Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

I Was A Guinea Pig...

mighty306

New member
Now before I even start, I know that the flames will be coming at me, but this is a forum for knowledge sharing, so that is what I am going to do.

My journey started as I have researched for the past 5 months before I would start my first course. After several balls of paper were thrown into the trashcan, I decided on an alternative route. I had chosen to pursue a 2 week cycle of nothing more than 50mg dbol ed. Long story short, I gained 7 pounds and now, 10 days post cycle, I am holding at a 6.5lb gain and look as lean as I did going into this.

Sides: Found out pretty quickly that I am sensitive - Gyno pain on day 6 (easily diminished with a few days of nolvadex), kidney pain by day 10 (scary stuff) and a few more pimples than usual through pct.

PCT: Day 1 60mg nolvadex, Days 2-5 40mg nolvadex, Days 6-9 20mg nolvadex, Day 10 10mg nolvadex

I felt completely recovered by the 3rd or 4th day of pct...Now I will do my best to keep my gains and start a new 2 weeker in about 20 days... :p
 
Interesting idea. The general concensus will be that it takes longer than two weeks to make permanent gains but if it works for you, who can argue.

Limiting a cycle to only two weeks will certainly make recovery easier.

The one thing I'd ask you to think about is whether it was the gear or your eating habits that lead to the gains. Did you eat considerably more while on the d-bol?
 
In all honesty, I really ate a the same calorie level with consistent macronutrient levels. I am pretty routine in my diet...

Also, my conditions were less than ideal for a growth phase as I have just bought a house and have been moving and painting late after work and the gym every night with less than optimal sleep patterns (feel that strength may have been better if I slept more)

I don't take regular bf measurements, but visually I look just as lean (if not slightly leaner than pre cycle and look much less smooth than I did when I was on. I honeslty think I may have continued to gain slightly post cycle as my test probably rebounded quickly and slightly higher due to the short time on. I highly doubt that I am still holding water this far post cycle with nolva and 1+gallon of water per day...
 
mighty306 said:
Now before I even start, I know that the flames will be coming at me, but this is a forum for knowledge sharing, so that is what I am going to do.

My journey started as I have researched for the past 5 months before I would start my first course. After several balls of paper were thrown into the trashcan, I decided on an alternative route. I had chosen to pursue a 2 week cycle of nothing more than 50mg dbol ed. Long story short, I gained 7 pounds and now, 10 days post cycle, I am holding at a 6.5lb gain and look as lean as I did going into this.

Sides: Found out pretty quickly that I am sensitive - Gyno pain on day 6 (easily diminished with a few days of nolvadex), kidney pain by day 10 (scary stuff) and a few more pimples than usual through pct.

PCT: Day 1 60mg nolvadex, Days 2-5 40mg nolvadex, Days 6-9 20mg nolvadex, Day 10 10mg nolvadex

I felt completely recovered by the 3rd or 4th day of pct...Now I will do my best to keep my gains and start a new 2 weeker in about 20 days... :p


Liver pain after 10 days, do you have failing kidneys or something, I've taken orals for 14+ weeks and never had any pain...
 
It may not be all water... you have to take fat into account too. Its not all muscle by any means.
If you didn't use any pct your estrogen levels would have been out of controll leading to water retention post cycle. Your nipple sensitivity shows your hormones were out of whack too.
I would be pumped it two lbs of that was muscle... I don't think it is. Not flaming.. just going by the experiences of others I have talked to.
 
by no pct i meant HCG/clomid. That is a ton of dbol. Nolva alone will not take care of being shut down.
Did you split the dose or do it all at once? The reason I ask is I red a study where if you do it all at once it spikes your test levels and really doesn't entirely shut you down like spreading the doses.
 
slat1 said:
by no pct i meant HCG/clomid. That is a ton of dbol. Nolva alone will not take care of being shut down.
Did you split the dose or do it all at once? The reason I ask is I red a study where if you do it all at once it spikes your test levels and really doesn't entirely shut you down like spreading the doses.

I would disagree with that statement; there is very little difference between nolvadex and clomid and nolvadex is fine for PCT.

And with only 2 weeks on, I doubt his testes shut down completely and HCG would be a waste of money.
 
just curious as to why you went with 2 weeks instead of 4. usually 4 weeks is whats recomended for dbol at least that's what i read most of the time.
 
slat1 said:
It may not be all water... you have to take fat into account too. Its not all muscle by any means.
If you didn't use any pct your estrogen levels would have been out of controll leading to water retention post cycle. Your nipple sensitivity shows your hormones were out of whack too.
I would be pumped it two lbs of that was muscle... I don't think it is. Not flaming.. just going by the experiences of others I have talked to.


Well, as I have said previously, I look just as lean if not leaner than post cycle and my eating habits did not change pre, during or post cycle. Sorry, but I don't think fat gain accounts for the majority of the weight increase. Also, my strength went up between 10-15 pounds on all lifts (20+ lbs for squats and deadlifts) and it has stayed with the exception of a decrease by one rep in some lifts.

Again, don't think water will still be hanging on at this point...I am not the only one - Bill Roberts has advocated this for some time with documented cases as well as Realgains - a former elitefitness member....
 
slat1 said:
by no pct i meant HCG/clomid. That is a ton of dbol. Nolva alone will not take care of being shut down.
Did you split the dose or do it all at once? The reason I ask is I red a study where if you do it all at once it spikes your test levels and really doesn't entirely shut you down like spreading the doses.


Well 10 days of nolvadex at the doses I listed above and I feel 100%. Dbol is known to be non-AR mediated and has less of a supressive effect as heavy androgens/test.

