Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
All this makes sense now. But a woman taking Nolva or Adex. Isn't that bad for a woman? Women need estrogen.
.jpg "Research Chemical Sciences")
.png "Research Chemical Sciences")
Women and Testosterone
- Thread starter Smokescreen
- Start date
Sassy69
New member
Carth said:
Only time I'd even bother suggesting either of these would be for a short period of time, e.g. max 8 weeks-ish for the purpose of competition prep or a photo shoot or something where it is assumed that you come off after a specified period of time and allow yourself a rebound. Its not intended to be a "diet aid". And as you said - women need estrogen - you can do some short term manipulation but that's about it.
Sassy69
New member
Generally you are NOT going find a female running a cycle with an anti-estrogen - it is NOT needed like for men and I would only recommend using an anti-estrogen in a competition scenario.
So no you don't need to use an anti-e just because you are running anavar. As I noted when looking at anti-estrogen use it is usually very specifically to drop all extra bodyfat and water for a specific time / date (competition / photo shoot) and then accommodate a rebound period - it is NOT used as a "diet aid" where the results are expected to be maintained when you end the cycle.
Flor - I really cannot believe that aromatization from var is going to be an estrogen issue for you. The amount should be miniscule at best. Its still all about diet & training.
So no you don't need to use an anti-e just because you are running anavar. As I noted when looking at anti-estrogen use it is usually very specifically to drop all extra bodyfat and water for a specific time / date (competition / photo shoot) and then accommodate a rebound period - it is NOT used as a "diet aid" where the results are expected to be maintained when you end the cycle.
Flor - I really cannot believe that aromatization from var is going to be an estrogen issue for you. The amount should be miniscule at best. Its still all about diet & training.
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
The Shadow said:
Incorrect. Eq aromatizes at 50% the rate of testosterone*. Neither Equipoise nor anavar cause a "general bump" in blood testosterone levels, they both lower it.
*Endocrinology 71 (1962) 920-25
T
The Shadow
Guest
Anthony Roberts said:
"The 1-2 double bond that Equipoise has is responsible for many of its characteristics. First of all, it acts to slow aromatization (conversion into estrogen). The best estimate is that it does so at roughly half the rate of testosterone (1). This is the best number I´ve found in studies. Athletes almost never report estrogenic side effects with Equipoise, even when the dose is up to a gram per week. Side effects caused by estrogen include oily skin, acne, and gynocomastia, and as I said, those are usually not found from Equipoise."
^^^ http://www.steroid.com/Equipoise.php
The aromatisation of boldenone is too small to cause real problems and in normal doses (300-400 mg/week) problems such as gynocomastia and too much fat retention are unheard of.
^^^ http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/catequi.htm
Boldenone appears to be comparable to nandrolone in its potency. It lacks nandrolone’s advantage of being metabolically deactivated by 5a -reductase. It is only slightly estrogenic, and only after conversion to estrogen
^^^ http://www.mesomorphosis.com/steroid-profiles/equipoise.htm
Does it have the capability to aromatize in absolute terms - yes.
Are those effects seen in dosages applicable to women - VERY VERY rarely. they are not typically seen in men at 300-400 per week, and most females run 1/6 to 1/3 that amount.
It's like saying that the sun will not come up tomorrow.
Is it possible that it will not - yes.
But not PROBABLE.
As far as the HPTA is concerned......long term use(of most anything AAS related) will lead to supression.
I am sure that you are not implying that a female adding anavar or EQ especially will not show elevated Teststerone levels in a blood panel, which was my main point.
Have a chick get a hormonal blood panel and then get it rechecked after 6 weeks of EQ - or even Var for that matter and see how much of a "bump" there is.
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
The Shadow said:
Yeah..I wrote that, and I'm familiar with it. The study I posted showing Equipoise - boldenone undecylenate - aromatizes, after you said it doesn't, is listed in the references of that profile.
It aromatizes. You said it didn't, and further said that it bumps testosterone...which it also doesn't (not in any study I've seen, nor in any bloodwork). You're quoting a profile that I wrote, which contradicts everything you posted. You can't say something doesn't aromatize, then cite profiles saying it does, but that it won't matter and say "See...it does, but it doesn't matter"...
If you are wealthy, and you say gas prices won't go up, then they do, you're still incorrect, even if you are so wealthy that the rise in gas prices won't affect you or the person you said it to.
You were basically 100% wrong about Equipoise - boldenone undecylenate - and Anavar.
