[quote]fightu35 wrote:
now what if someone was 900 test levels…with 28 estradiol…after months of using test…will this change ? stay the same…? or no…I ve read some will not convert…but most will ?[/quote]
how do you feel on this levels?
I was at 81 estrodiol and 350 T prior to start the gel, will see how latest test come back
[quote]fightu35 wrote:
now what if someone was 900 test levels…with 28 estradiol…after months of using test…will this change ? stay the same…? or no…I ve read some will not convert…but most will ?[/quote]
This will stay much the same. After a year you may find that you need more adex, that seems to be normal and I think that it then is stable. If you change drugs, alcohol or some foods/supplements, you can change the E balance by effecting the liver’s estrogen clearance rates.
[quote]buffd_samurai wrote:
Just a simple question (don’t know why I can’t seem to figure it out myself): is there a benefit (other than cost) of using arimidex versus aromasim? Arimidex appears to have some issues with increasing aromatase production after a time which forces the continual use of the product (not that this is a bad thing).
There also appears to be issues with lipid levels associated with arimidex (i.e. LDL increases, HDL decreases) and joint pain issues when too much is used.
From what I’ve read, aromasin (exemestane) appears to not suffer from any of those listed above. Lipid levels don’t go bad; aromatase production is not upregulated by the body (therefore no suffering from estrogen dominance upon cessation of use), and there appears to be some evidence with respect to a positive effect on bone mineral deposit.
Am I missing something? [/quote]
Men using these drugs are making minor adjustments to their E levels… fine tuning. Women use these drugs to take E2 to zero if possible to slow down estrogen positive cancers.
You will find research on this [extreme] use for women. But that does not apply to TRT use by men. I suspect that you have not found long term data for these things for men who are fine tuning E levels, not eliminating.
Joint problems, mental problems, lipid problems etc are a result of very low estrogen. These are not direct effects of AIs but are secondary effects.
If there is a problem for men who use too much AI, use less. Flying blind without lab tests… adverse results cannot be blamed on the drug. Part of these effects are those who are adex over-responders with no knowledge of such things.
This is a quote from a senior moderator on another forum that I thought might be relevant here; or at least interesting
Who In The Hell Wrote In Stone That You have To Run A Anti Estrogen With Your Cycles?
News Flash 90% Of All Of You Could Run A Cycle With Moderate Doses Without Any Anti estrogens During The Cycle . Many Of You Could Run A Cycle With Heavy Doses With Little Or No Anti estrogens. You Guys Couldn’t Have Made It In The Old Days Before Arimidex Came Along.
Fact A Little Bloat Is Fine And Doesn’t Become A Problem Unless It Raises Your Blood Pressure . Fact Bloat/water weight Gives You Temporary Strength Gains Which Will Allow You To Lift Heavier And Promote Permanent Strength And Lean Mass Gains.
Fact Too Little Estrogen Can Kill Libido , That’s The Main Reason You See So Many Threads About A Limp Willie These Days. Fact Anti estrogens/low Estrogen Can Send Your Cholesterol Into The Crapper.
Its A Known Fact That The Internet Invented Gyno . Once Everyone Read About It A Few Times Their Nipples Started To Itch And Gyno Suddenly Appeared.
The Ease Of Obtaining Anti estrogens Has Been A Blessing To Those Who Need Them And A Curse To The Rest Of Us.
The Purpose Of Anti estrogens In Our Community Is To Control Estrogen Not Eliminate It. be concerned when your bloat causes your blood pressure to become dangerous [ most peoples don’t do this ].
You can be concerned when you develop gyno symptoms . as info the 1st time your tittie itches doesn’t mean you have gyno despite the current Internet wisdom. the 1st choice to help with gyno symptoms should be nolva imo .
No one has written anything in stone. Only a complete moron would think that anything about this business is written in stone and always applies equally to everyone.
