Evaluating Safer Use Models

[nothuman]

On the topic of AI's, though, I don't care what VB's stance is on them but they suck. I feel like an 80 year old man with aches and pains everywhere on my body whenever I take one. It's not surprising it can probably cause heart attacks and strokes in the long term. The idea of combining those with steroids, which also can cause heart attacks and strokes over the long term, is probably not a good idea. Far from a "safer use model" if you ask me.

There's a very good presentation on youtube given by Neal Rouzier with Jay Campbell about AI's. That was convincing enough that I'm not taking my chances on them anymore and I know I feel like shit on them anyway.

 

[Testosteroni]

On the topic of AI's, though, I don't care what VB's stance is on them but they suck. I feel like an 80 year old man with aches and pains everywhere on my body whenever I take one. It's not surprising it can probably cause heart attacks and strokes in the long term. The idea of combining those with steroids, which also can cause heart attacks and strokes over the long term, is probably not a good idea. Far from a "safer use model" if you ask me.

There's a very good presentation on youtube given by Neal Rouzier with Jay Campbell about AI's. That was convincing enough that I'm not taking my chances on them anymore and I know I feel like shit on them anyway.

Do you run DHT derivatives instead or simply limit test dose to where you won’t experience high e2 issues?

 

[nothuman]

Do you run DHT derivatives instead or simply limit test dose to where you won’t experience high e2 issues?

I'm not saying that loading up on DHT derivatives is safer, but DHT derivates at least give you gains. AI's can limit them if you lower estrogen too much.

Might as well go with the option that'll give you more gains if neither is ideal from a safety standpoint. That's my two cents.

 

[Oldwhitedude]

I'm not saying that loading up on DHT derivatives is safer, but DHT derivates at least give you gains. AI's can limit them if you lower estrogen too much.

Sounds like yer one of them!

 

[nothuman]

Sounds like yer one of them!

View attachment 194592

I'm actually kind of afraid to take primo or masteron these days for the sake of my hair. I have not had any signs of hair loss but I wouldn't be able to forgive myself if that all changed by me taking one of those compounds again. Chances are I'd be fine but I'm paranoid.

 

[Testosteroni]

I'm actually kind of afraid to take primo or masteron these days for the sake of my hair. I have not had any signs of hair loss but I wouldn't be able to forgive myself if that all changed by me taking one of those compounds again. Chances are I'd be fine but I'm paranoid.

I think a relatively low dose of primo or mast is all that’s needed for some people. Too much DHT derivatives just makes me feel ill and lethargic which kind of sucks since some guys here can run a gram of masteron and feel great.

 

[Mufasa123]

On the topic of AI's, though, I don't care what VB's stance is on them but they suck. I feel like an 80 year old man with aches and pains everywhere on my body whenever I take one. It's not surprising it can probably cause heart attacks and strokes in the long term. The idea of combining those with steroids, which also can cause heart attacks and strokes over the long term, is probably not a good idea. Far from a "safer use model" if you ask me.

There's a very good presentation on youtube given by Neal Rouzier with Jay Campbell about AI's. That was convincing enough that I'm not taking my chances on them anymore and I know I feel like shit on them anyway.

There is something very wrong with your AI use. Sounds like WAY TOO MUCH. I get aches and pains from low E2 (it's a known common symptom). I can get those from DHT derivatives or even equipoise which truly crushes E2 for me (no AI has done what EQ has to my E2).

Anyway, run them or not but just saying that symptom is not from proper use of AI itself. It's low E2 which seems to come from taking much more AI than you need. Low E2 sux.

 

[IntenseVolume]

Not all AIs are the same. If you’re crashing your estrogen you’re misusing them.
Yes the misuse or abuse of anything can be harmful.
AIs are NOT inherently dangerous or harmful.
A man died from overdosing on vitamin D just a few days ago. By the logic of some people this means that vitamin d is dangerous.

 

[nothuman]

There is something very wrong with your AI use. Sounds like WAY TOO MUCH. I get aches and pains from low E2 (it's a known common symptom). I can get those from DHT derivatives or even equipoise which truly crushes E2 for me (no AI has done what EQ has to my E2).

Anyway, run them or not but just saying that symptom is not from proper use of AI itself. It's low E2 which seems to come from taking much more AI than you need. Low E2 sux.

Not all AIs are the same. If you’re crashing your estrogen you’re misusing them.
Yes the misuse or abuse of anything can be harmful.
AIs are NOT inherently dangerous or harmful.
A man died from overdosing on vitamin D just a few days ago. By the logic of some people this means that vitamin d is dangerous.