I don't know if people are mad or what, but I was looking for no more than a break in my plateau and that is what I acheived...
 
kahbab said:
just curious as to why you went with 2 weeks instead of 4. usually 4 weeks is whats recomended for dbol at least that's what i read most of the time.

At 2 weeks your HPTA is shut down, but the pituitary is not - thus allowing for a quick recovery. If your going to go 4 weeks, you might as well go to 8 as recovery will be similar. People only suggest 4 weeks for dbol as it can become hepatoxic.
 
nydj66 said:
I would disagree with that statement; there is very little difference between nolvadex and clomid and nolvadex is fine for PCT.

And with only 2 weeks on, I doubt his testes shut down completely and HCG would be a waste of money.

Nolvadex does not do what clomid does - deactivate estrogren receptors in the hypothalmus. Clomid is documented to restore testosterone levels in men with secondary hypogonadism, nolvadex isn't. Most studies show a moderate increase in testosterone levels with nolvadex, but nowhere near the same extent as clomid.
 
mighty306 said:
Now before I even start, I know that the flames will be coming at me, but this is a forum for knowledge sharing, so that is what I am going to do.

My journey started as I have researched for the past 5 months before I would start my first course. After several balls of paper were thrown into the trashcan, I decided on an alternative route. I had chosen to pursue a 2 week cycle of nothing more than 50mg dbol ed. Long story short, I gained 7 pounds and now, 10 days post cycle, I am holding at a 6.5lb gain and look as lean as I did going into this.

Sides: Found out pretty quickly that I am sensitive - Gyno pain on day 6 (easily diminished with a few days of nolvadex), kidney pain by day 10 (scary stuff) and a few more pimples than usual through pct.

PCT: Day 1 60mg nolvadex, Days 2-5 40mg nolvadex, Days 6-9 20mg nolvadex, Day 10 10mg nolvadex

I felt completely recovered by the 3rd or 4th day of pct...Now I will do my best to keep my gains and start a new 2 weeker in about 20 days... :p

How long has it been? I am certain that you won't keep your gains with dbol only. It takes LONGER than a few weeks to judge what amount of LBM you kept. Get back to us in a few months.

BTW: I thought the same thing since my first cycle was dbol only. I gained quite a bit and my muscles looked like they were inflated like baloons...but 2 months after the cycle I lost most of my gains. My training and diet were consistent, as well.
 
poantrex said:
How long has it been? I am certain that you won't keep your gains with dbol only. It takes LONGER than a few weeks to judge what amount of LBM you kept. Get back to us in a few months.

BTW: I thought the same thing since my first cycle was dbol only. I gained quite a bit and my muscles looked like they were inflated like baloons...but 2 months after the cycle I lost most of my gains. My training and diet were consistent, as well.


Well, then there was a flaw somewhere. Mass gained is mass gained, regardless of the compound used. Remember, I am only trying to hold onto a few pounds gained; not th 25+ gained in traditional cycles. And in 20 days, I will be back on gaining some more - a slow but steady process.
 
poantrex said:
Nolvadex does not do what clomid does - deactivate estrogren receptors in the hypothalmus. Clomid is documented to restore testosterone levels in men with secondary hypogonadism, nolvadex isn't. Most studies show a moderate increase in testosterone levels with nolvadex, but nowhere near the same extent as clomid.


This is not relevant to the post and is an issue that has been documneted and argued for years. People respond well to both. Again, dbol is not AR-mediated and therefore is not as supressive as other compounds in the first place. Also, 14 days on is not going afftecting the pituitary.

I am not going to continue to argue my stance. Just wanted to be a friend and share the gains that were made with an alternative approach to cycling for someone that is limited in options...
 
mighty306 said:
At 2 weeks your HPTA is shut down, but the pituitary is not - thus allowing for a quick recovery. If your going to go 4 weeks, you might as well go to 8 as recovery will be similar. People only suggest 4 weeks for dbol as it can become hepatoxic.

HPTA stands for hypothalamic-pituitary-testes axis; it covers the whole system from hypothalmus to testes. I think you mean to say that at two weeks on cycle the hypothalmus is shut down but not the pituitary (and therefore not the testes).

Sorry to nit-pick, I know it's a small point.
 
mighty306 said:
This is not relevant to the post and is an issue that has been documneted and argued for years. People respond well to both. Again, dbol is not AR-mediated and therefore is not as supressive as other compounds in the first place. Also, 14 days on is not going afftecting the pituitary.

I am not going to continue to argue my stance. Just wanted to be a friend and share the gains that were made with an alternative approach to cycling for someone that is limited in options...

:rolleyes:

Been there, done that. I was stubborn too and thought I would keep the water that I gained from dbol.

You'll learn eventually and switch to injects.
 
poantrex said:
Nolvadex does not do what clomid does - deactivate estrogren receptors in the hypothalmus. Clomid is documented to restore testosterone levels in men with secondary hypogonadism, nolvadex isn't. Most studies show a moderate increase in testosterone levels with nolvadex, but nowhere near the same extent as clomid.

Nolvadex and clomid are both SERMs; selective estrogen receptor modulators. They bind to estrogen receptors in the hypothalmus and block them...indirectly deactivating them.

The study I saw showed that 150mg/day of clomid gave a slightly higher increase in tesosterone than 20mg/day of nolvadex in men that did not have hypoganism. Here the mechanism for testosterone increase is the same, blocking estrogen receptors in the hypothalmus. Slightly higher results at 7.5 times the dosage hardly makes it more effective.

I will try and find the reference for you.
 
poantrex said:
:rolleyes:

Been there, done that. I was stubborn too and thought I would keep the water that I gained from dbol.