If mild water retention is the only problem you’re having, then you’re good to go. If, however, you have more serious issues then it’s good to know that estradiol might be the problem as that gives you something to look for in your blood work as opposed to some lame ass doctor telling you that it’s all in your head because estradiol doesn’t matter. The AI protocol didn’t come from theory. It came from guys having real problems and finding what works to solve them.
The goal is and always has been balance. Too high and too low are both problems and anyone with even a small education about E understands this.
If you’re just reading all of this out of curiosity that’s fine. It’s interesting stuff. If you’re not having problems, then none of this really matters.
If you’re a guy on TRT and your therapy is going great, then that’s cool and we’re all happy.
But if you’re having problems, then estradiol might be a major part of the issue and the more you know about it the better off you are. Many, if not most, doctors automatically blow off estradiol as a non-issue and that is just as ignorant as loading up on an AI for no reason other than fear would be.
Be aware of the issues and then look at your numbers. Be thoughtful and smart about what you’re doing. Above all, educate yourself to the point that you’re not relying on posts in bodybuilding forums for everything you “know” about how your body works and how you should treat it.
How you feel and function is really what this is all about and if you’re not feeling and functioning as you think you should, then consider that E2 might be an issue and take it from there. Don’t assume that it is and don’t assume that it isn’t. Get tested and do some safe and sane experimenting and find out for sure.
I know that I feel better when I have my AI dialed in than I did when my E2 was 35. I’ve also personally experienced the problems that having levels that are too low can cause.
I also know that YOU might feel fine with E2 levels that would would send me into deep depression. That’s just the way this game works. There is no “one size fits all” answer for any of this stuff and we all have to deal with that.
[quote]KSman wrote:
buffd_samurai wrote:
Just a simple question (don’t know why I can’t seem to figure it out myself): is there a benefit (other than cost) of using arimidex versus aromasim? Arimidex appears to have some issues with increasing aromatase production after a time which forces the continual use of the product (not that this is a bad thing).
There also appears to be issues with lipid levels associated with arimidex (i.e. LDL increases, HDL decreases) and joint pain issues when too much is used.
From what I’ve read, aromasin (exemestane) appears to not suffer from any of those listed above. Lipid levels don’t go bad; aromatase production is not upregulated by the body (therefore no suffering from estrogen dominance upon cessation of use), and there appears to be some evidence with respect to a positive effect on bone mineral deposit.
Am I missing something?
Men using these drugs are making minor adjustments to their E levels… fine tuning. Women use these drugs to take E2 to zero if possible to slow down estrogen positive cancers.
You will find research on this [extreme] use for women. But that does not apply to TRT use by men. I suspect that you have not found long term data for these things for men who are fine tuning E levels, not eliminating.
Joint problems, mental problems, lipid problems etc are a result of very low estrogen. These are not direct effects of AIs but are secondary effects.
If there is a problem for men who use too much AI, use less. Flying blind without lab tests… adverse results cannot be blamed on the drug. Part of these effects are those who are adex over-responders with no knowledge of such things.[/quote]
Thanks for the response and comments. One more from me: with regards to the statement about low estrogen = bad lipid profile…I think this is true. However, it looks like (from my reading, NOT from actual use or testing on myself…yet) both arimidex and aromasin lower estrogen levels with arimidex being more powerful on a mg by mg basis. However, all things being equal (i.e. amount of arimidex to reduce E2 by say 50% and amount of aromasin to accomplish the same), it appears aromasin wins in the “not effecting lipid” department.
So I think there might be more to the story here other than simple estrogen reduction by too much and the lipid levels.
[quote]happydog48 wrote:
(therefore no suffering from estrogen dominance upon cessation of use)
There would be no reason to take any of these drugs unless estrogen dominance was already a problem. In a TRT setting (as opposed to doing cycles) you’re on these drugs for life, so what happens when you stop taking them is really a non-issue.
