Am I over dosing the anti-E?

[jabelar]

I'm using Raloxifene (Evista) and it works really well for me. However, I'm wondering if I'm taking more than I really need. Obviously I can/will experiment with lower doses on my own, but I don't really want to get to the point of bitch tits in order to figure it out, so hoping someone here knows. After searching the forum I didn't find a lot of credible dosing info for this.

I'm taking basically the women's dose (used for estrogen suppression in women with cancer) of one 60mg pill per day. Since women have so much more estrogen to suppress though, I'm supposing I could make due with less (or even a lot less).

Does anyone know credibly what is sufficient to be effective in men taking aromatizing juice?

Or if noone knows specifically for Evista, is there a rule of thumb for anti-E meds where men only need to take some percent of the women's dose?

Also is Evista commonly used -- I can get it easily, but don't see a lot of discussion on it here. For women's cancer it is considered a superior, modern anti-E.

 

[Zyglamail]

I may be wrong, but Evista as I understand it is prevents and treats osteoporosis by mimicking the effects of estrogen. Often used in post menopausal women to prevent osteoporosis it does reduce the risk of breast cancer and is apparently equal to nolva in that regard. What concerns me with the drug is its increased occurrence of blood clots and associated strokes.

This is the first I have heard of anyone using it while using AAS and with its increased clotting and the fact AAS often raises RBC I think I would stear clear of it.....but then again im not a fan of nolva or clomid either. I dont want to just block the e-receptor, I personally want to reduce the amount of E in my system.

Estrogen actually passes through the body and can be reabsorbed before being excreted so in my mind preventing the build up in the first place is more important that letting it build and just blocking the receptors.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Evista is a serm, which makes it an odd anti osteoperosis med since serms weaken bone.

I have to admit I'm unfamiliar with its use. SInce adex or aromasin work well for bodybuilding purposes I see no need to experiment.

 

[jabelar]

I may be wrong, but Evista as I understand it is prevents and treats osteoporosis by mimicking the effects of estrogen. Often used in post menopausal women to prevent osteoporosis it does reduce the risk of breast cancer and is apparently equal to nolva in that regard. What concerns me with the drug is its increased occurrence of blood clots and associated strokes.

This is the first I have heard of anyone using it while using AAS and with its increased clotting and the fact AAS often raises RBC I think I would stear clear of it.....but then again im not a fan of nolva or clomid either. I dont want to just block the e-receptor, I personally want to reduce the amount of E in my system.

A couple problems with your analysis. First of all, Nolva does the same thing and it is very popular for anti-E while on AAS.

Secondly, you don't just want to eliminate E, you want some mimicry because of the anti-osteoperosis effect. You don't want to take a true anti-E very long or your bone density will be reduced.

Thirdly, the side effects listed for all anti-Es are for women. These basically castrate women, whereas men continue to have sex hormone operating in their system. So things like hot flashes, leg cramps, etc. won't happen in men.

Fourthly, blocking receptors doesn't just "jam up" the rest of production causing more circulating estrogen. There are feedback cycles involved. So if your body thinks it is getting enough hormones to satsify the receptors it will throttle back production. This isn't much different than having extra test shutting down your balls.

Anyway, Evista is an improved Nolva from perspective of SERMs. I'm surprised there is not more people trying it, although Nolva is pretty easy to get I guess.

If you don't like Nolva then I understand you not liking Evista. But there is a lot of support for using Nolva with AAS ...

Evista is a serm, which makes it an odd anti osteoperosis med since serms weaken bone.

No, some SERMs like Tamoxifen (Nolva) and Raloxifene (Evista) partially mimic estrogen. This makes them more tolerable because your body does need estrogen for things like bone density, and some other things like mood regulation, skin tone, etc.

 

[Zyglamail]

I think you need to go back and read my post, you took most of it out of context or blatently said I said something I did not.

A couple problems with your analysis. First of all, Nolva does the same thing and it is very popular for anti-E while on AAS.

If it does EXACTLY the same thing how can you claim its superior???

