Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below full_up-qp
New member
how much Chrysin should be used to reduce e
Chrysin
- Thread starter full_up-qp
- Start date
full_up-qp
New member
anyone? nelson?
500 mgs ED has been shown to reduce e by approx 20%.
BTW: 1/2 mg of A-dex ED reduces e 80%. That's too much.
BTW: 1/2 mg of A-dex ED reduces e 80%. That's too much.
Silent Method
New member
In who? How much do they weigh? What body composition on metabolic factors, unique to the individual need to be taken into account. How much of what kind of steroids are they taking? What kind of sensitivity do they have to given estrogen related side effects? At what levels do those side effects exhibit themselves?
IMO, claiming that a given dosage of a given drug will reduce estrogen by a certain percentile range without consideration to such factors is really a stab in the dark. Estrogen conversion rates vary among individuals. I do, however, concede that there are "norms" that can be used to estimate the probability of the % of reduction for drugs as well as "norms" for indivdual estrogen conversion.
That being said, it is silly to judge how much of a percentile reduction in estrogen is "too much" without regard to how much overabundance of estrogen existed in the first place.
IMO, claiming that a given dosage of a given drug will reduce estrogen by a certain percentile range without consideration to such factors is really a stab in the dark. Estrogen conversion rates vary among individuals. I do, however, concede that there are "norms" that can be used to estimate the probability of the % of reduction for drugs as well as "norms" for indivdual estrogen conversion.
That being said, it is silly to judge how much of a percentile reduction in estrogen is "too much" without regard to how much overabundance of estrogen existed in the first place.
buckwheat1
New member
I would have to agree with Silent Method that taking numbers from studies where A-dex was given to normal non-steroid using males and comparing to what the effect of A-dex on someone who is using dbol or fairly large amounts of test is not a good comparison. Having a normal males estrogen levels drop by 80% is not a good thing. But is it bad to have estrogen levels drop by 80% when they are artificial elevated 10x what they normally should be due to anabolic use.
If you are using something like dbol and a-dex and you still get some water gain, it seems to be that your estrogen levels must still be much higher than normal. This is what happened to a friend. While it reduced the water bloat it did not eliminate it. He was running 1/4 - 1/2 cc day.
If you are using something like dbol and a-dex and you still get some water gain, it seems to be that your estrogen levels must still be much higher than normal. This is what happened to a friend. While it reduced the water bloat it did not eliminate it. He was running 1/4 - 1/2 cc day.
Nelson Montana said:
Human studies please. Seriously - I'm not trying to be a jerk presently, but every study i've seen regarding chrysin has indicated that while it may be beneficial in animals, it has poor bioavailability and zero effect on humans. If you could show some references that indicate otherwise, I would be most interested.
plornive
New member
Using letrozole or arimidex, one could reduce his estrogen levels by anywhere from 10% to possibly 95%, depending on dosage. Using these will accomplish everything chrysin can, and possibly more.
Is there anything inherently bad about using these substances to reduce estrogen by a desired amount? Chrysin potentially won't be able to lower estrogen levels as much as someone wants on a heavy cycle.
Anyway, if an aromatase inhibitor can do the job (and precisely to the degree one desires, by varying the dose) (in fact an aromatase inhibitor is practically guaranteed to do the job), why use chrysin?
Is there anything inherently bad about using these substances to reduce estrogen by a desired amount? Chrysin potentially won't be able to lower estrogen levels as much as someone wants on a heavy cycle.
Anyway, if an aromatase inhibitor can do the job (and precisely to the degree one desires, by varying the dose) (in fact an aromatase inhibitor is practically guaranteed to do the job), why use chrysin?
Sorry, but chrysin is useless in humans.
Disposition and metabolism of the flavonoid chrysin in normal volunteers.
Walle T, Otake Y, Brubaker JA, Walle UK, Halushka PV.
Department of Cell and Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425, USA. [email protected]
AIMS: To describe the oral disposition of the dietary flavonoid chrysin in healthy volunteers. METHODS: Oral 400 mg doses of chrysin were administered to seven subjects. Chrysin and metabolites were assayed in plasma, urine and faeces by h.p.l.c. RESULTS: Peak plasma chrysin concentrations were only 3-16 ng ml(-1) with AUCs of 5-193 ng ml(-1) h. Plasma chrysin sulphate concentrations were 30-fold higher (AUC 450-4220 ng ml(-1) h). In urine, chrysin and chrysin glucuronide accounted for 0.2-3.1 mg and 2-26 mg, respectively. Most of the dose appeared in faeces as chrysin. Parallel experiments in rats showed high bile concentrations of chrysin conjugates. CONCLUSIONS: These findings, together with previous data using Caco-2 cells, suggest that chrysin has low oral bioavailability, mainly due to extensive metabolism and efflux of metabolites back into the intestine for hydrolysis and faecal elimination.