You'll learn eventually and switch to injects.


Have nothing against injects and never said that I did. Not holding water at this point either and was limited on cycle due to arimidex....

Seems you have kicked that stubborn bug yet.
 
nydj66 said:
HPTA stands for hypothalamic-pituitary-testes axis; it covers the whole system from hypothalmus to testes. I think you mean to say that at two weeks on cycle the hypothalmus is shut down but not the pituitary (and therefore not the testes).

Sorry to nit-pick, I know it's a small point.


My fault...your 100%..
 
nydj66 said:
Nolvadex and clomid are both SERMs; selective estrogen receptor modulators. They bind to estrogen receptors in the hypothalmus and block them...indirectly deactivating them.

The study I saw showed that 150mg/day of clomid gave a slightly higher increase in tesosterone than 20mg/day of nolvadex in men that did not have hypoganism. Here the mechanism for testosterone increase is the same, blocking estrogen receptors in the hypothalmus. Slightly higher results at 7.5 times the dosage hardly makes it more effective.

I will try and find the reference for you.

Post the study then.
 
nydj66 said:
Nolvadex and clomid are both SERMs; selective estrogen receptor modulators. They bind to estrogen receptors in the hypothalmus and block them...indirectly deactivating them.

The study I saw showed that 150mg/day of clomid gave a slightly higher increase in tesosterone than 20mg/day of nolvadex in men that did not have hypoganism. Here the mechanism for testosterone increase is the same, blocking estrogen receptors in the hypothalmus. Slightly higher results at 7.5 times the dosage hardly makes it more effective.

I will try and find the reference for you.


Thank you Nydj66 - Unfortunately, i don't think your time spent searching is going to help you as people are going to have their personal preferences. It was that very article that swayed not to use the clomid that is sitting in my drawer. Why use 7 times the dose for the same results with more sides???

Aside from that, I don't think that the SERM debate should go on any further...The whole point of this thread was to share my experience. I am aware that this route is no where near as effective as other ways, but dbol is the only substance I can use. I expected people to act in this way as traditional cycles have been burned into everyone's minds.
 
poantrex said:
Post the study then.


Your a tough one...there is more if you would like to see it

Studies conducted in the late 1970's at the University of Ghent in Belgium make clear the advantages of using Nolvadex instead of Clomid for increasing testosterone levels (1). Here, researchers looked the effects of Nolvadex and Clomid on the endocrine profiles of normal men, as well as those suffering from low sperm counts (oligospermia). For our purposes, the results of these drugs on hormonally normal men are obviously the most relevant. What was found, just in the early parts of the study, was quite enlightening. Nolvadex, used for 10 days at a dosage of 20mg daily, increased serum testosterone levels to 142% of baseline, which was on par with the effect of 150mg of Clomid daily for the same duration (the testosterone increase was slightly, but not significantly, better for Clomid). We must remember though that this is the effect of three 50mg tablets of Clomid. With the price of both a 50mg Clomid and 20mg Nolvadex typically very similar, we are already seeing a cost vs. results discrepancy forming that strongly favors the Nolvadex side.

1. Hormonal effects of an antiestrogen, tamoxifen, in normal and oligospermic men. Vermeulen, Comhaire. Fertil and Steril 29 (1978) 320-7
 
Muscle gained on D-Bol is the same as muscle gained on test, or fina, or deca, or EQ, or whatever...I don't know where people get the idea that it's not. I know the guy didn't gain 7lbs of muscle in 2 weeks, but someone saying he doubts it was even 2lbs of muscle...give the guy some credit. As long as his diet and training weren't absolutely abysmal, 2lbs in 2 weeks on 50mg d-bol/day (a very potent drug mg for mg) is nothing.
 
I agree with mighty mouse.
I think my second cycle will be just a few weeks of dbol and the main reason is recovery. I want my natural test. levels to come back...and quickly. That is, for short cycle obviously a fast acting steroid should be used. Test Prop, NPP, dbol. Why not dbol, its the best mass gainer there is?
 
mighty306 said:
Your a tough one...there is more if you would like to see it

Studies conducted in the late 1970's at the University of Ghent in Belgium make clear the advantages of using Nolvadex instead of Clomid for increasing testosterone levels (1). Here, researchers looked the effects of Nolvadex and Clomid on the endocrine profiles of normal men, as well as those suffering from low sperm counts (oligospermia). For our purposes, the results of these drugs on hormonally normal men are obviously the most relevant. What was found, just in the early parts of the study, was quite enlightening. Nolvadex, used for 10 days at a dosage of 20mg daily, increased serum testosterone levels to 142% of baseline, which was on par with the effect of 150mg of Clomid daily for the same duration (the testosterone increase was slightly, but not significantly, better for Clomid). We must remember though that this is the effect of three 50mg tablets of Clomid. With the price of both a 50mg Clomid and 20mg Nolvadex typically very similar, we are already seeing a cost vs. results discrepancy forming that strongly favors the Nolvadex side.

1. Hormonal effects of an antiestrogen, tamoxifen, in normal and oligospermic men. Vermeulen, Comhaire. Fertil and Steril 29 (1978) 320-7


This study that DOES NOT compare clomid and nolvadex directly. In fact, there are NO STUDIES in the NiH databse comparing the two directly - the only nolvadex studies i've seen show a modest increase in testosterone, while clomid, since it is more effective in blocking estrogen receptors in the hypothalmus, can completely reverse secondary hypogonadism. There
are no studies showing that nolvadex can do such, and quite frankly, I doubt
it can bsed on my experience with it.