Secondly, you don't just want to eliminate E, you want some mimicry because of the anti-osteoperosis effect. You don't want to take a true anti-E very long or your bone density will be reduced.

Where di I say I want to eliminate E???? I said I want to prevent BUILDUP, for example when you take test there is more test to aromatise and hence convert to E. I want to counter the INCREASE in estrogen, not eliminate.

Thirdly, the side effects listed for all anti-Es are for women. These basically castrate women, whereas men continue to have sex hormone operating in their system. So things like hot flashes, leg cramps, etc. won't happen in men.

im really not concerned with such silly sides as hot flashes but but blood clots causing stroke is a bit serious.

Fourthly, blocking receptors doesn't just "jam up" the rest of production causing more circulating estrogen. There are feedback cycles involved. So if your body thinks it is getting enough hormones to satsify the receptors it will throttle back production. This isn't much different than having extra test shutting down your balls.

I never said blocking receptors jams up anything. But blocking receptors does nothing to prevent excess estrogen from being aromatised. Yes there are feedback mechanisms, blocking E receptors makes the body thinks E is low even if its not, this causes more test to be produced so in turn more estrogen can be aromtized. This causes an overabundance of estrogen in the system and this is not healthy, just like blocking all E isnt healthy.

Anyway, Evista is an improved Nolva from perspective of SERMs. I'm surprised there is not more people trying it, although Nolva is pretty easy to get I guess.

If you don't like Nolva then I understand you not liking Evista. But there is a lot of support for using Nolva with AAS ...

its quit simple really, the way they work makes them only ideal for emergency in preventing gyno where you have let E build to much. The sides plain and simple suck.

No, some SERMs like Tamoxifen (Nolva) and Raloxifene (Evista) partially mimic estrogen. This makes them more tolerable because your body does need estrogen for things like bone density, and some other things like mood regulation, skin tone, etc.

They partially mimic estrogen in the sense they bind to certain E receptors. In some they cause activation and in others they do not and in those cases they prevent real E from binding and causing the associated problems (ir gyno, cancer etc)..


At the end of the day its your body and you tits, do what ever you want. I on the other want want to keep estrogen within normal levels, not let it build while on cycle and just plug some receptors.

 

[jabelar]

If it does EXACTLY the same thing how can you claim its superior???

Seriously? It is quite possible to do the same thing and be superior. I was pointing out that it is supposed to act like Nolva (same class of drug that tries to work on the same principles) and by superior I mean that it does better (more effective in estrogen suppression and less sides) in studies against Nolva.

I said I want to prevent BUILDUP, for example when you take test there is more test to aromatise and hence convert to E. I want to counter the INCREASE in estrogen, not eliminate.

I was talking about buildup too. If buildup was an issue then you could never go off anti-E (or you'd have to go off very gradually) -- you'd just be delaying the problem. There is not an increase in estrogen using Evista.

im really not concerned with such silly sides as hot flashes but but blood clots causing stroke is a bit serious

I agree that would be serious. But this is same side as Nolva and others. I understand you are generally against all of these drugs, but I'm asking comparatively. And Evista has less sides than Nolva according to studies.

I never said blocking receptors jams up anything. But blocking receptors does nothing to prevent excess estrogen from being aromatised.

If it worked the way you're saying then when someone went off Nolva they would get overwhelmed with excess estrogen.

Yes there are feedback mechanisms, blocking E receptors makes the body thinks E is low even if its not,

No, it works the opposite of that -- it makes the body think it has enough E already. When a receptor is blocked, it is bound to, meaning it is satisfied, meaning it thinks it has found estrogen.

The reason I believe this to be true is these drugs are used to castrate women with cancer. It is used to stop production of estrogen in the women. Binding the receptors with non-estrogen tricks the body into thinking it doesn't need estrogen. If using these caused a build-up of estrogen they wouldn't be used for cancer treatment.

At the end of the day its your body and you tits, do what ever you want. I on the other want want to keep estrogen within normal levels, not let it build while on cycle and just plug some receptors.