Disposition and metabolism of the flavonoid chrysin in normal volunteers.
Walle T, Otake Y, Brubaker JA, Walle UK, Halushka PV.
Department of Cell and Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425, USA. [email protected]
AIMS: To describe the oral disposition of the dietary flavonoid chrysin in healthy volunteers. METHODS: Oral 400 mg doses of chrysin were administered to seven subjects. Chrysin and metabolites were assayed in plasma, urine and faeces by h.p.l.c. RESULTS: Peak plasma chrysin concentrations were only 3-16 ng ml(-1) with AUCs of 5-193 ng ml(-1) h. Plasma chrysin sulphate concentrations were 30-fold higher (AUC 450-4220 ng ml(-1) h). In urine, chrysin and chrysin glucuronide accounted for 0.2-3.1 mg and 2-26 mg, respectively. Most of the dose appeared in faeces as chrysin. Parallel experiments in rats showed high bile concentrations of chrysin conjugates. CONCLUSIONS: These findings, together with previous data using Caco-2 cells, suggest that chrysin has low oral bioavailability, mainly due to extensive metabolism and efflux of metabolites back into the intestine for hydrolysis and faecal elimination.
Last edited:
Izzman
New member
plornive said:
Thanks! Sweet! (Mind me, Im being a giddy school girl here...) All aside, thats what I was planning to do when I start my first cycle, as of now I dont even plan to use an anti-e and hopefully I wont have to. I can withstand bloat and will want to ensure I am making the best gains I possibly can make. But if the need arises, .25mg of Adex it is, I dont want to take a chance with that stuff, Ive read all around its too strong.
Last edited:
Well, I'm not going to be baited into a debate over minutea. The numbers on the Chrysin were done on older men and the numbers on A-dex, I'm not sure. As stated many times, you want studies...do a search.
They're meant to be taken as a reference point.
Chrysin , being a natural substance will more likely produce a more natural balance than a drug that can obviously overide the system. I've said before, if you're going to use an anti-e drug, proviron is a good choice, and in some cases very low doses of a-dex. Everything else sucks IMO.
Even those who choose to use a drug might find chrysin helpful beacuse you'll need less drug. In some cases it's all you need.
And of course, there's always those who can't get drugs or don't want to. Some people need to recover from pro-hormones and a-dex would be too strong. And 6X0 is ridiculously expensive, making chrysin a good choice.
The study on Chrysin posted was conducted with insufficient amounts, not to mention no bioperine was used which has been shown to increase absorbtion.
Chrysin isn't a "must" or the "only" choice. That's why it's only ONE ingredient in the formula I developed. For PC therapy, you also need stuff for the liver and libido and erectile function. The Chysin is just an additional help. That's all.
They're meant to be taken as a reference point.
Chrysin , being a natural substance will more likely produce a more natural balance than a drug that can obviously overide the system. I've said before, if you're going to use an anti-e drug, proviron is a good choice, and in some cases very low doses of a-dex. Everything else sucks IMO.
Even those who choose to use a drug might find chrysin helpful beacuse you'll need less drug. In some cases it's all you need.
And of course, there's always those who can't get drugs or don't want to. Some people need to recover from pro-hormones and a-dex would be too strong. And 6X0 is ridiculously expensive, making chrysin a good choice.
The study on Chrysin posted was conducted with insufficient amounts, not to mention no bioperine was used which has been shown to increase absorbtion.
Chrysin isn't a "must" or the "only" choice. That's why it's only ONE ingredient in the formula I developed. For PC therapy, you also need stuff for the liver and libido and erectile function. The Chysin is just an additional help. That's all.
Izzman said:
I've done blood tests using Crhysin and 6OXO and both showed a reduction in e. What soe people suggested was, since the 6OXO was done second, maybe the e was still supressed from the Chrysin. Hard to say. I do know that it did not elevate my T, as claimed, and just about every other product by that company has been a failure.