That first paragraph sounds like someone is just trying to lay a case for nolvadex because they prefer it, but (like I mentioned) there is no study substantiating that. Feel free to look for yourself at the NiH database (pubmed.com). I DO KNOW
that clomid can increase testosterone levels from sub-normal to supraphysiological levels - you can read the book "testosterone syndrome" for proof. He is an endocrinologist in Pennsylvania who uses clomid for men
with secondary hypogonadism, and he frequently does bloodwork to see their reaction to it.
 
The study I do see on nolvadex effects on testosterone productioin show it increasing testosterone by 20% on average. That will HARDLY reverse steroid induced hypogonadism. 20% is nothing.





Department of Endocrinology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [email protected]

OBJECTIVE: To explore effects on serum lipids, pituitary-gonadal axis, prostate and bone turnover of the administration of the mixed oestrogen agonist/antagonist raloxifene in healthy elderly men. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty healthy men aged 60-70 years randomly received raloxifene 120 mg/day (n=15) or placebo (n=15) for 3 months. MEASUREMENTS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, serum gonadotrophins, sex hormones, prostate specific antigen (PSA), a marker of bone turnover, urinary hydroxyproline (OHPro) and cholesterol were measured at baseline and after 3 months. RESULTS: Raloxifene significantly increased serum concentrations of LH and FSH (by 29% and 21%), total testosterone (20%), free testosterone (16%) and bioavailable testosterone (not bound to sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG; 20%). In parallel with testosterone, 17 beta-oestradiol also increased by 21%. SHBG increased by 7%. Total cholesterol (TChol) decreased significantly, from 5.7 to 5.5 mmol/l (P=0.03). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c) showed a trend to decrease. Overall, there was no change in urinary OHPro/creatinine ratio as a marker for bone resorption. However, the raloxifene-induced increases in both serum testosterone and 17 beta-oestradiol were significantly related to a lower OHPro/creatinine ratio. Total PSA increased by 17% without significant changes in free PSA or free/total PSA ratio. Participants reported no side effects and raloxifene was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In healthy elderly man, raloxifene 120 mg/day for 3 months increased LH, FSH and sex steroid hormones. Potentially beneficial effects were the small but significant decrease in TChol and the trend towards a decrease in LDL-c. Negative effects were the trend towards a decrease in HDL-c and the significant increase in serum PSA. A decrease in markers of bone resorption during raloxifene treatment was found only in men with relatively high increases in serum testosterone and 17 beta-oestradiol. Overall, there were no clear beneficial effects of administration of raloxifene to ageing men in this preliminary investigation.

Publication Types:

* Clinical Trial
* Randomized Controlled Trial


PMID: 15080785 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, Texas 77030, USA. [email protected]

OBJECTIVE: To report a case of symptomatic hypogonadism induced by the abuse of multiple steroid preparations that was subsequently reversed by clomiphene. DESIGN: Case report. SETTING: University-affiliated andrology practice within family practice clinic. PATIENT(S): A 30-year-old male. INTERVENTION(S): Clomiphene citrate, 100-mg challenge for 5 days, followed by treatment at same dose for 2 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Clinical symptoms, androgen decline in aging male questionnaire, total T, FSH, LH. RESULT(S): Reversal of symptoms, normalization of T levels with LH surge, restoration of pituitary-gonadal axis. CONCLUSION(S): Clomiphene citrate is used typically in helping to restore fertility in females. This represents the first case report of the successful use of clomiphene to restore T levels and the pituitary-gonadal axis in a male patient. The axis was previously shut off with multiple anabolic steroid abuse.

Publication Types:

* Case Reports


PMID: 12524089 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
 
Poan... your study is messed up bro. It's listing "raloxifene", not tamoxifen. If those are the same meds, you should clarify that, b/c if not, it's completely irrelevant. Also, the first study was in HEALTHY men, with normal test levels. The raloxifene increased test levels to 20% ABOVE normal, which is supraphysiological... certainly not "nothing" as you stated. And the second study was done on a single person, with very LOW test levels to begin with. Therefore, having no reproduceability, that study is also useless. Your position against nolvadex is well thought out in general, but completely unsupported by the evidence that you yourself posted. Also, nolva and clomid are BOTH serms... they're the same class of drug and do almost the exact same thing, much like xanax and valium. Sure they're different drugs, and they'll have slightly different effects, but in general, both will do the job equally as well. In my own experience, nolva is superior to clomid for recovery, as proven by blood tests I had run after heavy and long cycles. Clomid worked too, but nolva was faster, better, and had fewer sides for me. Don't hate the nolva bro, embrace it :)
 
Lowest said:
Poan... your study is messed up bro. It's listing "raloxifene", not tamoxifen. If those are the same meds, you should clarify that, b/c if not, it's completely irrelevant. Also, the first study was in HEALTHY men, with normal test levels. The raloxifene increased test levels to 20% ABOVE normal, which is supraphysiological... certainly not "nothing" as you stated. And the second study was done on a single person, with very LOW test levels to begin with. Therefore, having no reproduceability, that study is also useless. Your position against nolvadex is well thought out in general, but completely unsupported by the evidence that you yourself posted. Also, nolva and clomid are BOTH serms... they're the same class of drug and do almost the exact same thing, much like xanax and valium. Sure they're different drugs, and they'll have slightly different effects, but in general, both will do the job equally as well. In my own experience, nolva is superior to clomid for recovery, as proven by blood tests I had run after heavy and long cycles. Clomid worked too, but nolva was faster, better, and had fewer sides for me. Don't hate the nolva bro, embrace it :)


Thank you...this debate can back and forth on end. Point is, I chose nolva and felt recovered within days. Then again, we are talking about 14 days on with a mildly supressive substance.
 