[/quote]
Yes, these drugs should only be taken if estrogen is beginning to dominate due to increase aromatase production. And yeah, if on TRT, you’re basically on for life.
I think though, it is of benefit for even the non-TRT individual who begins to experience the effects of age related increase of aromatase to intelligently begin using AIs.
It is also my opinion that non-TRT individuals should not stay on these drugs forever, thus my comments regarding cessation of use.
For this purpose, it appears aromasin is better.
If you get an aromasin formulation that is 25mg/ml, then a 10 ml bottle will last as long as arimidex at 1 mg/ml with roughly the same effect. If you shop around, aromasin is slightly more costly than arimidex. So in my opinion, this is not an issue for long term use.
COMPLETELY agree. Your last words in your last sentence is my motto when it comes to experimenting with any of these substances.
[quote]
You can, and should, study your ass off when monkeying around with your hormones but at some point you simply have to dive in and see what happens. This is why regular testing is so important.[/quote]
My good man…could not agree more. I wish more people had the means to do this. Alas, few do due to the testing costs. Looks like you and I are some of the real lucky ones.
[quote]buffd_samurai wrote:
If you get an aromasin formulation that is 25mg/ml, then a 10 ml bottle will last as long as arimidex at 1 mg/ml with roughly the same effect. If you shop around, aromasin is slightly more costly than arimidex. So in my opinion, this is not an issue for long term use.
[/quote]
If you compare 25mg/day [1ml/day] VS 1mg/week [1ml/week], you are off by a factor of seven. Cost is way off.
[quote]buffd_samurai wrote:
Thanks for the response and comments. One more from me: with regards to the statement about low estrogen = bad lipid profile…I think this is true. However, it looks like (from my reading, NOT from actual use or testing on myself…yet) both arimidex and aromasin lower estrogen levels with arimidex being more powerful on a mg by mg basis. However, all things being equal (i.e. amount of arimidex to reduce E2 by say 50% and amount of aromasin to accomplish the same), it appears aromasin wins in the “not effecting lipid” department.
So I think there might be more to the story here other than simple estrogen reduction by too much and the lipid levels. [/quote]
I think that when you compare lipid sides for these drugs, when you dose to achieve the same serum E2 levels, the effects will be the same. You must not look at data from breast cancer or extreme BB cutting cycles for information that might apply to TRT where levels are not reduced very much.
Aromasin is a steroid chemical and competes with T for the aromasin enzyme. This is a totally different class of drug from adex and letro. I worry that this competition with T may also occur at some T receptor sites.
When I added adex to my TRT, my lipids did not change.
Both drugs affect the liver and its P450 enzymes. Which reduces E2 clearance from the body. I feel that 1mg/wk is going to be less adverse that 25*7=175mg/wk. For lifetime use, I am influenced by the 175:1 drug load ratio.
While aromasin will reduce E2 production rates, the effects on P450 may reduce E clearance rates. Overall, E2 is reduced, but the ratios of the other estrogens to E2 might very well go up. But there is probably no data for the small TRT doses. The effects may be trivial for most of us, but for those who already have known liver problens or adverse liver enzymes, these effects may be real and perhaps significant for other reasons.
[quote]KSman wrote:
buffd_samurai wrote:
If you get an aromasin formulation that is 25mg/ml, then a 10 ml bottle will last as long as arimidex at 1 mg/ml with roughly the same effect. If you shop around, aromasin is slightly more costly than arimidex. So in my opinion, this is not an issue for long term use.
If you compare 25mg/day [1ml/day] VS 1mg/week [1ml/week], you are off by a factor of seven. Cost is way off.
mesomorphosis.com/steroid-profiles/aromasin.htm
[/quote]
Well, the last time I checked a certain research company selling the two, the arimidex was around $70 for 60 ml at 1 mg/ml. The aromasin was $90 for 60 ml at 25 mg/ml.