I disagree with both of you and would encourage you guys to present evidence supporting your beliefs.

I have tried 12.5mg of aromasin every day (then I lowered it to about 1/3 of a 25mg tab and it didn't make things better). Also I have done 0.5 mg arimidex every 3rd day.

Yes it made my estrogen look prettier and within range on a blood test but my IGF1 was lower than usual to go along with the 80 year old body feeling. I immediately felt better when stopping.

I can run 700mg of testosterone and my joints actually feel better despite the rise in estrogen. I disagree that it's high estrogen (or low) itself that causes the joint pains. I believe it's the AI's themselves. In fact, if you look up the side effects of AI's, joint pain and osteoporosis are a very common side effects.

Here is a study in women showing this (most studies are in women since these drugs were supposed to used in women, which is another red flag if you ask me). https://www.uptodate.com/contents/evaluation-and-management-of-aromatase-inhibitor-induced-bone-loss#:~:text=Treatment with AIs, therefore, results,adverse effects on the skeleton.

EDIT: Here is a very scary study in women with breast cancer showing an 86% increased risk of heart failure and a 50% increased risk of cardiovascular mortality compared with the use of tamoxifen

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044750#:~:text=Conclusions%3A,cardiovascular%20mortality%20compared%20with%20tamoxifen.

There is no actual evidence to my knowledge that using AI's to lower estrogen in steroid users is a net positive for health. It's something that has been passed around the forums for two decades and assumed to be true.

Estrogen has plentiful benefits in males but I agree that too much probably isn't good. I just don't think AI's are the solution.

 

[nothuman]

Here is the presentation I mentioned above. I know it's geared towards TRT but we don't have evidence of AI use in steroid users as far as I'm aware so it can't be dismissed.

Not sure why it says video unavailable but go to youtube and search "

Estrogen In Men: Good, Bad, Indifferent? An Evidence-Based Review w/Dr. Neal Rouzier"​

 

[Mufasa123]

I disagree with both of you and would encourage you guys to present evidence supporting your beliefs.

I have tried 12.5mg of aromasin every day (then I lowered it to about 1/3 of a 25mg tab and it didn't make things better). Also I have done 0.5 mg arimidex every 3rd day.

Yes it made my estrogen look prettier and within range on a blood test but my IGF1 was lower than usual to go along with the 80 year old body feeling. I immediately felt better when stopping.

I can run 700mg of testosterone and my joints actually feel better despite the rise in estrogen. I disagree that it's high estrogen (or low) itself that causes the joint pains. I believe it's the AI's themselves. In fact, if you look up the side effects of AI's, joint pain and osteoporosis are a very common side effects.

Here is a study in women showing this (most studies are in women since these drugs were supposed to used in women, which is another red flag if you ask me). https://www.uptodate.com/contents/evaluation-and-management-of-aromatase-inhibitor-induced-bone-loss#:~:text=Treatment with AIs, therefore, results,adverse effects on the skeleton.

EDIT: Here is a very scary study in women with breast cancer showing an 86% increased risk of heart failure and a 50% increased risk of cardiovascular mortality compared with the use of tamoxifen

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044750#:~:text=Conclusions%3A,cardiovascular%20mortality%20compared%20with%20tamoxifen.

There is no actual evidence to my knowledge that using AI's to lower estrogen in steroid users is a net positive for health. It's something that has been passed around the forums for two decades and assumed to be true.

Estrogen has plentiful benefits in males but I agree that too much probably isn't good. I just don't think AI's are the solution.

I will check this out and I've seen it before but am acute reaction like you have... highly unusual if not E2 driven. Your body may need higher E2. I used arimidex originally and never got it to work - tried everything. Aromasin was no issue. You may react poorly to both or be very suseptible or just need higher E2. Basically saying AIs don't just break people suddenly upon starting unless E2 driven. They aren't toxic. Your case appears different if not related to these and a strong outlier. That said, assuming all that and I was in your shoes as a unique case (if n=1 and I the 1,thats all that matters) I'd avoid them too. Very rational.

 

[nothuman]

I will check this out and I've seen it before but am acute reaction like you have... highly unusual if not E2 driven. Your body may need higher E2. I used arimidex originally and never got it to work - tried everything. Aromasin was no issue. You may react poorly to both or be very suseptible or just need higher E2. Basically saying AIs don't just break people suddenly upon starting unless E2 driven. They aren't toxic. Your case appears different if not related to these and a strong outlier. That said, assuming all that and I was in your shoes as a unique case (if n=1 and I the 1,thats all that matters) I'd avoid them too. Very rational.