Lowest said:
Poan... your study is messed up bro. It's listing "raloxifene", not tamoxifen. If those are the same meds, you should clarify that, b/c if not, it's completely irrelevant. Also, the first study was in HEALTHY men, with normal test levels. The raloxifene increased test levels to 20% ABOVE normal, which is supraphysiological... certainly not "nothing" as you stated. And the second study was done on a single person, with very LOW test levels to begin with. Therefore, having no reproduceability, that study is also useless. Your position against nolvadex is well thought out in general, but completely unsupported by the evidence that you yourself posted. Also, nolva and clomid are BOTH serms... they're the same class of drug and do almost the exact same thing, much like xanax and valium. Sure they're different drugs, and they'll have slightly different effects, but in general, both will do the job equally as well. In my own experience, nolva is superior to clomid for recovery, as proven by blood tests I had run after heavy and long cycles. Clomid worked too, but nolva was faster, better, and had fewer sides for me. Don't hate the nolva bro, embrace it :)


Raloxifene is a newer drug and is more potent than nolvadex. They both are SERM's that act on breast tissue for breast cancer patients.

And put this in perspective: 20% of 300ng/dl is what, 60? So nolvadex can potentially raise testosterone by 60 points. Big deal. Clomid has been shown to raise testosterone from hypogonadism levels (less than 300ng/dl) all the way up to supraphysiological levels (over 900). Again, read the book I mentioned for proof. The doctor that wrote the book has done hundreds of bloodtests to show the effiacy of clomid.

Nolvadex, on the other hand, has no proof of raising testosterone levels signifigantly. There are NO STUDIES on NiH providing proof of this. I'm sure
that it can raise testosterone levels moderate based on its mechanism of action, but it does not selectively block hypothalmus receptors as well as clomid does.
 
I have not researched for studies performed but I will search and post soon enough. In the mean time, here is some more good reasoning:


Nolvadex and Clomid

While practically similar compounds in structure, few people ever really consider Clomid and Nolva to be similar. Its not just a common myth in steroid circles, but even in the medical community. This misconception originates from their completely different uses. Nolvadex is most commonly used for the treatment of breast cancer in women, while clomid is generally considered a fertility aid. In bodybuilding circles, from day one, clomid has generally been used as post-cycle therapy and Nolvadex as an anti-estrogen.

But as I intend to demonstrate this is in essence the same. I believe the myth to have originated because Nolva is clearly a more powerful anti-estrogen, and the people selling clomid needed another angle to sell the stuff, so it was mostly used as a post-cycle aid. But few users really understand how clomid (and also Nolvadex, logically) works to bring back natural testosterone in the body after the conclusion of a cycle of androgenic anabolic steroids. After a cycle is over, the level of androgens in the body drop drastically. The body compensates with an overproduction of estrogen to keep steroid levels up. Estrogen as well inhibits the production of natural testosterone, and in the period between the return of natural testosterone and the end of a cycle, a lot of mass is lost. So its in everybody's best interest to bring back natural test as soon as humanly possible. Clomid and Nolvadex will reduce the post-cycle estrogen, so that a steroid deficiency is constated and the hypothalamus is stimulated to regenerate natural testosterone production in the body. That's basically how the mechanism works, nothing more, nothing less.

Both compounds are structurally alike, classified as triphenylethylenes. Nolvadex is clearly the stronger component of the two as it can achieve better results in decreasing overall estrogen with 20-40 mg a day, than clomid can in doses of 100-150 mg a day. A noteworthy difference. Triphenylethylenes are very mild estrogens that do not exert a lot, if any activity at the estrogen receptor, but are still highly attracted to it. As such they will occupy the receptor and keep it from binding estrogens. This means they do not actively work to reduce estrogen in the body like Proviron, Viratase or arimidex would (by competing for the aromatase enzyme), but that it blocks the receptor so that any estrogen in the body is basically inert, because it has no receptor to bind to.

This has advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantage is that when use is discontinued, the estrogen level is still the same and new problems will develop much sooner. The advantage is that it works much faster and has results sooner than with an aromatase blocker like Proviron or arimidex. Therefor, when problems such as gynocomastia occur during a cycle of steroids one will usually start 20 mg/day of Nolva or 100 mg/day of clomid straight away, in conjunction with some Proviron or arimidex. The proviron or arimidex will actively reduce estrogen while the clomid or Nolvadex will solve your ongoing problem straight away. This way, when use is discontinued there is no immediate rebound.

So which one should you use? Well personally, I'd have to say Nolvadex. Both as an on-cycle anti-estrogen and a post-cycle therapy. As an anti-estrogen its simply much stronger, demonstrated by the fact that better results are obtained with 20-40 mg than with 100-150 mg of clomid. For post-cycle, this plays a key role as well. It deactivates rebound estrogen much faster and more effective. But most importantly, Nolvadex has a direct influence on bringing back natural testosterone, where as clomid may actually have a slight negative influence. The reason being that Tamoxifen (as in Nolvadex) seems to increase the responsiveness of LH (luteinizing hormone) to GnRH (gonadtropin releasing hormone), whereas clomid seems to decrease the responsiveness a bit1.

Another noteworthy fact about Nolvadex is that it acts more potently as an estrogen in the liver. As you remember, I mentioned that clomiphene and tamoxifen are basically weak estrogens. Well, tamoxifen is apparently still quite potent in the liver. This offers us the positive benefits of this hormone in the liver, while avoiding its negative effects elsewhere in the body. As such Nolvadex can have a very positive impact on negative cholesterol levels2 in the body, and therefore too should be considered a better choice than clomid. It will not solve the problem of bad cholesterol levels during Steroid use, but will help to contain the problem to a larger degree.