I then used 6OXO with a course of HCG and my e was VERY high. Would it have been higher without the 6OXO? Hard to say again. At any rate, I won't be using it anymore. The chrysin works fine and the 6oxo is too expensive anyway.
plornive
New member
pseudoscienceNelson Montana said:
Letrozole seems to kick ass at low doses for minimal inhibition, and at high doses for more inhibition when needed.Nelson Montana said:
LETROZOLE, ARIMIDEX both beat chrysin in this regard. ADJUST THE DOSE for COMPLETE CONTROL.Nelson Montana said:
A-dex would not be too strong at a very low dose. I see your point about people not wanting to buy "drugs". In that case they can settle for less control and less guarantee.Nelson Montana said:
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but, letrozole and/or arimidex will do everything chrysin will do and more. As far as using herbs post-cycle, I agree with you that maca, tribulus, avena sativa work well for libido and perhaps LH and SHBG lowering.
poantrex said:
"Carbs for glycogen compensaton"? What the fuck are you talking about?!?
Look, if all you want to do is pick a fight, go somewhere else. Please. You're not only out of your leauge, you're just annoying everyone on the board now. Stop it.
Silent Method
New member
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nelson Montana
Chrysin , being a natural substance will more likely produce a more natural balance than a drug that can obviously overide the system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to argue for potency, methods of action, and the best choice for given application, by all means, please do so. However, this "natural substance" versus "drug" reasoning is silly. Both chemicals are acting as drugs. - if they were not, neither would have any effect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nelson Montana
Chrysin , being a natural substance will more likely produce a more natural balance than a drug that can obviously overide the system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to argue for potency, methods of action, and the best choice for given application, by all means, please do so. However, this "natural substance" versus "drug" reasoning is silly. Both chemicals are acting as drugs. - if they were not, neither would have any effect.
plornive
New member
I think Nelson should stick to the supplement board with this idea, because that is the only place people will take it seriously.Silent Method said:
If someone is retarded enough to think prohormones are somehow safer because they are not illegal drugs, he/she may also be retarded enough to think that chrysin will lead to more of a "natural balance" because it is not a prescription pharmaceutical.
He hasn't addressed the fact that very low doses of pharmaceutical aromatase inhibitors have the same effect as chrysin (supposedly - pharmacueticals are more proven, and cheaper in this case). I guess his only point is that chrysin is "natural". Elite Fitness Anabolic board is NOT a place for this kind of bullshit.
plornive said:
Since Chrysin is not a prohormone nor have I ever advocted the use of prohormones, this pretty much proves you don't know what you're talking about. And the fact that poantrex agrees with your prattle is further proof of how small minds think alike.
Silent Method
New member
anal·o·gyNelson Montana said:
1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will prob. agree in others
Obviously the analogy was lost on you.
Plornive was making the inference that the illogic of those who believe prohormones to somehow be safer/non-drugs when compared to steroids would fit well with your illogic regarding the parameters of drug versus "non-drug."
NO IMPLICATION was made regarding your stance on prohormones. This pretty much proves that in your above post you had no idea what you were talking about.
jubei said:
Gee, I wasn't aware that authors were supposed to assume when someone was making an inference or attempting to state a fact. I though you had to be a mind reader to do that. My bad.
By the way jubel, how many works have you had published?
And Slient Method: Knock it off already. Now you're just being a doushebag.
Silent Method
New member
No assumption is necessary, just basic reasoning skills. A reader should be able to process the information between two points. An adult level reader would be familiar with the concept of analogy and would recognized it within argument. An intellegent reader would have been able to see that no implication was made regarding your stance on prohormones in Plornive's post.Nelson Montana said:
By the way, this is getting old. Do agree with everything you've ever read in a published work? Have you never read a published work written by a moron?Nelson Montana said:
You not only made a post designed refute someone's position using mixed up reasoning - you laid in an insult as well. You have been corrected once again. Get over it.Nelson Montana said:
plornive
New member
Thank you.Silent Method said:
Nelson, I have made many posts in your threads that have been entirely unaddressed by you. In the above post you entirely missed my obvious point.Nelson Montana said:
To add to Silent Method's explanation, I didn't just make an analogy, I made a SIMILE. That means I spelled out the inference. You didn't even need to connect the dots (did you understand that? that was an analogy).
Notice that is not a statement yet.plornive said:
Obviously I was saying that your erroneous idea may be believable to someone who has the erroneous idea that prohormones are safer because they are not illegal drugs.plornive said:
Now that we have that covered, let's look at a solid point that I made, quoted below for your convenience. In any debate I have heard of, an unrefuted point counts against you.
plornive said:
plornive said:
plornive said:
plornive said:
So before someone runs a cycle of dbol thinking chrysin will bring his E back to a healthy level, why don't you address my point so that I don't think you have a total disregard for truth.
jubei said:
It's comments like this that make me realize it's a waste of time trying to reason with idiots.
