1-Test - Anabolic/Androgenic?

[Bill Llewellyn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1-Test - Anabolic/Androgenic?

Can you just answer the following for me?

You must agree that these long term suppressed subjects of Mauros with the low LH and low test/estrogen ratio are undoubtedly suffering from testicular atrophy, correct?

of course.

And you noticed that Mauro said that anti-estrogens often are sufficient to restore testosteorne production in these subjects. Correct?

I never said they wouldn't be sufficient. I'm sure they work well, especially since HCG doesn't seem to address the issue for these people at all. They have atrophy, yes, but the lazy LH is the big problem.

Does this not completely contradict your theory that anti-estrogens are useless for those with testicular atrophy?

No. They are useless in a sense that practically I expect they will work little better than waiting for your body to do the job on its own. Certainly not worth the hard-earned $$ for third generation aromatase inhibitors. For the healthy person, the removal of external steroid and suppression of natural test/estrogen will already have created favorable conditions for heightened LH levels.

Furthermore, these subjects are hypogonadotropic and so must therefore have lower than normal estrogen levels, correct? Why then are anti-estrogens still working in these people? That too seems to contradict what you have been saying?

No actually, it doesn't. The bodybuilder can certainly take AE's as well, and wait for the testes to have enough time under normal or slightly above normal LH stimulation to get the testes and T back. Maybe the anti-estrogen would even help a tiny bit in spite of low estrogen and androgen levels. But it will be far less effective than hitting the testes with bolus LH right off the bat in terms of atrophy, no?

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

So Bill, are you assuming that the effect (qualitatively speaking) of ALL steroids (or combinations thereof) on the HPTA are just like testosterone at 250mg a week? You think that you can make a blanket statement (that post cycle recovery is typically characterized by a hypergonadotropic hypogonadal state) based on ONE study using a low dose of testosterone?

I think it is a good example of typical suppression. Normal men took steroids, which suppressed natural T, for about 20 weeks. They then stopped, and had testosterone rebound without any lagging dysfunction in the HPTA. The HP axis came back first, with the testes much slower to respond due to the atrophied state. Yes, in my mind it is very representitive of the average healthy male looking to shorten the post-cycle window.

That given, I'm sure some heavy steroid users will have unknowingly aquired hypo-hypo states. For them likely the HCG would be wholy ineffective. That I do not disagree with, but this is not the person I am addressing.

I am talking to the healthy male that would have his T levels rebound normally without drugs, and would not be in the doctors office 3 or 4 months after his cycle still bitching about a poor libido.

 

[pa1ad]

I never said anti-estrogens didn't work on these people. I just said that your claim that the ratio was important was way, way incorrect. [/B]

Its not my claim bill, its Mauro's claim.

"I've found anti-estrogens very effective when both of the
following conditions were present, along with a low serum testosterone. A
low testosterone/estrogen ratio, and a low to normal LH."

And he bases it on hundreds of case studies. And you base your assertion to the contrary on what?

????????????

 

[pa1ad]

Re: Re: Re: Re: QUESTION for PA and BILL

That is an interesting idea actually Pat. I can't imagine that with the loss of gonadal estrogens levels could really be elevated post-cycle though. Right now IMO there is no evidence to support a true estrogen rebound, but certainly there is to support a rebound imbalanced T/E ratio.

Yeah, I agree with that

 

[pa1ad]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1-Test - Anabolic/Androgenic?

of course.



I never said they wouldn't be sufficient. I'm sure they work well, especially since HCG doesn't seem to address the issue for these people at all. They have atrophy, yes, but the lazy LH is the big problem.



No. They are useless in a sense that practically I expect they will work little better than waiting for your body to do the job on its own. Certainly not worth the hard-earned $$ for third generation aromatase inhibitors. For the healthy person, the removal of external steroid and suppression of natural test/estrogen will already have created favorable conditions for heightened LH levels.



No actually, it doesn't. The bodybuilder can certainly take AE's as well, and wait for the testes to have enough time under normal or slightly above normal LH stimulation to get the testes and T back. Maybe the anti-estrogen would even help a tiny bit in spite of low estrogen and androgen levels. But it will be far less effective than hitting the testes with bolus LH right off the bat in terms of atrophy, no?

I think often anti-estrogens work more than just "a tiny bit" Bill. I know I have seen levels bounce back quickly and strongly after the use of clomid. And sure, HCG will get the testosterone back quicker but then what happens when you stop the HCG? YOu once more have depressed LH and you have to wait for that to kick back in again.

LOts of people would be better off getting their WHOLE axis back in line using the anti-estrogens, however for those cases where anti-estrogens don't work (due to more serious testicular atrophy) HCG might do the job.


Why do you hate anti-estrogens so much?

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

Its not my claim bill, its Mauro's claim.