Okay, I have never even had a hint of gyno, not even slight puffiness. Gyno's not a problem for me. I only do the anti-Es because every stack I've ever seen says to do it.

I agree that caution is prudent with any drug. However, let's not kid ourselves -- we're all here playing with our hormones. If you're really worried about these type of sides a person shouldn't take AAS at all. Everyone has their limits in these things. I personally never touch insulin or growth hormone, but we know there are people playing with those too.

Anyway, your reaction seems to be more about not supporting use of SERMs generally. I appreciate that position. But SERMs are pretty standard for many people here, and I was looking for information from those people who are using them.

 

[Zyglamail]

I was talking about buildup too. If buildup was an issue then you could never go off anti-E (or you'd have to go off very gradually) -- you'd just be delaying the problem. There is not an increase in estrogen using Evista.

Estrogen comes from many places. You increase one of those sources and estrogen increases (ie builds up) due to the increase in the source. And by source I mean adipose tissue, externally introduces testosterone etc. At the same time, estrogen is excreted from the system but estrogen can also be reabsorbed before being excreted. Net result if you increase the rate of introduction the E level build in relation to the new source. Once that new source is removed the E levels will drop again.

I agree that would be serious. But this is same side as Nolva and others. I understand you are generally against all of these drugs, but I'm asking comparatively. And Evista has less sides than Nolva according to studies.

I suggest you do more research, while nolva had some of the same minor sides increased blood clotting and stroke I dont believe was one and if it was it was at a much lower rate. Im sorry but blood clots is the last thing someone on cycle likely running an increased BP from it needs.

If it worked the way you're saying then when someone went off Nolva they would get overwhelmed with excess estrogen.

Thats exactly what happens as long as the source of increased estorgen is still present and causing increased E levels. People are always complaining about this when doing PCT with serms. Estrogen is a key factor in causing increased cancer risk.

Whats so sucky about Evista is has both estrogenic and antiestrogenic effects. Thats how it blocks some receptors(breast) and activates others(ie bones). When running a cycle we dont want to block some and activate some, we want to systemically reduce the effects the excess estrogen in our system has on our whole system

No, it works the opposite of that -- it makes the body think it has enough E already. When a receptor is blocked, it is bound to, meaning it is satisfied, meaning it thinks it has found estrogen.

Oh really? Then why do these product reportedly raise test levels? Because E is one of the HPTA feedback mechanisms. High E levels often cause low test levels because the body is trying to control E by lowering T. Serms bind to certain types of E receptors without activating them or only mildy activating them so that real estrogen cant bind. There are different types of E receptors A and B. If it bound to the receptor AND activated it like real E, then it would not protect against cancer in the breast. You are partially correct though that in SOME tissues it does bind and activate, specifically in the bones where it works to increase bone density. This is why its called a SERM (Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulator).

However, as I stated above though its both estrogenic and antiestrogenic so while increasing bone density it also increases certain forms of cancer due to its estrogenic effects there. This is exactly whay this is a poor choice of products for AAS users and likely why you dont hear about it much.

The reason I believe this to be true is these drugs are used to castrate women with cancer. It is used to stop production of estrogen in the women. Binding the receptors with non-estrogen tricks the body into thinking it doesn't need estrogen. If using these caused a build-up of estrogen they wouldn't be used for cancer treatment.

Believe what ever you would like, but I feel your logic is flawed. As I said above its a multi headed beast, not black and white activate or not because it does both, just depends on the tissue.

Anyway, your reaction seems to be more about not supporting use of SERMs generally. I appreciate that position. But SERMs are pretty standard for many people here, and I was looking for information from those people who are using them.

Pretty standard for people who dont know better and still prescribe to 30 year old methodology.

I told you its not talked about here cause no one uses it, another reason your are not getting any feedback.

Ill refrain from chiming in and let the knowledgeable folks speak since I clearly dont know anything.

 

[jabelar]

Pretty standard for people who dont know better and still prescribe to 30 year old methodology.