Another reason why I promote the use of Nolvadex over Clomid post-cycle (as if being 3-4 times stronger and having more of a direct effect on restoring natural test wasn't enough) is because it's a lot safer. Not just because it improves lipid profiles, but also because it simply doesn't have the intrinsic side-effects that Clomid has. Clomid causes more acne for sure, but that's mainly because you need to use a 3-4 times higher dose. But Clomid seems to also affect the eyesight. Long-term clomid therapy causes irreversible changes in eyesight3 in users. Irreversible. For me that alone is reason enough to prefer Nolvadex.

Lastly, one should be aware that use of these compounds can reduce the gains made on steroids. Nolvadex more so than clomid, simply because it is stronger. Estrogen is responsible for a number of anabolic factors such as increasing growth hormone output, upgrading the androgen receptor and improving glucose utilization. This is why aromatizing steroids like testosterone are still best suited for maximum muscle gain. When reducing the estrogen levels, we therefore reduce the potential gains being made. For this reason one may opt to try clomid during a cycle instead of Nolvadex. Although I would imagine that the problem that needed solved would be of more concern, in which case Nolva remains the weapon of choice. It's a plain fact that there is a high correlation between gains and side-effects. Either you go for maximum gains and tolerate the side-effects, or you reduce the side-effects, and with it the gains. That's life, nothing is free.
 
poantrex said:
Raloxifene is a newer drug and is more potent than nolvadex. They both are SERM's that act on breast tissue for breast cancer patients.

And put this in perspective: 20% of 300ng/dl is what, 60? So nolvadex can potentially raise testosterone by 60 points. Big deal. Clomid has been shown to raise testosterone from hypogonadism levels (less than 300ng/dl) all the way up to supraphysiological levels (over 900). Again, read the book I mentioned for proof. The doctor that wrote the book has done hundreds of bloodtests to show the effiacy of clomid.

Nolvadex, on the other hand, has no proof of raising testosterone levels signifigantly. There are NO STUDIES on NiH providing proof of this. I'm sure
that it can raise testosterone levels moderate based on its mechanism of action, but it does not selectively block hypothalmus receptors as well as clomid does.


Raloxifene may be newer and more potent for breast cancer but it is not tamoxifen. Also, the men that had there tesosterone levels rise 20% in the study you site are 60-70 years old. There is a very good chance that the results would have been more favorable in men 30 years younger than this.
 
nydj66 said:
Raloxifene may be newer and more potent for breast cancer but it is not tamoxifen. Also, the men that had there tesosterone levels rise 20% in the study you site are 60-70 years old. There is a very good chance that the results would have been more favorable in men 30 years younger than this.

No there isn't. Besides, there is no proof that nolvadex reverses hpta inhibition, there are TONS of studies proving clomid effective - which is why it is used by some endocrinologists to treat secondary hypogonadism. Like I said, feel free to browse NiH.
 
Actually , every study you post about clomid also proves nolvadex effective. Since they're the same class of drug, and have the same method of action, if one is effective, so is the other. Therefore, if clomid reverses HPTA inhibition, so does nolva.... I have both personal and medical proof of that, I've worked with plenty of HRT patients and I've seen it work. Again, don't hate the nolva bro... are you trying to sell clomid or something? :)
 
Seriously, no one is bashing clomid, bro. We are just saying that nolva is a good option for hpta recovery through supression of the negative feedback caused by elevated estrogen - just as is clomid...
 
Lowest said:
Actually , every study you post about clomid also proves nolvadex effective. Since they're the same class of drug, and have the same method of action, if one is effective, so is the other. Therefore, if clomid reverses HPTA inhibition, so does nolva.... I have both personal and medical proof of that, I've worked with plenty of HRT patients and I've seen it work. Again, don't hate the nolva bro... are you trying to sell clomid or something? :)

No, it doesn't. Nolvadex is more effective for blocking estrogen receptors in breast tissue, while clomid is more effective in the hypothalmus. For PCT purposes, the latter is more important.

And there is no PROOF that nolvadex works for reversing steroid induced hpta inhibition - while there is tons of proof for clomid.
 
poantrex said:
No there isn't.

There, I guess we finally have irrefutable evidence. Men in their 60's have the same testosterone producing capabilities as men in their 30's because poantrex says so.

Look, AAS induced hypogonadism will reverse itself without any PCT; it simply takes 10 weeks or longer. The use of a SERM only speeds up the process.

I have never seen a study showing that either Nolvadex or Clomid can raise testosterone levels by more than 50% above baseline. If you're saying Clomid can create some kind of scary high testosterone levels, it's just not possible. Testosterone itself will inhibit the hypothalmus; it doesn't have to aromatize to estrogen first. Clomid is not a Selective Testosterone Receptor Modulator.
 
mighty306 said:
I had chosen to pursue a 2 week cycle of nothing more than 50mg dbol ed. Long story short, I gained 7 pounds and now, 10 days post cycle, I am holding at a 6.5lb gain and look as lean as I did going into this.

you have an interesting idea, I am nibbling on the hook, but if you want to earn some real credit, you should of done a true bodyfat measurement and measured each body part also for sizing.

That way after the 2 weeks you could go back and compare the data of bodyfat and muscle size and see where and if you really gained. And then a month later, you could go back and really see if it was mostly water or if you kept the gains.

The 6.5lb gain and look as lean as I did going into it, thats like me saying I ate ALPO everyday for 2 weeks with my dalmation and I feel stronger and quicker than before, even though I never maxed out my lifts or timed my speed for a true comparison.