Factor of 7 for cost doesn’t seem to apply here. Again, maybe I have something wrong? (wouldn’t be the 1st time…)
[quote]KSman wrote:
I think that when you compare lipid sides for these drugs, when you dose to achieve the same serum E2 levels, the effects will be the same. You must not look at data from breast cancer or extreme BB cutting cycles for information that might apply to TRT where levels are not reduced very much.
[/quote]
I’m not looking specificaly at TRT; I’m looking for ways for normal folks who might be on the low end of T due to higher E (age related) but not low enough to warrant TRT (at least legally). If E is in the high range but not over the accepted high norm, then use of an AI is warranted I believe.
So I believe that the data from extreme BB cutting cycles and even some data from breast cancer studies ARE of interest.
This is the 1st I’ve ever read of this type of concern. Not that it couldn’t happen, but there is no data that I have read that justifies this possibility. If some exist, I would be very interested and will learn something new…again!
Ah, now this is a good point. The total amount of drug is still not huge though, in my opinion when using the aromasin.
[quote]
While aromasin will reduce E2 production rates, the effects on P450 may reduce E clearance rates. Overall, E2 is reduced, but the ratios of the other estrogens to E2 might very well go up. But there is probably no data for the small TRT doses. The effects may be trivial for most of us, but for those who already have known liver problens or adverse liver enzymes, these effects may be real and perhaps significant for other reasons.[/quote]
Which is why I like the idea of cycling whatever one takes and not being on forever if you don’t have to be. Folks on TRT have no choice…this is understood. But I am speaking somewhat for the group who are not on TRT but are suffering nonetheless from higher estrogen levels due to age related aromatase increases.
Good discussion. Appreciate (very much so) the ideas and facts brought out on this.
[quote]matthewt wrote:
fightu35 wrote:
now what if someone was 900 test levels…with 28 estradiol…after months of using test…will this change ? stay the same…? or no…I ve read some will not convert…but most will ?
how do you feel on this levels?
I was at 81 estrodiol and 350 T prior to start the gel, will see how latest test come back
[/quote]
I feel better…pumps are all thne time…im stronger no doubt…over all just starting to feel better.and its funny…my doc said wait till about the 10th week or so…and he was right…Im starting to notice some acne now ?
Great discussion and now that I have reached the tender age of 40 a thread like this has really got my attention.
I have read all the posts and have done some research in regards to research chemicals and would like to ask a question in regards to what perhaps might be a good way for me to start. Please forgive any ignorance since I have only recently started looking into this.
So if the goal is to get manage estrogen and getting test as high as possible (and free test of course) would a good way to start be:
Part 1: lower bodyfat through diet (high fiber and liberal portions of vegetables like Broccoli, Cauliflower and Brussel sprouts to start managing estrogen en clearing bad estrogen out) and exercise.
For supps: Start Alpha Male, HOT-ROX, ZMA, DIM, D-Gluc, grape seed. In other words start naturally and do this for about 6 weeks
Part 2: continue diet and instead of Alpha Male use research chemical Clomid and instead of HOT-ROX use research chemical Clenbuterol (both 10-14 days). Continue ZMA and of course keep eating extra fiber and vegetables like Broccoli, Cauliflower and Brussel sprouts.
Part 3: Lose the Clomid and Clen after 14 days (max) and add an AI (Anastrozole or Aromasin)and continue using for recommended time. Of course diet stays the same and ZMA will be taken.
Additional supps are fish oil and Vit E.
Does this sound like a plan or have I just completely overanalyzed things?
Again, sorry for the ignorance in this but I am trying to get sort of a clear picture of what one would need to do to really improve test, manage estrogen and clear out any ‘bad’ estrogen.
thanks for any help in this matter.
Marc
Your math is way off. The key difference is 1ml per day vs. 1ml per week.
Exemastane comes in a 25mg/ml solution and a 60ml bottle is $90. At a dosage of 25mg per day, that’s 1ml a day and so your 60ml bottle will last 60 days. That’s $1.50 per day.
