Is The Information In This Book All Wrong?!

[Smokescreen]

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!

 

[maxpain]

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!

I would like to know too. I was just about to bid on one on ebay. Don't want to waste my cash though. If it is not a good reference tool. Be interesting to the see the responses.

 

[Alpha Male Baboon]

I find nothing wrong with the info in the book... yet!
By all means Anabolics 2004 is a great book & if there is a little incorrect information then just be thankfull we have these wicked boards to fall back on.
Personally I find nothing better in terms of research than lying in bed reading Anabolics 2004, I find it to be an awesome reference & would not doubt most of the info it gives me for a second. Its 10 times as good as any other book out at the moment.
With regards to the Anti - E's you mentioned, everyone reacts differently to different things, so what might work wicked for one, might be rubbish for another.

 

[The Terminator]

The big problem with printed text like that in this dynamic and ever changing market is that ALOT of the info IS outdated...
Hell, alot of it was outdated the day it hit the stands...

This market is changing so rapidly (mostly Vet and UG scene), that the text is outdated (as far as company reputations goes)
That book still has TTokkyo as a top notch vet brand...Most graneros dont even carry TT in MX anymore

 

[The Terminator]

I should mention thought that the profiles on anabolics are good though...

 

[DIVISION]

Carthatic.....

Where is everybody getting this info.

Not everything comes from a book, Carth.

Alot of what people believe comes from personal experience, and everyone has different genetics so it varies.

 

[Smokescreen]

Hmmm....Division is right. But still! How do you guys know that Nolva and Clomid lower IGF-1? The book doesn't state that! How do you guys say that letro is the stongest when the book says it is aromasin? BTW...if Nolva and Clomid lower IGF-1 output...why use it during PCT?

 

[hammertime30]

I would like to know too. I was just about to bid on one on ebay. Don't want to waste my cash though. If it is not a good reference tool. Be interesting to the see the responses.

Regardless, I find anything book that revolves around scientific research to be a great investment for the foundation of knowledge. Of course there is always going to be some type of contradiction with anything for alot of times someone else will provide information on personal experience rather then scientific facts. I never go strictly by what is said on these boards nor do I ever go strictly by what I read in books! I'll keep searching until I find a majority which will usually indicate a high percentage of it being true.

 

[einstein1905]

Llewellyn is notorious for selectively citing scientific studies and negelecting studies that don't support his claims (even if they make up the majority).
Nolva (not clomid) does lower serum IGF-1 levels, but that's not IM IGF-1 (IGF-1Ea), which is what's relevant for us for muscle growth.
Just because someone has money to publish a book, doesn't make its contents accurate. the people on the boards have no financial vested interest in things....they donate advice merely for the sake of disseminating fact. These "experts" that publish books really don't ever post on the boards, do they? Publication seems to add validity to the info within....However, if some of this same info was posted on the boards, it would be scrutinized and often refuted within minutes. In a book, people tend to take it as fact merely because it's sandwiched between a fancy cardboard cover.

If you want the studies to which these authors allude (and also the ones they don't want you to read), just go to pubmed and read them yourselves.

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

Llewellyn is notorious for selectively citing scientific studies and negelecting studies that don't support his claims (even if they make up the majority).
Nolva (not clomid) does lower serum IGF-1 levels, but that's not IM IGF-1 (IGF-1Ea), which is what's relevant for us for muscle growth.
Just because someone has money to publish a book, doesn't make its contents accurate. the people on the boards have no financial vested interest in things....they donate advice merely for the sake of disseminating fact. These "experts" that publish books really don't ever post on the boards, do they? Publication seems to add validity to the info within....However, if some of this same info was posted on the boards, it would be scrutinized and often refuted within minutes. In a book, people tend to take it as fact merely because it's sandwiched between a fancy cardboard cover.

If you want the studies to which these authors allude (and also the ones they don't want you to read), just go to pubmed and read them yourselves.

If I am notorious for being selective in what I refernece, as you say, then surely you can enlighten us with a number of examples Einstein.

Carth. Read page 11. I note the IGF-1 lowering properties of Nolva when discussing the anabolic effects of estrogen.

The subject of the effects of estrogens and anti-estrogenic drugs on the GH/IGF-1 axis is pretty complex. Data from studies done on women may or may not be relevant to the subject at hand, and finite conclusions based on such may be inaccurate. Also, the current trend of comparing the studies of one aromatase inhibitor to another, and makiing statements about one lowering and one raising IGF-1, is a big mistake. These "guru's" are oversimplifying quite a complicated subject. There is no reason to believe lowering serum estrogen levels with on inhibitor will raise IGF-1, while another will significantly lower it. Again, studies on women may be misleading in how they relate to a steroid using male bb'r. In general, if you want the full anabolic potential of a cycle, avoid AI's/AE's unless you need them for side effect mitigation.

Thanks for all the supporters! Anabolics 2005 coming very soon (doing the book yearly now).

BTW-If anyone has any new steroid boxes/empty vials that may be of use in the update (I already have 500+ new pics), I would be happy to send them a free copy of the next book in exchange. Just email me at [email protected]. You know what to do with the address.