I really don't think I'm an outlier at all. I think it's common for people to have side effects from AI's despite reducing their estrogen to a more ideal level on paper. There are tons of TRT videos featuring reputable doctors warning people against using AI's and that the range for estradiol no longer applies to TRT patients and it's ok to have slightly elevated levels by lab standards. I know we are talking about steroid users and not TRT but we are really just guessing since there isn't good data in our population so TRT users is the closest thing we have.

 

[Mufasa123]

I really don't think I'm an outlier at all. I think it's common for people to have side effects from AI's despite reducing their estrogen to a more ideal level on paper. There are tons of TRT videos featuring reputable doctors warning people against using AI's and that the range for estradiol no longer applies to TRT patients and it's ok to have slightly elevated levels by lab standards. I know we are talking about steroid users and not TRT but we are really just guessing since there isn't good data in our population so TRT users is the closest thing we have.

I was going by your symptoms which sounded like shit. Range is just a range. You shouldn't feel like that at all unless you have some kind of severe arthritis and other issues. If its brought on by chasing E2 numbers through AIs you just need to find what works for you. If it's brought on by AI introduction regardless of E2 numbers that's a reaction to the drugs themselves - and this is what I took from your response - avoid them, that's not common. I'm focused on you specifically not just AIs in general.

 

[nothuman]

I was going by your symptoms which sounded like shit. Range is just a range. You shouldn't feel like that at all unless you have some kind of severe arthritis and other issues. If its brought on by chasing E2 numbers through AIs you just need to find what works for you. If it's brought on by AI introduction regardless of E2 numbers that's a reaction to the drugs themselves - and this is what I took from your response - avoid them, that's not common. I'm focused on you specifically not just AIs in general.

I just noticed joint pain in my body that I wasn’t used to that went away when I stopped. Perhaps I’m exaggerating how shitty I felt to make a point but it was bad enough for me to stop.

 

[Oldwhitedude]

I think this topic is mostly wrapped up but I just wanted to add in a few more points:

1) The model of usage isn't necessarily aimed at either low dose casuals or those aiming at pro status. It's a model for cycle structure and not for dosing, it can be titrated up or down depending on goals.

For those who say who uses this model, I'd counter by saying who doesn't use as much test as they can handle with additional anabolics, gh/slin and other ancilliaries.

Remember this model isn't attributed to any one person or agenda.

2) This is the problem with attributing this model to any one person, which unfortunately this thread repeatedly and falsely did. Plenty of people have espoused this model over the years and they have all each had their reasons for doing so.

For some the idea is to run all those vectors super high to maximise as many anabolic pathways as possible. Including higher test. The other compounds are used to mitigate and enhance the effects of higher levels of test as the base.

For example most people can handle more test if they're blasting primo, masteron or EQ alongside it. Up the test? Up the others too.

3) The main point of difference I feel is still how excess estrogen is dealt with. Either through escalating other compounds which compete at the ER or via AIs.

4) Just to drive the point home again, this model attempts to use all vectors of growth from the start. Whether you're blasting 1g of Test or 100mg you're still encouraged to maximise growth via GH/Slin and minimize side effects via telmisartan and other ancilliaries.

It's no longer the case that a low doser would be encouraged to 'leave GH/Slin for when you're advanced' you're encouraged to add it in early to maximize all vectors for growth.

Your individual goals and risk tolerance will determine how far up or down you scale this.

 

[Poonami]

Not all AIs are the same. If you’re crashing your estrogen you’re misusing them.
Yes the misuse or abuse of anything can be harmful.
AIs are NOT inherently dangerous or harmful.
A man died from overdosing on vitamin D just a few days ago. By the logic of some people this means that vitamin d is dangerous.

If you can’t understand that taking anti cancer drugs for females likely has some long term effects and potentially significant ones, then we will just disagree. We downplay the significance because of the outcomes we want and what we think we are willing to risk to achieve them. But i assure that you will be healthier in general if you never used them. The level of severity of issues will range from personal chemistry and amount used. But it’s not a harmless fucking vitamin lol

 

[nothuman]

I think this topic is mostly wrapped up but I just wanted to add in a few more points:

1) The model of usage isn't necessarily aimed at either low dose casuals or those aiming at pro status. It's a model for cycle structure and not for dosing, it can be titrated up or down depending on goals.

For those who say who uses this model, I'd counter by saying who doesn't use as much test as they can handle with additional anabolics, gh/slin and other ancilliaries.

Remember this model isn't attributed to any one person or agenda.

