No I’m not. I’ve asked you several times that, if what you are posting is true, how did I get gyno with an E2 of 12 if E2 causes gyno?
I’m still waiting for an answer on that. I should have have had ZERO gyno with an E2 of 12 because I did not have the hormone that causes gyno.
Answer that for me like I’m 4. Again.
This ain’t about you, Danny. You’re not a reference point.
And for the kicker:
Interestingly, treatment with an aromatase inhibitor leads to involution of the mammalian gland phenotype (18). Thus, although androgens do not stimulate breast development directly, they may do so if they aromatize to estrogen. This occurs in cases of androgen excess or in patients with increased aromatase activity.
I said I’m but a single example that refutes your claim. If you visit my FB group, there’s about 6000 others. If I put you in touch with all the physicians I work with, there will be tens of thousands of others.
How many do you need for you to realize that this study has flaws because the exact opposite can be demonstrated in REALITY?
Just for shits and giggles, would you mind sharing what your protocol is, weekly dose, injection frequency, total T, free T, and SHBG?
You’re totally unwilling to deal with these findings.
For instance, investigators have shown increased urinary estrogen levels in obese individuals, and have demonstrated aromatase expression in adipose tissue (21). Thus, like the gynecomastia of obesity, the gynecomastia of aging may partly result from increased aromatase activity, causing increased conversion of androgens to estrogens (22). Moreover, not only does total body fat increase with age, but there may be an increase in aromatase activity in the adipose tissue already present, increasing circulating estrogens even further. SHBG increases with age in men. Since SHBG binds estrogen with less affinity than testosterone, the bioavailable estradiol to bioavailable testosterone ratio may increase in the obese older male.
Oh so now we’re down to “shits and giggles?” Really?
Not sure if you’re skipping over my comments or not. I’ve said several times now that I WILL read the study you provided and get back to you. I WILL read it. I’m doing a work project and replying to you at the same time. I need to be in a position to actually focus on a study to fully understand it. Is that ok?
Yes, we are. Answer those questions as I’m curious to see what exactly you are doing that warrants an AI. Genuine curiosity.
Honestly this is absurd. The whole thing. The findings of this study totally and completely refute your claims and you’re completely unwilling to deal with it.
I’ve had to put up with all manner of horse shit in this conversation from you trying to haul in forum moderators to making false claims about my conduct to flooding the thread. This is not a serious debate and I am 100% finished wasting my time on it.
Deal with the evidence.
So, to be clear:
You provide a single study as your evidence and will not provide your protocol to indicate why you may need an AI.
I’ve offered to send you dozens of studies, videos, physician names, an invite to my FB to see for yourself, and a promise to properly read the ONE study you provided.
But this is not a serious debate and I should ‘deal with the evidence’ with a single study when I have dozens that contradict it. Okie dokie then.
It’s weak. You’re 100% finished (promise?). Enjoy the AI and the single study.
Wow, talk about a win.
Yeah he always does that, it is because he is worthless in the actual debate so he has to resort to it. Me and a friend sat and laughed at his nonsense one evening, actually (friend is a doc).
How come the no-ai-proponents lose every single debate on every forum they cannot ban people? Its always the same, always. So funny.
I lost where exactly? Did you even read this thread? I understand English is difficult for you.
Wait, aren’t you the guy with no libido and erectile dysfunction who still can’t get dialed in but is still taking an AI? Oh… right. Yes, please explain hormones to me.
Been out all day and decided to check the forum. Wish I didn’t. This forum has become useless. One guy responding to 5 year old posts and yet another AI no AI debate. Not sure why the original post was even allowed.
No, actually, my libido is great since i lowered by testosterone dose. Its also great on NPP only, as stated in many threads.
Howiever, it is indeed interesting how you keep goiing back to attacking people instead of their arguments, you always do that, that is why no one likes you no more and why you will probably end up in big problems some day. I already know guys in the BB community you are getting very annoyed by you, If I were you, I would stop doing it, for your own safety.
But its your life, im just letting you know whats going on.
For my own safety? Lol!
You never cease to crack me up. Everyone knows where they can find me. Shall I send them my address?
I’m actually genuinely happy you’re doing better. For real. Still strange that you used to do so well on those crazy high doses you used to do. Physiology seems to change after awhile. As long as you’re good. Please don’t do NPP only for too long, especially if you’ve had libido and ED issues. We are seeing more and more issues with guys doing this to the detriment of neurological function and we can’t seem to find any way to reverse it. Just be careful.
No, arimidex is not “toxic”, you are jay campbell 2 lmfao
It is toxic. How many papers would you like me to send you on the subject?
Here’s one that I chose from a pile of them in no particular order:
"In this population-based study, aromatase inhibitors were associated with increased risks of heart failure and cardiovascular mortality compared with tamoxifen. There were also trends toward increased risks, although nonsignificant, of myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke. "
Let me know how many of these you’d like me to send you.
Here is one more so you don’t think I’m not taking your request seriously: