Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
M4B Store Banner
SPC-210x65
Riptropin Store banner
Generation X Bodybuilding Forum
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Mysupps Store Banner
IP Gear Store Banner
Anabolic Hormones Store Banner
Ganabol Store Banner
Spend $100 and get bonus needles free at sterile syringes
Professional Muscle Store open now
olympus
PHARMAHGH1
Bruce Labs Store banner
gd
Professional Muscle Store open now
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
advertise1
granabolic123
Blackroids-animated-optimized-number-1
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
advertise1
PM-Ace-Labs
advertise1
kinglab
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store

Nolvadex vs Raloxifene? (Mike Arnold or anyone)

Landmonster

Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
980
Hello all,


So we know that Nolvadex and Raloxifene are the two most prevalent choices as far as SERMs. Surely both of them function well as a SERM, by blocking estrogen in breast tissue.


However, for a bodybuilder using testosterone injections.... and occasionally other aromatizing drugs, is there a legitimate, convincing reason to prefer one drug over the other?


I'm just curious about effects that are not well known.

Does either one have a higher safety profile? Less risk of side effects, etc? Does either one affect muscle growth?

Thanks
 

Landmonster

Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
980
Here is what I'm getting at.

As I understand it, all SERMs are somewhat negative towards muscle building, in that they are rumored to reduce IGF, or levels of other growth factors. I don't know if this is 100% true, but even if it is, how much this actually affects muscle building in the real world.

Nevertheless, this fear has caused me, and probably many other lifters to avoid SERMs.

However, if you think about it, SERMs are the only class of drug that actually block estrogen at the receptor site in the breast tissue. This seems to be the most direct solution to prevent gyno. I know that my nipples have gotten sore and swolen without Nolvadex, even on relatively high doses of Aromasin or other AIs. Even if an increased dose of AI helps in those situations, it takes a while to work.

In any case, whether or not a SERM hampers our muscle building efforts, it seems like it is the last line (and perhaps best form) of defense to stop gyno from developing at the site. If that's true, we have to accept whatever else the SERM does.

I know there are other agents to reduce estrogen, such as AIs, but those class of drugs are hard on the body in other ways. Furthermore, it seems like a guessing game in which a man is likely to undershoot how much he needs, or overshoot it. "How much AI do I need today, in relation to X amount of Testosterone and Y amount of other aromatizing compound(s)?"

If you guess too low, you get gyno. If you guess too high, you kill your joints, lipids, and sex drive. This is perhaps one of the most frustrating aspects of BBing to me.


So I guess my questions are theses:

1) Am I correct in thinking that a SERM is necessary even alongside an AI?
2) Which SERM is most preferable to the modern bodybuilder? Nolva or Raloxifine?
3) What are optimum doses for our goals, while reducing undesirable effects? (a few examples would be useful)
 

crunchy

Member
Registered
Verified Customer
Joined
Jan 17, 2014
Messages
458
Getting back into the game, and seeing if anything had changed in the way of anaxillaries in the interim. Came across this doing reasearch

I see a lot of people use raloxifene now?

I used to, and was planning on just using aromasin on cycle, if I used a 19 nor maybe some caber.

Would love some info.
 

Mike Arnold

Featured Member / Kilo Klub / Verified Sponsor
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Sponsors
Joined
Aug 22, 2011
Messages
5,209
Getting back into the game, and seeing if anything had changed in the way of anaxillaries in the interim. Came across this doing reasearch

I see a lot of people use raloxifene now?

I used to, and was planning on just using aromasin on cycle, if I used a 19 nor maybe some caber.

Would love some info.

For on-cycle gyno prevention, it's better than Nolva. Toremifene is great for post-cycle therapy.
 

natrol

Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
537
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15238910

This study directly compares Raloxifene’s effectiveness in reversing gyno to Nolvadex.

It was determined that “inhibition of estrogen receptor action in the breast appears to be safe and effective in reducing persistent pubertal gynecomastia, with a better response to raloxifene than to tamoxifen.”

For on cycle prevention, just keep your Estro in range with an appropriate AI.

I see no reason to run Ralox or Nolva throughout the cycle unless you are trying to reverse an apparent lump forming.

An appropriate AI is what will prevent gyno from occurring in the first place on cycle.
 

Mike Arnold

Featured Member / Kilo Klub / Verified Sponsor
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Sponsors
Joined
Aug 22, 2011
Messages
5,209
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15238910

This study directly compares Raloxifene’s effectiveness in reversing gyno to Nolvadex.

It was determined that “inhibition of estrogen receptor action in the breast appears to be safe and effective in reducing persistent pubertal gynecomastia, with a better response to raloxifene than to tamoxifen.”

For on cycle prevention, just keep your Estro in range with an appropriate AI.

I see no reason to run Ralox or Nolva throughout the cycle unless you are trying to reverse an apparent lump forming.

