If he dies….he dies

[jaxino]

No, I wouldn't say it's a "bad" idea. It's just that ralox works better for most.

Thanks so much Mike! You are a precious member of this forum!

 

[lynxeffect1]

Did you mean to say 100's? I didn't ever say 1,000's, so that's why I think you may have accidentally typed an extra zero on there. LOL. In order for estrogen to get into the thousands, one's test dose would have to be so high that it would be atrocious. Not good at all. LOL.

Now, as far as the 100's, yes, I have seen that often. It's not uncommon at all, and for many pros, was the norm prior to the advent of AI's. I have no problem with an estrogen reading in the 100-200 range. Quite honestly, when someone is using bodybuilding doses of steroids, having an estrogen level below 100 is suboptimal, for many reasons. Being in the 30-40 range may be fine for a man with normal testosterone levels, but having a "normal" testosterone (i.e. androgen) level is not the same thing as having massively elevated supraphysiological levels of androgens. The body needs some balance. I don't advocate a specific number because not everyone is using the same doses/drugs, nor does everyone have the same response. But, generally speaking, a reading in the 100-200 range seems to work very well.

Ralox is sold as a research chemical at MA Research (maresearchchems.net)

Thanks for the reply. Yes that was a typo . I meant 100's. Everything your saying makes sense to me especially for offseason. Ive been using for over 10years now and from user experience alone the more I raise my testosterone the bigger , stronger i get and the more my sex drive increases along and I feel the more protected my joints are which has prevented my from any serious injurys. Apart from water retention I've never really needed to use an ai only rarely if sex drive went and 1 to 2 tabs always seemed to fix the issue in the same week. Until over a year ago I've tried using aromasin a few times and my sex drive is fucked since no matter what test dosage maybe I'm not giving myself enough time away from an ai before panicking and trying again? Most I've ever had my estrogen at is 80pg/ml on 1200 test / 800 deca but even on half this dosage I'm having problems. Even on high test and introducing low dose masteron is crushing my joints also

 

[luki7788]

Did you mean to say 100's? I didn't ever say 1,000's, so that's why I think you may have accidentally typed an extra zero on there. LOL. In order for estrogen to get into the thousands, one's test dose would have to be so high that it would be atrocious. Not good at all. LOL.

Now, as far as the 100's, yes, I have seen that often. It's not uncommon at all, and for many pros, was the norm prior to the advent of AI's. I have no problem with an estrogen reading in the 100-200 range. Quite honestly, when someone is using bodybuilding doses of steroids, having an estrogen level below 100 is suboptimal, for many reasons. Being in the 30-40 range may be fine for a man with normal testosterone levels, but having a "normal" testosterone (i.e. androgen) level is not the same thing as having massively elevated supraphysiological levels of androgens. The body needs some balance. I don't advocate a specific number because not everyone is using the same doses/drugs, nor does everyone have the same response. But, generally speaking, a reading in the 100-200 range seems to work very well.

Ralox is sold as a research chemical at MA Research (maresearchchems.net)

I cannot imagine having estrogen above 100, let alone nearly 200 - already above 50 I start to have back pumps and strong subcutaneous water retention. At 90 I am already a water man who carries 15 lbs of extra water

 

[marssel]

Talking about Trestolone dosages and Test dosages.

Can you provide some "guidelines" on how to use it?

For example, 500 test 150 Trest can be compared to like a 2g of Testosterone?
Is that possible to create a sort of idea on how much Trestolone is compared to Test?

I know that it's like apple and oranges but at least to have an idea....

As my personal experience i have noticed positive reactions at 500-1g Test but i really have no idea how much Trestolone i can stack with it and avoid massive estrogenic effects

A gram of test isn’t giving you enough u wanna take something else?

 

[jaxino]

A gram of test isn’t giving you enough u wanna take something else?

Ofc! It's never enough!

 

[Mike Arnold]

I cannot imagine having estrogen above 100, let alone nearly 200 - already above 50 I start to have back pumps and strong subcutaneous water retention. At 90 I am already a water man who carries 15 lbs of extra water

It will definitely result in water retention. There's no doubt about that. If being dry is the goal, then obviously, keeping estrogen on the lower side is going to be ideal.

