Clomid-- The Big Lie

[boston789]

200iu HCG - human chorionic gonadotropin - EOD seems to be the best dose.

-Pp

I read in another post you said 500ius ew. Not that far off but one stick a week is alot easier than 3-4 sticks a week.

 

[Primordial Performance]

I read in another post you said 500ius ew. Not that far off but one stick a week is alot easier than 3-4 sticks a week.

Yeah.. the once a week protocol is easier, but I think the 200iu EOD is just 'as' effective but with less estrogen creation.

-Pp

 

[GymIntensity]

HAHAHAHA.


that guy makes me laugh

Honestly, makes me feel good about not being an uneducated moron

 

[jagerbombme]

clomid does work, there is no doubt about it. it does work. now, i'm not saying adex doesn't, and as the other guy was saying, if it does, i'd like to see some people try it and i might try it myself. but clomid does work. and i do shoot bigger loads with it. i shot the biggest loads i've ever shot in my life in the past month.

 

[ProtienFiend]

And here's a little thing about the "big loads." I did an article with Brock Strasser years ago and mentioned the amount of ejaculate from Clomid. I was referring to the LOSS of ejaculate. But he thought I meant an increase and said "Yeah, it does." And then he ran with that theme and came up with this story about porn stars using it which I think he just pulled out of his ass. Ever since then, I've heard about how Clomid increases loads. Even outside of the bodybuilding community. Rumor travels fast. Never underestimated the power of placebo. People swore Saw Palmetto made them horny. Saw Palmetto is an ANTI androgen. But the mind can play tricks on you if you believe strong enough.

They probably had bigger loads because they jacked off less due to a bad PCT

 

[ProtienFiend]

They probably had bigger loads because they jacked off less due to a bad PCT - post cycle therapy -

Sorry I should probably offer some advice.

I like to do moderate/low dose cycles (<=500mg/wk, <=10 wks) so take what I say in context. IMO, an anti-e with some supps (including creatine) is the way to go. Its mostly a mental thing for me. Just don't let yourself fall off the horse, thats where you get sides, lethargy, depression, etc...

In my experience, nolvadex has been crap for me. Id rather have the low test sides than what that gave me (depression, BP, etc...). Mostly, you just have to find what works for you. I am not going to use clomid due to the possible permanent side effects, so I choose to use a more natural approach, including long periods of time off if necessary.

-PF

 

[Nelson Montana]

Sorry I should probably offer some advice.

I like to do moderate/low dose cycles (<=500mg/wk, <=10 wks) so take what I say in context. IMO, an anti-e with some supps (including creatine) is the way to go. Its mostly a mental thing for me. Just don't let yourself fall off the horse, thats where you get sides, lethargy, depression, etc...

In my experience, nolvadex has been crap for me. Id rather have the low test sides than what that gave me (depression, BP, etc...). Mostly, you just have to find what works for you. I am not going to use clomid due to the possible permanent side effects, so I choose to use a more natural approach, including long periods of time off if necessary.

-PF

Best answer so far.

 

[Harleymarleybone]

Who are these people you're referring to? And exactly what is their scientific banckground?

And since when are those with a scientific background automatically correct? Pat Arnold is one of the few legitmate scientists in the field and he's been wrong more often than he's been right and some of his blunders have been HUGE.

So you are saying that scientists in the field are generally not to be trusted any more than non-scientists? That seems odd.

 

[ceo]

ok this new feature of spelling out everything is getting annoying

Agreed. At first I was thinking, "what the hell is everyone doing spelling all this shit out?" But I know it's the "system." I hate it. Turn it off please!

 

[Nelson Montana]

So you are saying that scientists in the field are generally not to be trusted any more than non-scientists? That seems odd.

No, that's not what I'm saying.