• All new members please introduce your self here and welcome to the board:
    http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
M4B Store Banner
intex
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
PM-Ace-Labs
Ganabol Store Banner
Spend $100 and get bonus needles free at sterile syringes
Professional Muscle Store open now
sunrise2
PHARMAHGH1
kinglab
ganabol2
Professional Muscle Store open now
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
azteca
granabolic1
napsgear-210x65
monster210x65
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
advertise1
UGFREAK-banner-PM
advertise1
yms-GIF-210x65-SB
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

Ralox vs Nolva

ive used both.

I stocked up on a bunch of ralox like 2 years ago to try and shrink some pubertal gyno that got inflamed on cycle.
I had at least some level of success with the long term dosing of ralox for this purpose.

fast forward i always keep nolva on hand for emergency use or for while im utilizing a different protocol combination and am still getting bloodwork to dial in AI dosing, if any.
There have been times during the process of dialing in AI dosing on a particular protocol that i would develop swelling and sensitivity at the nip and i tried both ralox and nolva at different occasions to knock down that immediate swelling and sensitivity.

My anecdotal finding was that nolva was FAR more effective and far faster to combat gyno flair up, usually dealing with the flair in a day or two.
Ralox on the other hand seemed to take a week or more to really get things under control, which surprised me since its supposed to be far more selective to the breast tissue.
Ralox just didnt seem reliable for the purposes of dealing with emergency gyno flair up, and seemed more well suited for long term dosing to try and shrink or minimize existing gyno tissue
appreciate the insight my dude!
 
ive used both.

I stocked up on a bunch of ralox like 2 years ago to try and shrink some pubertal gyno that got inflamed on cycle.
I had at least some level of success with the long term dosing of ralox for this purpose.

fast forward i always keep nolva on hand for emergency use or for while im utilizing a different protocol combination and am still getting bloodwork to dial in AI dosing, if any.
There have been times during the process of dialing in AI dosing on a particular protocol that i would develop swelling and sensitivity at the nip and i tried both ralox and nolva at different occasions to knock down that immediate swelling and sensitivity.

My anecdotal finding was that nolva was FAR more effective and far faster to combat gyno flair up, usually dealing with the flair in a day or two.
Ralox on the other hand seemed to take a week or more to really get things under control, which surprised me since its supposed to be far more selective to the breast tissue.
Ralox just didnt seem reliable for the purposes of dealing with emergency gyno flair up, and seemed more well suited for long term dosing to try and shrink or minimize existing gyno tissue
How high were your Ralox dosage and Tamox dosage, respectively?
 
How high were your Ralox dosage and Tamox dosage, respectively?
If memory serves, I believe I did 2 months at 60mg a day and then 2 months of 120mg a day of ralox.

Nolva I only ever use 20mg a day in emergencies while dialing in AI dosage, that's always been plenty for me.
 
Anecdotally it seems like different people respond differently. Nolva works for me, but Ralox works better and faster. I stack both and .25 caber if I’m
running Tren when I get a gyno flair up and it’s gone fast.
 
Anecdotally, I know several people who've said higher doses (100-120+ per day) of Raloxifene actually shrunk some gyno. I'm not sure how true that really is, probably depends on what we really mean by gyno. It seems like it does a great job of shrinking a knot that's just started to grow, but if you've got a hard nodule there, I don't think anything other than surgery is going to really fix it.

I like Ralox on paper because at some point I read that it does a better job than Nolva of both antagonizing the ER in breast tissue and agonizing it in bones and connective tissue. I.e. it helps e2 do more of what we actually want it to do.

I've gotten away from using SERMs prophylactically, though...I'm using Ralox in prep now because I think my gyno started to flare up at the end of the offseason, but I've been reevaluating my stance against AIs. This offseason I'll just start using just enough Aromasin to keep e2 in range instead of letting it run higher.
 
Starting to get a bit itchy nips, wanted to order nolva but I read a lot of stuff ralox doesn´t cause blood clots. Is it superior to nolva? Don´t got a lot of knowledge on SERMS.

Cons/pro´s for both?
I talked directly to a sales rep who sold Nolvadex and then Evista. I asked what the main concern would be on Evista, and he said(without a single second of pause) blood clots. Now MAYBE mg for mg ralox is less likely to cause blood clots but the fact that the mg amount is much higher COULD offset that.