Please do it again and get some true empirical data to compare, otherwise its just pure speculation.
 
baby DBOL said:
you have an interesting idea, I am nibbling on the hook, but if you want to earn some real credit, you should of done a true bodyfat measurement and measured each body part also for sizing.

That way after the 2 weeks you could go back and compare the data of bodyfat and muscle size and see where and if you really gained. And then a month later, you could go back and really see if it was mostly water or if you kept the gains.

The 6.5lb gain and look as lean as I did going into it, thats like me saying I ate ALPO everyday for 2 weeks with my dalmation and I feel stronger and quicker than before, even though I never maxed out my lifts or timed my speed for a true comparison.

Please do it again and get some true empirical data to compare, otherwise its just pure speculation.


I have measured every bodypart before, day 14 and will do so again this evening, almost 2 weeks post cycle. Can tell you off hand that there was 5/8" inch increase on flexed upperarms (probably skewed due to my typical lack of direct arm lifts until this cycle), 3/8" increase on quads, 1/4" increase on chest, 1/4" increase on forearms 0" change in waist and 0" change in calves.

My training log is very detailed and as I said previously, all lifts had approximately an 15 pound increase in my target rep range (7-9) and 20+ on the larger lifts. The poundage increase has styed aside from a decrease in one rep on some lifts. Sorry, but I never do singles as I have no real reason to.

Sorry, no bf measurements taken...
 
Should be interesting...last evening I decided on another 10mg of nolva and will do so tonight and tomorrow night to extend PCT to 14 days - the amount of time off. I will then be completely clean for 2 more weeks and then start again - or do you guys think I should be clean for 4 weeks after pct - making a 6 week break? Seems a bit long to me...
 
For Poantrex: :p

Treatment of idiopathic and postvaricocelectomy oligozoospermia with oral tamoxifen citrate
T.C. Kadioglu, I.T. Köksal, M. Tunç, I. Nane and S. Tellaloglu
1 Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objective
To identify a subgroup of men who may benefit from tamoxifen citrate (a widely prescribed drug for male infertility) among those with normogonadotrophic and hypergonadotrophic oligozoospermia, either idiopathic or after varicocelectomy.

Patients and methods
The study included infertile men with oligozoospermia, 136 referred to our outpatient clinic and 84 infertile after varicocelectomy. All patients received tamoxifen citrate (10 mg twice daily); semen analysis and hormone tests were repeated at the end of 3 and 6 months of treatment, the values being compared with those before treatment.

Results
The levels of follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone and testosterone increased in all groups receiving tamoxifen citrate. Normogonadotrophic patients had a significant increase in sperm count and concentration, while the slight increase detected in the hypergonadotrophic group was statistically insignificant.

Conclusion
In patients with normogonadotrophic oligozoospermia, tamoxifen citrate may be offered as a practical and economic alternative before using any assisted reproduction techniques. However, double-blind placebo-controlled trials are needed to confirm the findings of this preliminary study.

Keywords: Tamoxifen citrate, infertility, oligozoospermia, varicocelectomy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction

Patients and methods Results Discussion References

One of the widely prescribed drugs for male infertility is tamoxifen citrate, a pure anti-oestrogen that is a nonsteroidal derivative of triphenyl ethylene [1]. Tamoxifen inhibits hypothalamic oestrogen receptors [2]; thus GnRH secretion is stimulated and as a result, gonadotrophin levels increase to stimulate Leydig cells and seminiferous tubules [2–5]. Although the direct effects of tamoxifen on the testis are still debated, it probably blocks oestrogenic receptors of the Leydig cells and increases testosterone production by increasing the sensitivity to serum LH [1,4,5].

Assisted reproduction techniques are used widely in patients with idiopathic oligozoospermia, and in those who cannot attain normal sperm counts and attempt paternity after varicocelectomy. Alternative treatments should be considered before referring patients for such expensive and distressing treatment options, that have limited success and known complication rates. Many different medical treatment options have been tried in oligozoospermic infertile men, but controlled studies showed no significant benefit [6]. In the present study, we aimed to identify a subgroup of men with oligospermia who would benefit from treatment with tamoxifen citrate, among those normogonadotrophic and hypergonadotrophic either idiopathically or after varicocelectomy.

Patients and methods

Introduction Results Discussion References
The study included infertile men with oligospermia, comprising 136 (idiopathic) referred to our outpatient clinic and 84 infertile after varicocelectomy (mean age 29 years, range 21–37). All patients had a history of infertility of at least 2 years, with their spouses confirmed to have had a normal gynaecological evaluation. All patients had sperm counts below the WHO threshold (20×106/mL) on two semen analyses. All patients provided three blood samples at 20 min intervals which were pooled; the FSH, LH and testosterone levels were determined to identify normo- and hypergonadotrophism before initiating medication. All patients received 10 mg tamoxifen citrate twice daily and the semen analysis and hormone tests were repeated after 3 and 6 months. The early (3-month) assessment was conducted only to document changes in hormone levels, as tamoxifen citrate influences the early stages of spermatogenesis and was not expected to affect the early semen analysis values. Thus the 3-month results were not included in the statistical analyses. Pregnancies achieved during the treatment were not assessed because other supplementary nonmedical treatments, e.g. timed coitus, intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic injection, were introduced.

The semen analyses and hormone results before treatment were compared with those after 6 months and analysed using the paired Student’s t-test. Values were expressed as the mean (sd), with P<0.05 considered to indicate statistical significance.