Anastrozole comes in a 1mg/ml solution and a 60ml bottle is $70. But the dosage for anastrozole is only 1mg PER WEEK, so that’s 1ml per week which means your 60ml bottle will last 60 weeks. That’s 17 (16.66) cents per day.
1.5 divided by .166 = 9.03
That makes exemastane close to ten times more expensive.
Marc,
You’re right and yet I also feel you might be as wrong as you can possibly be.
You’re right in that the goal is to MANAGE estradiol.
But you’re as wrong as you can possibly be if you think that management can be done blindly. In other words you forgot to mention the REAL step one - get your blood tested so you know where you’re at.
I’ll say this again because it is so important.
MESSING AROUND WITH YOUR HORMONES IS SERIOUS SHIT!
In the short term, it can seriously affect the quality of your life and in the long run, it can kill you.
Starting on an E reduction program just because it sounds like a good idea is a recipe for disaster.
It’s time to talk about what can happen if you do a poor job of estradiol management and you drive your E too low for too long.
Estradiol is necessary for bone health and bone health is a serious issue the older you get. Right off the bat it gets tricky because older men need to control their estradiol, but not at the expense of bone health. Flying blind is a bad idea.
Estradiol is necessary for brain health. All the brain problems associated with low T (brain fog, depression, etc.) can also be caused by E levels that are too low.
Estradiol is necessary for vascular health. No need to stress how important vascular health is, especially as we age.
And all the sexual problems associated with low T and high E (loss of libido, erectile dysfunction, etc.) can also be caused by E levels that are too low even if your T is fine.
As you say, the goal is to MANAGE E levels. It isn’t to get them as low as possible and so that management can only be safely done with proper testing.
If I were in your shoes I would absolutely do all the lifestyle stuff I could to help maintain good T to E ratios. (I do all those things anyway even though I am on TRT). But I wouldn’t start putting powerful chemicals like Clomid and Anastrozole in my body without first knowing where my E levels were at and I would also be certain to retest in a couple of months to make sure I wasn’t over doing it.
just of hand…whats normal for a female ??
shes on no drugs other then T3 hers was 104 I couldnt find a good chart…
[quote]happydog48 wrote:
The dosages I’ve read about at pubmed are usually in the range of 25mg to 50mg per day as opposed to anastrozole which most find effective at 1mg per week. This makes Exemestane significantly more expensive, which could be an issue for long term use.
If you get an aromasin formulation that is 25mg/ml, then a 10 ml bottle will last as long as arimidex at 1 mg/ml with roughly the same effect. If you shop around, aromasin is slightly more costly than arimidex. So in my opinion, this is not an issue for long term use.
Your math is way off. The key difference is 1ml per day vs. 1ml per week.
Exemastane comes in a 25mg/ml solution and a 60ml bottle is $90. At a dosage of 25mg per day, that’s 1ml a day and so your 60ml bottle will last 60 days. That’s $1.50 per day.
Anastrozole comes in a 1mg/ml solution and a 60ml bottle is $70. But the dosage for anastrozole is only 1mg PER WEEK, so that’s 1ml per week which means your 60ml bottle will last 60 weeks. That’s 17 (16.66) cents per day.
1.5 divided by .166 = 9.03
That makes exemastane close to ten times more expensive.[/quote]
Hmmm. This could be my bad here; it was my understanding that for the topic of this discussion, 0.5 mg/week to 1 mg/week of arimidex was appropriate for estrogen control via age related overproduction of aromatase. For those not on TRT but with elevated E via measurements, that value per week might even be less.
It was my understanding that likewise, 12.5 mg to 25 mg/week of aromasin would accomplish the same for those on TRT; and likewise a smaller dosage would be needed for E control for those not on TRT but with elevated E.