I didn't know people aren't regularly taking anti-Es. I understand how old "knowledge" dies hard. However, all the major articles on the major juicing forums talk about it. Just got an e-mail from this site yesterday that was all about the "dangers" of not taking anti-E.

Do you have more info on people successfully running androgens without preventive anti-E?

while nolva had some of the same minor sides increased blood clotting and stroke I dont believe was one

Blood clots IS a side of Nolva. It is actually just a side of estrogen -- the first birth control pills that came out had too much estrogen and caused all sorts of deaths. However, these drugs are studied in women who already have a full woman's amount of estrogen. So if a woman can take it and get small chance, then it is unlikely that a man will have trouble -- you'd have to have about twice a woman's normal estrogen to have troubles in this regard.

Anyway, Raloxifene is considered possible to have less risk of blood clots than Tamoxifen (reference http://www.uptodate.com/contents/pa...aloxifene-for-the-prevention-of-breast-cancer). Raloxifene is basically the new and improved version of Tamoxifen. I know that "newer" doesn't always mean better, but studies show it being less side effect profile to Tamoxifen.

I told you its not talked about here cause no one uses it, another reason your are not getting any feedback.

Well, I found out about it from a juicing site, and got it from guys at my gym, so I don't think it is totally not used, but maybe different forums trend around certain things.

Ill refrain from chiming in and let the knowledgeable folks speak since I clearly dont know anything.

Well, I didn't quite say that. But there are different types of "knowing". I've taken anti-Es daily for last 15 years non-stop. Mostly Tamoxifen. I switched to Raloxifene over a year ago. I've never had one iota of problem with them. I get full body scans (including nuclear imaging of the heart, etc.) every two or three years, and get all my blood work done regularly. I just had a liver ultrasound recently too (since orals can cause fatty liver disease) and everything checks out great. My only health problem is some kidney stones (and these don't bother me, just show up on the ultrasound). So I have personal experience, and I guess on this forum I'm one of the most experienced with Raloxifene ...

My question was a comparative one. I was seeking advice from people who regularly take Nolva or similar anti-E to find out if I'm wasting my money by taking too strong a dose. So I was asking for practical experience.

I'm not adverse to contrary opinion, and if you do have good info about serious bodybuilders who aren't taking anti-E, I'd be happy to consider it.

Like you said these things are not black and white. Also risk is a personal issue. While I understand your aversion to screwing up estrogen levels I'm surprised you're willing to take AAS and otherwise muck with similar systems in your body. I understand eschewing them altogether, but most people I know who do AAS end up basically becoming chemical experiments -- taking androgens, then taking things to prevent aromatization, taking things to prevent balding, taking things to keep their dick up, taking stimulants to keep up energy at the gym, taking diruetics to look hard, taking pumping enhancers to look vascular, taking metabolism enhancers to burn fat, and so on. I think you and I are both on the moderate end, but I've just taken one more risky step.

 

[hunter121]

great ~~

 

[Zyglamail]

I didn't know people aren't regularly taking anti-Es. I understand how old "knowledge" dies hard. However, all the major articles on the major juicing forums talk about it. Just got an e-mail from this site yesterday that was all about the "dangers" of not taking anti-E.

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.

However, these drugs are studied in women who already have a full woman's amount of estrogen. So if a woman can take it and get small chance, then it is unlikely that a man will have trouble -- you'd have to have about twice a woman's normal estrogen to have troubles in this regard.

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.

Like you said these things are not black and white. Also risk is a personal issue. While I understand your aversion to screwing up estrogen levels I'm surprised you're willing to take AAS and otherwise muck with similar systems in your body. I understand eschewing them altogether, but most people I know who do AAS end up basically becoming chemical experiments -- taking androgens, then taking things to prevent aromatization, taking things to prevent balding, taking things to keep their dick up, taking stimulants to keep up energy at the gym, taking diruetics to look hard, taking pumping enhancers to look vascular, taking metabolism enhancers to burn fat, and so on. I think you and I are both on the moderate end, but I've just taken one more risky step.

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.

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.

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.

 

[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.