Results

Introduction Patients and methods Discussion References
The FSH, LH and testosterone levels increased in all groups receiving tamoxifen citrate; while FSH levels increased by »50%, LH and testosterone levels almost doubled in normogonadotrophic patients (Table 1). The hormone level increases were less prominent in hypergonadotrophic men. Semen analysis in all groups showed no change in any variable other than sperm concentration and count (Table 1). Normogonadotrophic men had a significant increase in sperm count and concentration, while the slight increase detected in hypergonadotrophic men was statistically insignificant.

Discussion

Introduction Patients and methods Results References
Tamoxifen citrate is preferred to clomiphene citrate as its oestrogenic activity is practically insignificant [7]. Clomiphene citrate is a combination of two isomers and exerts both anti-oestrogenic and oestrogenic effects simultaneously [7,8]. The oestrogenic effect increases plasma oestrogen levels in men with oligozoospermia and increased FSH levels. Thus testosterone and sex-hormone binding protein synthesis may decline, decreasing spermatogenesis [7,9]. Because tamoxifen lacks this intrinsic oestrogenic effect, it may be more appropriate to use in male infertility. Although tamoxifen is also a trans isomer, animal and human studies confirm its oestrogenic activity to be minimal or negligible [10–12].

Tamoxifen is believed to enhance spermatogenesis by increasing FSH and testosterone levels [7,13]; that it was ineffective in hypergonadotrophic men supports this contention [10,11]. Studies claiming tamoxifen to be ineffective for oligozoospermia used low doses, had few patients and did not evaluate hormonal levels before initiating drug therapy [3,7,14]. In the present study, tamoxifen therapy increased sperm count and concentration in normogonadotrophic men of both groups and the higher counts were sustained. As others have reported, tamoxifen does not change semen values (e.g. volume, pH, motility, morphology, viability) other than sperm count and density [2,4,7,14,15]. Therefore it is believed that tamoxifen is effective on the seminiferous tubules during the early stages of spermatogenesis [4,11,12]. The increase in LHRH level by tamoxifen causes endogenous LH and FSH to increase, which is more physiologically acceptable than their exogenous administration. Thus hypergonadotrophic men cannot benefit from this treatment as their testes are already sufficiently stimulated [10,11]. In the present study, testosterone and LH levels doubled, and FSH increased by »50% during medication, as reported elsewhere [5,11].

These results suggest that tamoxifen citrate may be useful in normogonadotrophic oligozoospermic men, as a practical and economic alternative before any assisted-reproduction techniques. If the total motile count in such men after sperm processing for intrauterine insemination is low (1–5 million), tamoxifen should also be considered for increasing the count and thus the potential for fertilization [16]. In infertile men with oligozoospermia (idiopathic or after varicocelectomy) the hormone levels should be assessed to identify those who are normogonadotrophic, and who may thus benefit from oral tamoxifen therapy, before attempting expensive and invasive assisted-reproduction techniques, which are better reserved as a last option. However, these results must be confirmed in double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials.

References

Introduction Patients and methods Results Discussion

1
Noci I, Chello E, Saltarelli O et al.Tamoxifen and oligospermia. Arch Androl 1985; 15: 83–8

2
Comhaire F. Treatment of oligospermia with tamoxifen. Int J Fertil 1976; 21: 232–8

3
Comhaire F, Dhondt MInfluence of current modes of treatment in male infertility on the hypothalamo-pituitary testicular function. In Schellen T, ed. Releasing Factors and Gonadotropic Hormones in Male and Female Sterility. Ghent: European Press Medicon1975; 117

4
Kotoulas JG, Mitropoulas D, Carmadakis E et al.Tamoxifen treatment in male infertility. I. Effect on spermatozoa. Fertil Steril 1994; 6: 911–4

5
Hampl R, Heresova J, Lachman M et al.Hormonal changes in tamoxifen treated men with idiopathic oligozoospermia. Exp Clin Endocrinol 1988; 92: 211–6

6
Török L. Treatment of oligospermia with tamoxifen. Andrologia 1985; 17: 497–50

7
Buvat J, Ardaens K, Lemaire A et al.Increased sperm count in 25 cases of idiopathic normogonadotropic oligospermia following treatment with tamoxifen. Fertil Steril 1983; 39: 700–3

8
Czygan PJ, Schultz KDStudies of the anti-oestrogenic and oestrogenic like actions of clomiphen citrate in women. In Hubinont PO, Hendeles SM, Preumont P, eds, Hormones and Agonists. Basel: S Karger,1972; 450

9
Wu FCW, Schultz IA, Baird DT. Raised plasma oestrogens in infertile men with elevated levels of FSH. Clin Endocrinol 1982; 16: 39

10
Barts G, Scheiber K. Tamoxifen treatment in oligozoospermia. Eur Urol 1981; 7: 283–7

11
Vermeulen A, Comhaire F. Hormonal effects an antiestrogen, tamoxifen in normal and oligospermic men. Fertil Steril 1978; 29: 320–7

12
Harper MJK, Walpole AL. Contrasting endocrine activities of cis and trans isomers in a series of substituted triphenylethylenes. Nature 1966; 212: 87

13
Willis KJ, London DR, Bevis MA et al.Hormonal effects of tamoxifen in oligospermia men. J Endocrinol 1977; 73: 171

14
Schill WB, Landthaler M. Tamoxifen treatment in oligospermia. Andrologia 1980; 12: 546–8

15
Dony JMJ, Smals AGH, Rolland R et al.Effect of lower versus higher doses of tamoxifen on pituitary-gonadal function and sperm indices in oligozoospermic men. Andrologia 1985; 17: 369–78

16
Oehninger S, Acosta AA, Morshedi M et al. Corrective measures and pregnancy outcome in in vitro fertilization in patients with severe sperm morphology abnormalities. Fertil Steril 1988; 50: 283
 
Top Bottom