"I've found anti-estrogens very effective when both of the
following conditions were present, along with a low serum testosterone. A
low testosterone/estrogen ratio, and a low to normal LH."

And he bases it on hundreds of case studies. And you base your assertion to the contrary on what?

????????????

You are misreading him Pat. Anti-estrogens are effective in these people BECAUSE they need to restore LH. What does HCG do for LH? Nothing. Anti-estrogen are therefore the preferred treatment here, that's all.

 

[pa1ad]

I think it is a good example of typical suppression. Normal men took steroids, which suppressed natural T, for about 20 weeks. They then stopped, and had testosterone rebound without any lagging dysfunction in the HPTA. The HP axis came back first, with the testes much slower to respond due to the atrophied state. Yes, in my mind it is very representitive of the average healthy male looking to shorten the post-cycle window.

That given, I'm sure some heavy steroid users will have unknowingly aquired hypo-hypo states. For them likely the HCG would be wholy ineffective. That I do not disagree with, but this is not the person I am addressing.

I am talking to the healthy male that would have his T levels rebound normally without drugs, and would not be in the doctors office 3 or 4 months after his cycle still bitching about a poor libido. [/B]

I don't think what you are getting my point Bill. Different steroids have different effects on the HPTA. Anabolic steroids have different activities that can potentially efffect the HPTA - these including estrogenic, androgenic, and progestational properties. Furthermore, effects on the HPTA at high dosages may be markedly different than those at low dosages - qualitatively different and not just quantitiatively. Your hypergonadotropic hypogonadism hypothesis may be valid in reference to a low dose testosterone cycle, but may completely off base in regards to a trenbolone / halotestin cycle (which may be associated with a severe HYPOgonadotropic hypogonadal post cycle state)

I think you did a poor job in forming your widely encompassing theory (that covers all steroids and types of cycles) based on extrapolation of a study using one steroid at one low dosage

 

[pa1ad]

I think it is a good example of typical suppression. Normal men took steroids, which suppressed natural T, for about 20 weeks. They then stopped, and had testosterone rebound without any lagging dysfunction in the HPTA. The HP axis came back first, with the testes much slower to respond due to the atrophied state. Yes, in my mind it is very representitive of the average healthy male looking to shorten the post-cycle window.

That given, I'm sure some heavy steroid users will have unknowingly aquired hypo-hypo states. For them likely the HCG would be wholy ineffective. That I do not disagree with, but this is not the person I am addressing.

I am talking to the healthy male that would have his T levels rebound normally without drugs, and would not be in the doctors office 3 or 4 months after his cycle still bitching about a poor libido. [/B]

How do you know that testosterone at 750mg a week might not be sufficient to induce a post cycle hypo hypo state? Or deca at 600mg a week?

IMO, the only sound scientific conclusion one could gather from that study is that 250mg a week of test for extended cycle may result in a post cycle hyper hypo state that resolves itself over a few months.

I think you were too eager to come up with a revolutionary theory on post cycle suppression

 

[pa1ad]

You are misreading him Pat. Anti-estrogens are effective in these people BECAUSE they need to restore LH. What does HCG do for LH? Nothing. Anti-estrogen are therefore the preferred treatment here, that's all.

Thats the answer that i thought you were going to give, but you miss my point.

If they had testicular atrophy (which you agreed that they must have had) then according to you simply raising LH would not be sufficient to restore testosterone production. Yet anti-estrogens enough were sufficient, Mauro made that quite clear. This is where your theory completely breaks down.

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1-Test - Anabolic/Androgenic?

I think often anti-estrogens work more than just "a tiny bit" Bill. I know I have seen levels bounce back quickly and strongly after the use of clomid. And sure, HCG will get the testosterone back quicker but then what happens when you stop the HCG? YOu once more have depressed LH and you have to wait for that to kick back in again.

I think we are finally making some progress here. You are correct, which is why I never suggest taking HCG alone. It is a bad idea. You need anti-estrogens during and for at least a few weeks after the HCG has been cut for this very reason. You also need to be careful not to overuse the drug as well. But we are finally hitting on the point that this is the quickest way to get T levels back up.

Why do you hate anti-estrogens so much?

Actually I don't hate ant-estrogens at all Pat. I happen to think Nolvadex was one of the best drugs ever made in fact.

I am just faced with what is logical, and has worked, for me. By removing steroids post-cycle we have already created favorable conditions for heightened LH release. We see a pretty rapid recovey of the HP, and the couple of weeks it does take to get back seem hard to attribute to estrogenic or androgenic inhibition with the lower levels we know to be present. It takes far longer for T levels to come back up, due to testicular atrophy. I don't see anyway to justify the current "forget HCG and stick with Clomid" sentiment. It doesn't make sense given the parameters of a normal post-cycle window. Atrophy is by far the bigger issue, and HCG is no doubt the quickest way to address it.

It is really nothing personal here Pat, with you or the Anti-estrogens.