Am I, really?
yes, I believe you are.
Explain how I'm wrong.
I already did.
Be concise, without blabbing off a bunch of discursive circumlocutions on your opinion of how I'm wrong. Please share.
First of all, I was already very well aware that contradictory studies exist regarding the ability if AI's to adversely affect the lipids. But you see, you are one of those people who thinks that if something hasn't been "proven", or remains "inconclusive" from a clinical standpoint, then we can't know the truth about the matter.
Unfortunately, most of what we know to be true today regarding the application of PED's in bodybuilders has been gleaned through real-world experience--often times decades of real-world experience.
As an example, I could say that it is an absolute fact that, generally speaking, Anadrol is a superior strength drug to Turinabol, and I would be correct, yet if someone from outside this community peeps their nose into our business--let's say a doctor-- and challenges me to prove my statement with clinical research, it cannot be done.
Now, does the lack of clinical studies to support my position make my statement any less valid? No, but a doctor might argue otherwise. Who would be right? I would. You see, the things we do in bodybuilding--the drugs we use, in the combinations/dosages we use them, and for the reasons we use them, will never be viewed as an ethical pursuit in the medical/scientific community and therefore, much of the knowledge gained regarding the optimal application of BB'ing drugs will come by way of real-world experience. The more anecdotal evidence we gather in support of a position, the more credible it becomes until eventually, it is no longer questioned, but regarded as "fact".
This is why I currently have 2 doctors, both of whom are actively involved in the BB'ing community (one from this website), hire me to help them achieve their goals--because they understand we are not dealing with a subject that demands, or can even rely on clinical validation alone.
Science provides us with a framework, a foundation from which we can proceed, but when it comes to knowing how to get the job done with these drugs, no amount of scientific pursuit is going to adequately prepare one for this thing we call bodybuilding.
So, when I tell you that Aromasin is less injurious to the lipids in male BB'rs, I say so not just because of the studies which do exist, but because real-world experience appears to confirm it, as well. At this point, many other respected coaches feel likewise and recommend the same...because they have witnessed the same. Those of us who are involved in this industry, not just post on a board, we make the best decisions we can based on the information that is available to us, and with lots of real-world experience showing Aromasin to have a less injurious to the lipids than A-dex or letro, it only makes sense to go along with the evidence.
But, for those people who function outside of the BB'ing community, the only information they have to go on are clinical studies and/or what they happen to read on the Net, which may or may not be correct. For those who are on the inside, we use "everything" available to use when making our decisions, which includes both clinical evidence and anecdotal evidence.
So, based on the evidence I have seen, I believe that Aromasin is more mild on lipids in male BB'rs. Does it have the same impact on post-menopausal women (which many of the studies you posted up were done on)? I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if it didn't, as there are several clinical studies which do show that AI's affect men differently than women in several respects.
So, while you may think that no evidence exists which shows Aromasin to be more mild in male BB'rs, you only think so because you have zero, or next to zero real-world experience in this sport...other than your own. You base your decisions wholly off of what clinical studies can tell you...and if the answers aren't there to be found in the medical literature, you deny the existence of such answers.
Unfortunately, those who take this approach will never learn very much in bodybuilding--at least not when it comes to the optimal application of PED's in sport.
Incidentally you obviously didn't read what I stated (quite common, that's okay tho). It is mixed and inconclusive, regardless of what you want to believe. I bring forth several of many citations of such, without promulgation of my personal view, yet you want to refute these...
I read it all.
Not in one sentence, nor with one inclination did I claim one AI was better than the other on the adverse effects on lipids. Now did I?
Did I say you did?
So again, please explain how I'm "wrong"....
Read above.
Or is it because of you being a coach looking at a few lab's of a select few individuals that their "anecdotal evidence" is compelling evidence, everyone should only use exmestane? Yeah, okay.
I look at everything I can before making a decision--clinical evidence (I am nearly certain I have read FAR more studies than you on this subject, as what you posted is only tiny percentage of what exists) and anecdotal evidence. I use both. As a coach who instructs BB'rs on how to best use these drugs, I NEED to be as well-versed as possible, as people count on me to not only provide the results they are looking for, but to do so within their own boundaries. Therefore, being that clinical evidence is so incredibly limited when it comes to the use of BB'ing drugs in humans, I must take into consideration all available information. The job demands it.
At this point, the evidence is compelling enough, at least to me and many others, that I have decided to recommend the use Aromasin during the off-season, although I believe letro is superior for combating letro and drying out before a show, but let me guess, you're going to argue with me about that to, right? Let me spare you the time--there are no studies which show letro works better for 'drying out".
PED use in Bodybuilding is constantly evolving...and sometimes, we find out that something we previously believed is wrong, but much of the conclusions we come to end up being right. In some cases, it is actually science that screws things up and leads people astray. Remember a few years ago when some doctors in the industry were teaching that fasted cardio was actually less beneficial for fat loss than eating before cardio...and they posted a study to prove it, along with a nice explanation to boot? As a result, lots of BB'rs stopped doing fasted cardio.