I would NOT assume blood clots are any less of a risk with ralox.
 
I talked directly to a sales rep who sold Nolvadex and then Evista. I asked what the main concern would be on Evista, and he said(without a single second of pause) blood clots. Now MAYBE mg for mg ralox is less likely to cause blood clots but the fact that the mg amount is much higher COULD offset that.

I would NOT assume blood clots are any less of a risk with ralox.
The study I linked above compared 20mg of Tamox to 60mg of Ralox. At those dosages, Ralox still had a lower risk of blood clots.
 
Ralox for getting rid of pubertal gyno or gland that has been hardened a while. 60mg/day for 60 days. Surgery is needed if that doesn’t either eliminate it or make it small enough to live with. I was the latter case from pubertal gyno. Indian pharm Ralox shrunk it enough that it’s nbd.

I use nolva often now. Never Ralox. I rarely use compounds in amounts that aromatize enough for nips to flare first of all. 2nd, nolva is just stronger and will quell any issues overnight usually.

So, as usual, there are several other variables to consider before choosing your weapon.
 
Just my opinion but if a gyno is flaring hit it fast. Even waiting around for 5 days for blood work can be the difference. Over the years you'll find which compounds work for you unless you are completely unobservant. Then keep that stuff on hand. As far as blood work, we should all have frequent enough blood work to have a handle on how we respond and status of health. Always wait for a sale on discounts on your tests i.e. male health panels etc and keep it purchased and waiting. most companies will hold the purchase for a year.
 
The study I linked above compared 20mg of Tamox to 60mg of Ralox. At those dosages, Ralox still had a lower risk of blood clots.
I see that. Do we know what "lower" actually is? Was it a significant risk reduction or something small like 5%? They list actual numbers for noninvasive breast cancer and uterine cancer but not for clots. Did you read the full study by chance?
 
My guy, you need to work on your reading comprehension: "Thromboembolic events occurred less often in the raloxifene group (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.91)".

GPT4o will even interpret these numbers for you: "Thromboembolic events were less frequent in the group taking raloxifene compared to the control group. The relative risk (RR) of experiencing such an event in the raloxifene group was 0.70, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) ranging from 0.54 to 0.91. This means that people taking raloxifene had a 30% lower risk of thromboembolic events than those not taking the drug, and we can be 95% confident that the true reduction in risk lies between 9% and 46%."
 
My guy, you need to work on your reading comprehension: "Thromboembolic events occurred less often in the raloxifene group (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.91)".

GPT4o will even interpret these numbers for you: "Thromboembolic events were less frequent in the group taking raloxifene compared to the control group. The relative risk (RR) of experiencing such an event in the raloxifene group was 0.70, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) ranging from 0.54 to 0.91. This means that people taking raloxifene had a 30% lower risk of thromboembolic events than those not taking the drug, and we can be 95% confident that the true reduction in risk lies between 9% and 46%."
You have to be careful with relative risk. For instance if there were 10,000 in the test and control populations and the control population had 10 events and the rolox had 7 you have an RR of 0.7. If evaluated as actual risk the number would be 7/10000 for rolox and 10/10000 for control population. RR is a favorite value to use for reasons that are quite clear.
 
My guy, you need to work on your reading comprehension: "Thromboembolic events occurred less often in the raloxifene group (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.91)".

GPT4o will even interpret these numbers for you: "Thromboembolic events were less frequent in the group taking raloxifene compared to the control group. The relative risk (RR) of experiencing such an event in the raloxifene group was 0.70, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) ranging from 0.54 to 0.91. This means that people taking raloxifene had a 30% lower risk of thromboembolic events than those not taking the drug, and we can be 95% confident that the true reduction in risk lies between 9% and 46%."
Unless I am really brain dead, I still don't see the RR numbers for Tamox, they are comparing to control. Unless the tamox was also the control group????

They gave exact numbers of events for both cancers but then leave those exact numbers out for thromboembolic events....I am NOT saying it doesnt have reduced risk, I just want exact numbers, which they gave for the two cancers but not for the thromboembolic events, which is why I asked if you had read the full text as I was hoping they were in there. NOT challenging you just looking for more detail is all. Thank you.
 