I think it's fair to say that I've provided as much valuable information as most anyone else on this board, yet I'm talked to like I'm some sort of criminal. Requests for answers and explanations are requets at all. They're dares -- littered with insults. I will not respond. If you want to use that to cast further insults, you can do so , or you can just go fuck yourself. Either way works fine for me.
plornive said:
What's your point? You're pissed because I didn't respond to this particular post? So now I must give a detailed response to everything everyone says? Come on bro. Be reasonable.
I exlained in a previous post how Chrysin as an option for some people under certain circumstances, but because I didn't address it directly to you, you come back with "inferences" about being retarded. This is bullshit. You aren't fooling anyone, except for fools.
plornive
New member
No. That is definitely not true.Nelson Montana said:
You said that arimidex would be "too strong" in some circumstances.
Not true, with proper adjustment of dose. So why buy chrysin when arimidex will do everything chrysin can do and more?Nelson Montana said:
How about comparing the price of chrysin to that of anastrozole, used at very low doses?Nelson Montana said:
You make leaky arguments, don't address peoples' points, don't prove your points initially, and misinterpret every argument thrown at you. No one gains anything that way.
Besides that, it is easy to see why you support chrysin. You make money from the sale of chrysin. <sarcasm>Of course, no one should buy chrysin from anyone else other than PF, because they wouldn't be getting the other special ingredients in your special formula.</sarcasm>
Of course you can't choose to support arimidex, letrozole or even 6OXO because you won't make money from it! You need product differentiation! No one wants just the status quo, even if the status quo is the best thing currently.
plornive said:
You're wrong.
YOU keep making an issue over the price difference. I never did.
I have on several occasion said that chrysin isn't as effective as proviron, so you're wrong with that claim.
I have recommend Chrysin before it was in the PF product. Because it works. That's why I recommeneded that it go in the product.So your assumption there is wrong.
I have also recommend people go to BAC or vitamin shoppe. I don't make an money from that. So you're wrong there too.
I have said that there''s something to 6OXO, but felt the price was too high. I'm not allowed to do that?
So again I ask...what's your point? Sounds like you're just trying to argue minutia.
plornive
New member
You still haven't addressed this point:
People should know that buying chrysin won't give them the value or potential effectiveness that arimidex or letrozole will give them. As I said above, I can use letrozole at an extremely low dose with the same effect as chrysin. You have not addressed this comparison. You have not made a compelling argument as to why someone would buy chrysin instead of a pharmaceutical aromatase inhibitor. This is the main point I was trying to make in this thread. You have not addressed it. I would like people to know this, especially newbies.
On a message board, you must be clear. When someone makes an argument, you need to read his/her argument for just a moment and understand it. And you can't change your argument around in order to seem right.
plornive said:
People should know that buying chrysin won't give them the value or potential effectiveness that arimidex or letrozole will give them. As I said above, I can use letrozole at an extremely low dose with the same effect as chrysin. You have not addressed this comparison. You have not made a compelling argument as to why someone would buy chrysin instead of a pharmaceutical aromatase inhibitor. This is the main point I was trying to make in this thread. You have not addressed it. I would like people to know this, especially newbies.
That's the icing on the cake of my point, and the insult to people who buy chrysin thinking it is better than a pharmaceutical aromatase inhibitor in any way. You should make an issue of price - it matters.Nelson Montana said:
One exception does not make me wrong. You NEVER addressed my point that a very low dose of a pharmaceutical aromatase inhibitor has the same effect as chrysin. You never made a compelling argument for why someone should buy a less proven herb than a proven pharmaceutical that can do everything the herb can do and more.Nelson Montana said:
It's not just an assumption. Conclusions are usually based on fitting patterns in varying correspondence and exclusivity to already recognized patterns. You follow the pattern of someone motivated by selling your product (you, your supplements, your book, etc.) more than finding the truth with reason. You must differentiate your ideas/self/products from other people. In order to do that you must do something different, whether it is better or worse than the status quo.Nelson Montana said:
You are probably doing that to seem more objective and less profit driven in your endorsements, in order to continue endorsing your products while avoiding getting banned. It may help your case a little bit, but overall you still follow the patttern of differentiating your self/ideas/products in order to make a profit.Nelson Montana said:
I am arguing for the truth, not for exerting any rules over you. Of course you can say anything you want about 6OXO.Nelson Montana said:
If someone disagrees with you, you accuse them of arguing minutia.Nelson Montana said:
On a message board, you must be clear. When someone makes an argument, you need to read his/her argument for just a moment and understand it. And you can't change your argument around in order to seem right.