We had some well known pro BB'rs and even some coaches who argued with the science, saying that experience had shown them otherwise. I was among these. Then, a couple years after science had supposedly "proven" that fasted cardio was inferior, multiple studies were done showing it was superior!!! Now, everyone is doing fasted cardio again. LOL. The problem with studies is that the conclusions which are drawn are quite often wrong. Poor study design and interpretation is most often to blame, but even though science has contradicted itself more times than we can count, we still see some guys holding up clinical studies as the be-all, end-all of BB'ing knowledge.
The fact is that neither science or the bodybuilding community comes to the right conclusions all the time, but the smart guys know this and look at the bigger picture when coming to conclusions..and they remain open to change should new information present itself. At this point in time, based on the wide range of information I have seen, I believe Aromasin is superior for use in male BB'rs when it comes to protecting the lipid profile. You can feel free to disagree, or not form an opinion one way or the other, but for now, I will continue to recommend Aromasin to every male BB'r (outside of the limited circumstances listed above).
There's a few here on this board stating in a very recent thread that claimed Arimidex has no negative effect on their lipids. I reckon their "anecdotal evidence" holds no value, huh, Mike?
I never said that A-dex always negatively affects the lipids because it doesn't, but it often does. Don't make assumptions. However, I did say that I believe Aromasin is the LEAST injurious, in general, of the 3 most commonly used AI's.
And it's very obvious you have minimal understanding on physiological reactants related to the biosynthesis of lipoproteins.
You got me there. LOL. I guess I am unfit to be a coach/writer now. 
Or you would of been apprehensive on how individual genetic metabolism and expression of HMG-CoA reductase and it's related pathways correlate to all of this discussion. As I mentioned also; the interactive role of Cytochrome P450 enzymes that are involved in multi-array of biological processes that includes drug inducers or inhibitors, lipids and steroid metabolism, ect, ect. If you would have comprehended this, you would of not stated, "he's wrong."
You remind me of a doctor who argued with me once that it took 28,000 extra cals, above and beyond what was normally use for maintenance, to build one single pound of muscle tissue. He posted all sorts of shit I had never even heard of which supposedly supported his statement. While I couldn't refute his argument because I lacked knowledge of the subject matter he was posting about, it was pretty obvious to everyone there that the guy was horribly wrong. When 10,000's of bodybuilders over several decades experience something that completely contradicts a particular claim, it kind of speaks for itself. It's kind of like telling someone that it is impossible to add 100 lbs on their bench in 4 weeks, but then they go and do it, finding out the truth for themselves with a reality that is impossible to deny.
However, you weren't nearly as intelligent as that man.
It's not that I'm arguing with you, Mike. I have much better things to do than have an Internet pissing matches.
Apparently not. At least I get paid to be on the boards--what is your excuse?
You see Mike, I see small flaws and misuse of words that I personally believe you haven't a clue of their true definition in your comments. That's why I bring it to your attention. Like it or not. You can either choose to grow and use it to your advantage. Or tell me I'm wrong, and be bitter and think I'm looking for the "slight opening."
Misuse of what?
Look, if you want respect in this community, there is a right and a wrong way to try an get it. I suggest you do it by making a name for yourself the good ole' fashioned way--by proving yourself in the real-world.
You could get as many degrees as you want, brush up on all the available medical terminology, but without actually being involved in this industry, without putting things to the test in the real-world and seeing what actually works and what doesn't, by working with 100's of people...AND reviewing as much clinical evidence as possible, you will never, ever learn much, nor will you achieve the notoriety you seem to be looking for.
I am sure you will learn quite a bit in your current area of schooling, but it will never make you a good coach, or teach you how to optimally and safely use PED's to achieve the goals of BB'rs/strength athletes/sportsmen. That is what I do. I figure out how to best get the job done. You might be able to write a paper on HMG-CoA reductase, but can you get someone peeled without dropping a pound of muscle? I could go on and on. We both have different skill sets and specialize in different things. You specialize in educating yourself in your non-BB'ing field of study, while I specialize in BB'ing related matters. You will go on to get a job outside of BB'ing, while I will remain here...and that's OK. If you decide you want a career in this community, then pursue it. It is up to you and you will rise or fall based on what you know, just as I have.
You also need to familiarize yourself with the difference between terminal half life and elimination half life. Or at least use it in the proper context, it'll keep you from stating erroneous information.
You stated
Second paragraph:
In your words, explain the bolded. With reference, thanks.Explain the last sentence?
In a nutshell, Nolva will stop estrogen from binding to the estrogen receptor, thus, stopping a side effect like gyno, but nolva does nothing to reduce systemic estrogen levels. I thought the first explanation was adequate enough.
The poster asked why more people don't use Nolva to control estrogen and my answer was because Nolva doesn't lower estrogen levels--it only prevents receptor binding in areas such as breast tissue, etc. Pretty basic stuff, bro.
.gif "IP Gear")