2) This is the problem with attributing this model to any one person, which unfortunately this thread repeatedly and falsely did. Plenty of people have espoused this model over the years and they have all each had their reasons for doing so.

For some the idea is to run all those vectors super high to maximise as many anabolic pathways as possible. Including higher test. The other compounds are used to mitigate and enhance the effects of higher levels of test as the base.

For example most people can handle more test if they're blasting primo, masteron or EQ alongside it. Up the test? Up the others too.

3) The main point of difference I feel is still how excess estrogen is dealt with. Either through escalating other compounds which compete at the ER or via AIs.

4) Just to drive the point home again, this model attempts to use all vectors of growth from the start. Whether you're blasting 1g of Test or 100mg you're still encouraged to maximise growth via GH/Slin and minimize side effects via telmisartan and other ancilliaries.

It's no longer the case that a low doser would be encouraged to 'leave GH/Slin for when you're advanced' you're encouraged to add it in early to maximize all vectors for growth.

Your individual goals and risk tolerance will determine how far up or down you scale this.

I’ll add the ultimate bodybuilding-friendly ancillary drugs are Telmisartan, Nebivolol, Empagliflozin/Jardiance, Tadalafil/cialis, and statin/ezetimibe combo.

I’ll also argue for Acarbose but that doesn’t seem to have taken off yet. Give it a few years.

 

[Cerberus777]

Keep in mind these are doses that are closer to cruise doses than they are to blasts.

I believe the idea is that everything you take serves a purpose. And these are mild doses. A typical setup would look something like:

1) 300mg
2) 200mg Masteron or Primo
3) 50mg to 100mg nandrolone
4) 2iu GH & 10iu to 20iu Slin
5) 40mg telmisartan
6) 20ug Clen or 10mg Tren (as needed)
7) Various insulin sensitivity promoters
And
8) PPAR receptor agonist like cardarine

This is all based off of memory so I might have mistakes. I’m not positive about the clen or tren. They might not be in there.

This looks more like an athletic/ beach body cycle. Nothing wrong with that if that's what you're going for.

 

[SouthernMuscle]

I’ll throw my experience out there since this has turned into an aromatase inhibitor discussion

I’ve been running gear in some way (beginning was no rhyme or reason) for 20 of the last 23 years. Most was continuous but there were several large gaps that I’ve accounted for in that total.

In all that time I have ALWAYS used an aromatase inhibitor.

I used anastrozole for many years because that’s what was available and just continued. When genuine exemestane became more readily accessible I switched and have been on that for at least a decade.

I have no health problems.

Pls do not beat me to death with bloodwork and scan questions. I’m not posting any of that shit. I’m just providing my experience and viewpoint, not providing a foundation for someone to build their knowledge base on.

If someone wants to use a drug, any drug, they should do their due diligence.

 

[pickapeck]

I think this topic is mostly wrapped up but I just wanted to add in a few more points:

1) The model of usage isn't necessarily aimed at either low dose casuals or those aiming at pro status. It's a model for cycle structure and not for dosing, it can be titrated up or down depending on goals.

For those who say who uses this model, I'd counter by saying who doesn't use as much test as they can handle with additional anabolics, gh/slin and other ancilliaries.

Remember this model isn't attributed to any one person or agenda.

2) This is the problem with attributing this model to any one person, which unfortunately this thread repeatedly and falsely did. Plenty of people have espoused this model over the years and they have all each had their reasons for doing so.

For some the idea is to run all those vectors super high to maximise as many anabolic pathways as possible. Including higher test. The other compounds are used to mitigate and enhance the effects of higher levels of test as the base.

For example most people can handle more test if they're blasting primo, masteron or EQ alongside it. Up the test? Up the others too.

3) The main point of difference I feel is still how excess estrogen is dealt with. Either through escalating other compounds which compete at the ER or via AIs.

4) Just to drive the point home again, this model attempts to use all vectors of growth from the start. Whether you're blasting 1g of Test or 100mg you're still encouraged to maximise growth via GH/Slin and minimize side effects via telmisartan and other ancilliaries.

It's no longer the case that a low doser would be encouraged to 'leave GH/Slin for when you're advanced' you're encouraged to add it in early to maximize all vectors for growth.

Your individual goals and risk tolerance will determine how far up or down you scale this.

Are you saying that any anabolism noted when adding a DHT analogue and upping the test is only due to the added test? Anabolics, including DHTs such as Primo and Anavar were trialed and approved for their anabolic activity without addition of test. So if I am intpereting your claim correctly, you are going against a lot of data showing that such compounds are anabolic. Let's leave out masteron since it was indicated for breast cancer treatment although I do think it is also anabolic as well.