But...for growth, it should be higher than what we've been seeing over the last 10-15 years. Since the mid-2000's (when offseason AI use became commonplace), we saw a lot of bodybuilders overdo the AI's primarily because they liked looking drier. I mean, who doesn't want to look like they are in better shape? The pendulum had swung too far in the other direction--a kind of overcorrection--as it pertains to estrogen-induced muscle growth. People began minimizing the value of estrogen largely because it was overemphasized during the 80's and 90's.

These days, things have started to come into better balance. It's not an either/or question anymore. We see the value, but it doesn't mean we don't manage it. There can be a lot of different reasons why someone may not want an estrogen level at 100. Maybe they have BP issues. Maybe they feel like shit. I just don't see it being a black and white issue. I think each situation should be evaluated individually, but I don't think there is any denying that having "normal" levels of estrogen is suboptimal from a recovery & growth standpoint.

Like most things, estrogen levels should be personalized based on wants/needs.

 

[marssel]

Ofc! It's never enough!

It will definitely result in water retention. There's no doubt about that. If being dry is the goal, then obviously, keeping estrogen on the lower side is going to be ideal.

But...for growth, it should be higher than what we've been seeing over the last 10-15 years. Since the mid-2000's (when offseason AI use became commonplace), we saw a lot of bodybuilders overdo the AI's primarily because they liked looking drier. I mean, who doesn't want to look like they are in better shape? The pendulum had swung too far in the other direction--a kind of overcorrection--as it pertains to estrogen-induced muscle growth. People began minimizing the value of estrogen largely because it was overemphasized during the 80's and 90's.

These days, things have started to come into better balance. It's not an either/or question anymore. We see the value, but it doesn't mean we don't manage it. There can be a lot of different reasons why someone may not want an estrogen level at 100. Maybe they have BP issues. Maybe they feel like shit. I just don't see it being a black and white issue. I think each situation should be evaluated individually, but I don't think there is any denying that having "normal" levels of estrogen is suboptimal from a recovery & growth standpoint.

Like most things, estrogen levels should be personalized based on wants/needs.

Not too mention AI use especially by guys who literally shouldn’t even consider use let alone this .5 eod by non competitors and even some that do has results in this massive up tick in catosrophic tendon injuries.

 

[jaxino]

It will definitely result in water retention. There's no doubt about that. If being dry is the goal, then obviously, keeping estrogen on the lower side is going to be ideal.

But...for growth, it should be higher than what we've been seeing over the last 10-15 years. Since the mid-2000's (when offseason AI use became commonplace), we saw a lot of bodybuilders overdo the AI's primarily because they liked looking drier. I mean, who doesn't want to look like they are in better shape? The pendulum had swung too far in the other direction--a kind of overcorrection--as it pertains to estrogen-induced muscle growth. People began minimizing the value of estrogen largely because it was overemphasized during the 80's and 90's.

These days, things have started to come into better balance. It's not an either/or question anymore. We see the value, but it doesn't mean we don't manage it. There can be a lot of different reasons why someone may not want an estrogen level at 100. Maybe they have BP issues. Maybe they feel like shit. I just don't see it being a black and white issue. I think each situation should be evaluated individually, but I don't think there is any denying that having "normal" levels of estrogen is suboptimal from a recovery & growth standpoint.

Like most things, estrogen levels should be personalized based on wants/needs.

So let's say that we can:
1) use Raloxifene/Nolvadex to keep gyno away.
2) do bloods for E2
3) introduce AIs dose based on the levels of estrogens that are we aiming for
4) repeat from point 2)

 

[marssel]

So let's say that we can:
1) use Raloxifene/Nolvadex to keep gyno away.
2) do bloods for E2
3) introduce AIs dose based on the levels of estrogens that are we aiming for
4) repeat from point 2)

Sounds good but if gyno is CNN no issue estrogen is the hearts friend and water can be managed thru diet and cardio if estro is only slightly high which is cardio protective