Unless I am really brain dead, I still don't see the RR numbers for Tamox, they are comparing to control. Unless the tamox was also the control group????

They gave exact numbers of events for both cancers but then leave those exact numbers out for thromboembolic events....I am NOT saying it doesnt have reduced risk, I just want exact numbers, which they gave for the two cancers but not for the thromboembolic events, which is why I asked if you had read the full text as I was hoping they were in there. NOT challenging you just looking for more detail is all. Thank you.
yes, the RR is compared to Tamox, which falsely is called control by GPT.
 
yes, the RR is compared to Tamox, which falsely is called control by GPT.
"[...] there was a statistically significant difference between the treatment groups for the incidence of thromboembolic events, with the raloxifene group experiencing fewer cases of pulmonary embolism and DVT. Overall, there were 141 events with tamoxifen and 100 with raloxifene, indicating that the risk was 30% less in the raloxifene group (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.91). The cumulative incidence at 6 years was 21.0 per 1000 and 16.0 per 1000 for the tamoxifen and raloxifene groups, respectively (P = .01; Figure 3). Pulmonary embolism and DVT occurred in 54 vs 35 women (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.41-1.00) and in 87 vs 65 women (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53-1.03) assigned to tamoxifen and raloxifene, respectively." https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/203040
 
yes, the RR is compared to Tamox, which falsely is called control by GPT.
That's one of the big issues with using GPT to extrapolate anything. It doesn't do any fact checking, it's just a language learning model. There's no guarantee of any of the information being accurate as it's really just a fancy autocomplete. Great for a lot of things, not so great at others. Will be interesting to see how far the tech develops but it's just not at a point where I trust it to give me 100% factual responses.
 
Per the above few posts, I think the "safest" way to use either is to get tested for the below and also use 10,000FU of Nattokinase per day. 4,000FU minimum for those on a budget. Personally, I've also taken a baby aspirin daily for 25 years and also a minimum of 5g of fish oil daily. The only time I've come off that regimen is for medical procedures. (on another note, EVERYTIME I've had to drop the aspirin out for a while, my Hematocrit shoots up without fail).

1. Antithrombin III:
2. Factor V:
3. Protein C and Protein S Free
4. Prothrombin Factor II
 
Of all the people we collectively know that take tamoxifen over the decades does anyone know any bodybuilder that had a stroke while taking tamoxifen? Keep in mind the cohorts studies in these trials are usually post menopausal women that have had cancer and are generally not very healthy to begin with. Then they stay on the SERM for a decade non-stop likely along with other meds and continued poor health. So they are pretty far from bodybuilders that eat clean, train regularly and are anything but hormone deficient like these poor post menopausal women who likely have had the poison, burn and slice treatment of their breasts and lymph tissues. I think sometimes we lose sight of what the studies are measuring and in what populations.
 
Of all the people we collectively know that take tamoxifen over the decades does anyone know any bodybuilder that had a stroke while taking tamoxifen? Keep in mind the cohorts studies in these trials are usually post menopausal women that have had cancer and are generally not very healthy to begin with. Then they stay on the SERM for a decade non-stop likely along with other meds and continued poor health. So they are pretty far from bodybuilders that eat clean, train regularly and are anything but hormone deficient like these poor post menopausal women who likely have had the poison, burn and slice treatment of their breasts and lymph tissues. I think sometimes we lose sight of what the studies are measuring and in what populations.
I do know several bodybuilders who likely died from a pulmonary embolism though.
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Total page views
566,247,795
Threads
136,755
Messages
2,811,385
Members
160,840
Latest member
makesense123
NapsGear
HGH Power Store email banner
yourdailyvitamins
Prowrist straps store banner
infinity
FLASHING-BOTTOM-BANNER-210x131
raws
Savage Labs Store email
Syntherol Site Enhancing Oil Synthol
aqpharma
yms-GIF-210x131-Banne-B
hulabs
ezgif-com-resize-2-1
MA Research Chem store banner
MA Supps Store Banner
volartek
Keytech banner
musclechem
Godbullraw-bottom-banner
Injection Instructions for beginners
Knight Labs store email banner
3
YMS-210x131-V02
YMS-210x131-V02
Back
Top