I am not versed in the pharmokinetics of the two substances (I have not delved into the data yet) but I was under the impression that they were similiar. For the 25 mg/ml dosages, this would be similiar to the arimidex IF this assumption was correct.
So, my math is not incorrect if the assumptions were correct. You are saying my assumptions were wrong; I would accept that. But I would need to check the pharmokinetics of average metabolism of the substances.
OK, my friends HappyDog and KSMan may have a point with regards to the cost factor of arimidex versus aromasin. Some further research on my part this morning has revealed the half life of aromasin to be roughly 27 hours. Similiar studies with arimidex indicate the half life around 50 hours. So, roughly twice.
It is understood that individual metabolism will differ (sometimes dramatically) from these values.
Most studies I have seen have been use of aromasin at the 12.5 to 25 mg every day. The thing is, most studies also use arimidex at 0.5 or 1 mg every day as well. Granted, these studies are for women dealing with the unfortunate struggle with breast cancer and or bodybuilders on medium to higher dosage steroids, but this is the only data available.
I will concede the fact that arimidex is cheaper. However I am still not totally convinced that aromasin can’t be used in a similiar manner (i.e. 25 mg/week) as that suggested arimidex used for TRT purposes (i.e. 1 mg/week).
It still also appears to me that for that population of fellas suffereing with lower T, higher E but both still within the “normal” range, aromasin might still be the safer route. However, based upon this good discussion, I am personally becoming more convinced of the “safety” of arimidex for this purpose as well.
I’d like to see the studies that demonstrate any “safety” problems with anastrozole.
Here’s a couple I’ve found concerning the safety of anastrozole:
Effect of aromatase inhibition on bone metabolism in elderly hypogonadal men - PubMed?
ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.
Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed
_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&log
dbfrom=pubmed
“These results suggest that anastrozole therapy is unlikely to have an adverse effect on bone metabolism when taken over extended periods and may prove to be a valuable method of normalizing testosterone production in older men.”
ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.
Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed
_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&log
dbfrom=pubmed
“While short-term administration of anastrozole is an effective method of normalizing serum testosterone levels in elderly men with mild hypogonadism, it does not appear to adversely affect lipid profiles, inflammatory markers of cardiovascular risk or insulin resistance.”
I’ll probably try aromasin at some time in the future, but I don’t see any compelling reason to switch immediately.
[quote]happydog48 wrote:
I’d like to see the studies that demonstrate any “safety” problems with anastrozole.
Here’s a couple I’ve found concerning the safety of anastrozole:
Effect of aromatase inhibition on bone metabolism in elderly hypogonadal men - PubMed?
ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.
Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed
_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&log
dbfrom=pubmed
“These results suggest that anastrozole therapy is unlikely to have an adverse effect on bone metabolism when taken over extended periods and may prove to be a valuable method of normalizing testosterone production in older men.”
ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.
Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed
_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&log
dbfrom=pubmed
“While short-term administration of anastrozole is an effective method of normalizing serum testosterone levels in elderly men with mild hypogonadism, it does not appear to adversely affect lipid profiles, inflammatory markers of cardiovascular risk or insulin resistance.”
I’ll probably try aromasin at some time in the future, but I don’t see any compelling reason to switch immediately.[/quote]
Nice finds; thanks for directing me to them. Really nice finds.
Looks like the further I look into this (with the help of this board), the more arimidex gets vindicated. GOOD. It was never my intent to put it down; just wanted to see if anyone could help dispell (or bolster) the purported issues with arimidex as aromasin proponents seem to bring forth.
Any further thoughts with regards to the accusation that upon cessation of arimidex, there is an estrogen overload that isn’t purportedly seen with aromasin? Yes, I understand those on TRT plan on being on for life, but I’m still interested in this supposed effect.
My E2 levels and T levels are just fine, so it would not be prudent for a bloodwork junky like myself to embark on any direct experiments with the compounds. That’s too bad; it would have been an interesting real world experiment for me, personally.