An appropriate AI is what will prevent gyno from occurring in the first place on cycle.


...unless you suffer unwanted side effects from AI's, such as sexual dysfunction (common with exemestane) or damaged lipid values (common with anastrozole and letrozole).

Many people don't like to run AI's for these reasons. Obviously, if someone is using very high doses of aromatizable AAS, it would be good to use an AI, but for those who are using more moderate doses of aromatizable AAS, SERMs may be the more appropriate course of action.
 

natrol

Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
537
...unless you suffer unwanted side effects from AI's, such as sexual dysfunction (common with exemestane) or damaged lipid values (common with anastrozole and letrozole).

Many people don't like to run AI's for these reasons. Obviously, if someone is using very high doses of aromatizable AAS, it would be good to use an AI, but for those who are using more moderate doses of aromatizable AAS, SERMs may be the more appropriate course of action.

...Is that not simply mitigated through basic comprehension of blood work and not using a dose that will crash your Estrogen levels?

Maintaining great libido and erection quality is pretty easy if Estrogen is kept in the sweet spot with an appropriate AI (determined by baseline bloods, lipids, amount of aromatizing drugs, etc.), with Aromasin being one of the easiest to tweak in my experience, as it is the least volatile of the RX AI's on Estrogen.

I never even considered using a SERM like Nolva in place of an AI either on cycle, seeing as SERMs are generally regarded as, at best, equally as unhealthy as AI's:

The balance between risks and benefits: Long-term use of aromatase inhibitors

"The adverse events associated with AI use are predictable and manageable. On the basis of current data, the tolerability of AIs in the adjuvant setting appears as good as that of tamoxifen, and some serious adverse events associated with tamoxifen use are avoided. Further studies and longer follow-up from current trials will help to determine in more detail the long-term effects of this class of drugs."

Long-term safety of aromatase inhibitors in the treatment of breast cancer

"First results of overall therapeutic index of AIs suggest superiority over tamoxifen with proven improved efficacy and better toxicity profile."

Not to mention that SERMs only prevent estrogen from binding to receptor tissues in breast site, but there will still be supraphysiological estrogen circulating around in your system potentially causing all the other unwanted side effects (including sexual dysfunction) on even a moderate amount of aromatizing AAS.

So I don't really see SERMs being a more attractive alternative to AI's in any instance unless your baseline lipid profile was a disaster (cholesterol issues brought on entirely by AI's can be more easily managed than dealing with long-term sides brought on via Tamoxifen usage), or you had an existing lump.
 
Last edited:

jstrong20

Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
Messages
528
I like nolva for pct and take mk677 with it even though nolva should hinder its results. Do any of the newer seems not lower igf 1 levels?
 

Mike Arnold

Featured Member / Kilo Klub / Verified Sponsor
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Sponsors
Joined
Aug 22, 2011
Messages
5,209
...Is that not simply mitigated through basic comprehension of blood work and not using a dose that will crash your Estrogen levels?

Maintaining great libido and erection quality is pretty easy if Estrogen is kept in the sweet spot with an appropriate AI (determined by baseline bloods, lipids, amount of aromatizing drugs, etc.), with Aromasin being one of the easiest to tweak in my experience, as it is the least volatile of the RX AI's on Estrogen.

I never even considered using a SERM like Nolva in place of an AI either on cycle, seeing as SERMs are generally regarded as, at best, equally as unhealthy as AI's:

The balance between risks and benefits: Long-term use of aromatase inhibitors

"The adverse events associated with AI use are predictable and manageable. On the basis of current data, the tolerability of AIs in the adjuvant setting appears as good as that of tamoxifen, and some serious adverse events associated with tamoxifen use are avoided. Further studies and longer follow-up from current trials will help to determine in more detail the long-term effects of this class of drugs."

Long-term safety of aromatase inhibitors in the treatment of breast cancer

"First results of overall therapeutic index of AIs suggest superiority over tamoxifen with proven improved efficacy and better toxicity profile."

Not to mention that SERMs only prevent estrogen from binding to receptor tissues in breast site, but there will still be supraphysiological estrogen circulating around in your system potentially causing all the other unwanted side effects (including sexual dysfunction) on even a moderate amount of aromatizing AAS.

So I don't really see SERMs being a more attractive alternative to AI's in any instance unless your baseline lipid profile was a disaster (cholesterol issues brought on entirely by AI's can be more easily managed than dealing with long-term sides brought on via Tamoxifen usage), or you had an existing lump.

I'll respond to this later. There are factors you're not considering.
 

Staff online

  • pesty4077
    Moderator/ Featured Member / Kilo Klub
  • LATS
    Moderator / FOUNDING Member / NPC Judge

Forum statistics

Total page views
511,049,310
Threads
125,402
Messages
2,442,568
Members
156,096
Latest member
Gentlepec
Top