Relevance? You said that Eq doesn't aromatize, and again...you are posting a link that says it does.
You didn't say "it does, but it isn't much"...which would be correct...you said "It doesn't" which is wrong.
If someone said "Do you like being kicked in the head" and you said "no, I don't" that would be different than saying "yes, but not much". Get it?
And the other thing you said about it (it bumps test levels) is 100% incorrect, with nothing valid to support it. In fact, it's the opposite that's true...Eq will LOWER test levels, not raise them. So will anavar, which you are also wrong about.
Relevance? Again, this shows that it aromatizes, when you said the opposite. You didn't say "not much" (which is arguable, since it's 50% as much as test)...you said it doesn't.
If someone said "do you molest children?" and you said "no"...wouldn't that be different than saying "not much"?
No...it just does. "Absolute terms"? It does so at 50% the rate of testosterone. Would you say test doesn't aromatize much because it's only 2x as much as Eq? Which isn't..."much" as you now say?
You said it doesn't, and it does...it does so at 50% the rate of test. It does something you said that it doesn't. So you were wrong.
And if you said "yes, but it may not matter" then you would have been right, maybe...but you said "no, it doesn't aromatize", then you researched it, and every profile on the 'net says that it does. You even quoted one that I wrote.
We weren't talking about probable sides. We were talking about "does it aromatize". You said no. The answer is yes. It doesn't "probably" aromatize, it does.
We're not talking about side effects, either. We're talking about the production of estrogen. You can't say "this will not produce estrogen" and confuse it with "this will not produce estrogenic side effects"...the two are not the same. Test produces estrogen and DHT but doesn't always produce DHT-related or estrogen-related sides...though you can not therefore say it doens't produce those metabolites.
But you said something that was incorrect, totally. You didn't say "it won't matter, but it does aromatize" you said "no, it doesn't aromatize" then you said that it boosts test levels. Well, here's a question...if something can "bump test levels" then how can it not aromatize? What happens to the "test" that it creates? Doesn't test aromatize, and if a drug bumps test levels, then doesn't the test that it creates aromatize? Within your comments...is an actual contradiction. You said they boost test, but don't aromatize? What kind of test do they produce which doesn't aromatize?
This is, of course, academic, totally...because not only does neither of those two drugs bump test levels, but only one of them aromatizes, which you seem to say it doesn't, later to change that comment to "it does, but not much".
Relevance? We aren't talking about suppression. Suppression was never mentioned in this thread. We're talking about "bumping" test levels, and aromatization. You were wrong about both. When was the HPTA even mentioned here?
Yes, I am. In terms of pharmacokinetics, how does adding a synthetic androgen , like anavar or Eq raise levels of another endogenous one? This has, in the history of medical studies, never happened.
Adding Anavar or Eq to a woman will raise their levels of that androgen, not testosterone. It will lower their natural androgen production. You can't add anavar and get more testosterone out of it. That's patently false.
I can tell you there will be none. Does anavar or Eq "bump" test levels in men? If not, then how would it do it in women? By what mechanism?
How will adding a compound which suppresses natural hormonal levels of androgens "bump" testosterone. Seriously, you're 100% incorrect. Using anavar doesn't raise test levels, it raises anavar levels. It lowers test levels. Using EQ raises EQ levels, not test levels. Why would you think this?
Where would this bump in test levels come from? Anavar causes the production of testosterone now? Or does Eq? You're talking about using exogenous synthetic androgens, and saying that when the female body detects an overload of androgens, it responds by producing more testosterone? That's totally wrong.
One of the issues with synthetic steroid (like Anavar) therapy in women (as noted in my final reference here) is that you CAN NOT use testosterone levels to monitor the drug (nor does anavar aromatize, which this also addresses).
Here's a comment from the paper I'm citing finally, which I sugest you read:
Oxandrolone cannot be aromatized, thus its effect is mediated via the androgen receptor only. However, one disadvantage of treatment with synthetic anabolic steroids is that drug monitoring is more difficult as serum testosterone levels cannot serve as a parameter for treatment surveillance.*
*Androgen Therapy in women
European Journal of Endocrinology, Vol 154, Issue 1, 1-11
Copyright © 2006 by Society of the European Journal of Endocrinology
T
The Shadow
Guest
I see your point actually.
I refer to "test" levels in a general way meaning androgen levels....not specifically "test".....that is my failure to be specific
I refer to "test" levels in a general way meaning androgen levels....not specifically "test".....that is my failure to be specific
