Carth said:
Is all the info in Anabolics 2004 all wrong?! I have read that book many times. Yet when I talk here on this forum, seems like all I read was all wrong! The book doesn't say anything about Nolva and Clomid lowering IGF-1 output. Yet I come here and everybody says it does. Why? Where did all of you get this info? It also states that Aromasin is much stronger than any other. Yet everybody here says it is Letrozole. How is that? Where is everybody getting this info. Shit! Then I might as well just throw out this book!
That's what you get when you assemble a bunch of gossiping bodybuilders...
There is a lot of information available on medline.. This seems (and.. most of the time is) a pretty righteous thing for BBers.. While this information is still infinitely more objective, factual, and honest than supplement articles "dumbed down" for out understanding, you still have to take it with a grain,.. There are MANY articles published in good journals that contribute absolutely nothing to the advancement of science because of bias in experimentation and reporting. The scinario goes something like this:
Joe research scientist in need of vacation will wake up in the middle of the night and say "reduction in cortisol will increase muscle mass" "BRILLIANT!"
And his idea is plausible, testable, and.. oohhh god does he hope it's true. Joe scientist (and this really does happen) becomes obsessed with his theory.. This is similar to someone who tells a lie so many times that, ultimately, the person truely starts to believe it.
Anyway, when his theory on cortisol doesn't add up to the nobel-prize worthy finding he had been living for, some manipulation at the bench and then some more at the dest turn out a paper that ultimately in the grand scheme isn't worth its weight in shit, contributes nothing to the growth of the field, or, worse, throws other researchers for a loop..
You will see abstracts posted all the time here.. Usually with one or two sentences that are in bold that support whatever some dude's claim of the week is. The majority of eyes finding the abstract will ONLY read the bold, and then bada-boom, the latest 'discovery' from the BBing book of pulp chemical fiction is born.
Anyway, if IGF-1 or GH (or which ever hormone that was reported to decline in those genetically altered, post-menopasual mice used in some study ) decline with anti-estrogen use, the over-all difference would be so minute that it may not even be measurable-- (androgens raise levels of these hormones quite effectively).
All in all though, I can say with absolute certainty that there no AAS book has more or better information than what you can find right here --->
^virtue>
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
