree with this. However, AAS is all about vanity ultimately -- there is no reason to do any of it. Even performing better in sports is a type of vanity.

But sure the less you take to achieve the effect the better.

The weird thing is that the most effective thing for me is to take only anti-E. AAS of course has a much more significant effect, but I find it to be much more temporary. Anti-E makes you look lean and muscular and amped up sex continuously. No blood pressure issues, no "inconvenience" sides like acne, bloat, rage. Don't have to inject anything. Don't have to hide anything. Don't have to worry about legal trouble. Don't have to worry about counterfeits. I would say that for someone who has moderate goals, that anti-E is about the most effective and most inexpensive way to maintain a good look.

Anyway, despite our verbal sparring you have convinced me to try AIs going forward.

 

[Zyglamail]

No, that's not the primary purpose of these drugs. They were all developed for breast cancer.

Really? Then I guess I find it rather strange that evista's own web page lists "The treatment and prevention of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women" as the top item in the list, but once again, what do I know.

 

[jabelar]

Really? Then I guess I find it rather strange that evista's own web page lists "The treatment and prevention of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women" as the top item in the list, but once again, what do I know.

I said that it was developed for cancer. And that is true. It may be most actively promoted now for osteoperosis, but that is because that is where they can make the most money -- all old women verus those few with specific breast cancers.

You obviously did not know much about Evista before your first post. The first thing you did is looked it up and saw blood clots listed as a side. But you had not read all the comparative studies showing that blood clots are also a side of Tamoxifen and that Evista is considered superior in terms of significantly (40%) less chance of clotting. Now you're looking up their web site, (for the first time I'm assuming) without knowing any of the history of the development of the drug.

I do a lot of research and do a lot of risk management. My Evista is actually prescribed by my doctor and provided by the pharmacy. I take daily low-dose aspirin to reduce blood clots. I don't drink alcohol in order to ensure my liver isn't working too hard. I get checked out with every medical procedure known to monitor cardiovascular, liver, kidney and blood. Never once has any doctor, pharmacist, or technician ever expressed any concern about this drug.

I get that you won't make the same risk decision as I would. However, no matter how you look at it these drugs are way at the low end of the spectrum of risk compared to other medications. There is no controversy about their use, even anti drug industry groups report that the studies are sound and that it should be on the market, etc.

You can't look at risk from an absolute sense, only a relative sense. I'm pretty certain I took a greater risk taking my laundry down to the basement just now (risk of falling and breaking neck), and took a greater risk driving to gym (I have a dangerous left turn onto a major highway).

 

[Zyglamail]

I said that it was developed for cancer. And that is true. It may be most actively promoted now for osteoperosis, but that is because that is where they can make the most money -- all old women verus those few with specific breast cancers.

You obviously did not know much about Evista before your first post. The first thing you did is looked it up and saw blood clots listed as a side. But you had not read all the comparative studies showing that blood clots are also a side of Tamoxifen and that Evista is considered superior in terms of significantly (40%) less chance of clotting. Now you're looking up their web site, (for the first time I'm assuming) without knowing any of the history of the development of the drug.

My familiarity of the product was for osteperosis and like most serms, it made sense it had other uses (like nolva can be effective at treating bipolar disorder) and anything that can block estrogen has a place in cancer prevention.....although evista also is connected with increase ovarian cancer.

I juts found it interesting you are so adamant its used to castrate women and treat cancer when all of evistas own documentation seems to indicate its use is heavily favored for osteoperosis.

You can keep comparing it to nolva all you want, I honestly dont care which you prefer or think is better cause they are both crap for controlling estrogen. As far as I am concerned this conversation is over, you want to believe evistas the next best thing to sliced bread by all means feel free. Im going to stick to keeping my estrogen levels within normal range and not clog my system with another "estrogen" mimic that actually activates some estrogen receptors.