Is this popular post-cycle drug a bad idea?
Without a shadow of doubt, it cannot be said that modern bodybuilders are superior to those that were only 20 years ago. However, looking even further back to some of the black and white photographs of some of the older champions like Arnold, Zane and Draper, we can clearly see that despite the lack of advantage in today’s young lions, they were still able to achieve remarkable volume. They were not only muscular, but also very crisp, with a narrow waist and a symmetrical line. It occurs to me that some kids weighing only 75kg are belittling physical culture legends simply because they’re not as big as Ronnie, Gunther, or Marcus. A criticism often made of Arnold is that his legs were weak. Sure, they couldn’t match his incredible breasts, and they didn’t have the volume of today’s best agonists, but Arnold did a full squat with 182 kg and when they were in race form his quadriceps were truly exceptional.
Aside from the sheer strength and puffiness-free muscle fiber of the 60s and 70s bodybuilding stars, we have another often overlooked feature. None of them had gynecomastia. Consider. It would be difficult to find a photograph taken before 1975 showing someone with signs of gynecomastia, but today it is as common as breast implants for Hollywood divas. An even more intriguing feature of this phenomenon is that in the distant 60s and 70s, no one used antiestrogens. The reason is that they have not been invented yet. Antiestrogens are now a must for those who use AAS to prevent side effects. However, there are more and more nasty cases of gynecomastia. Why? One of the reasons is the ever-expanding dosages used by modern bodybuilders, and I’m not just referring to samples. The casual visitor with less than a year’s training turns to steroid use at doses that far exceed those of Sergio Oliva, Mike Mentzer, or any other bodybuilder present prior to the 80s. Apparently, it’s not enough to be as big as Sergio. The bottom line is that these guys aren’t even half of their bodybuilder ancestors. In a misguided effort to ensure safety and preserve the results obtained through fraudulent activity, they include antiestrogens in their cycle or end the cycle with 4 weeks of CLOMID therapy. In the end, it seems like they didn’t even train. Something is wrong here.
Like any other person who has read at least one book (or even all books) on the correct use of anabolic steroids, usually, even after I began to enjoy this discipline, I added a CLOMID phase after each cycle. I thought I was smart. CLOMID couldn’t hurt, so they said. There was only one problem with this procedure. It turned out that clomid has a negative effect on the recovery and restoration of libido, testicular volume, sperm count, seminal volume and normal testosterone levels. These effects didn’t make sense. They went against all conventional reasoning. Maybe I was a strange exception to the rule. The doctor suggested that I might have some bizarre feedback mechanism that gave the drug its negative effects. Maybe I’m crazy, maybe not.
The honest truth about this is this: the idea that works for CLOMID is based on some incomplete indications that have been repeated endlessly in the bodybuilding community. In a way, I have some guilt myself. Several years ago, I was the author of an article posted online with steroid specialist Brock Strasser. It was titled: Steroid Summit. In this text, I mentioned CLOMID and the fact that I noticed an exact increase in ejaculate volume, which indicates that CLOMID is not doing what it was supposed to do. Brock replied, “Oh yeah, Clomid definitely increases ejaculate,” and went on to say that porn stars are using it to enhance their “scene,” so to speak. We covered a lot of topics in this article, and I didn’t want to discuss his claims, so I let him go. Anyway, listen a little: the tale of pornstars and Clomid has spread like wildfire. I started to feel it everywhere, even in non-bodybuilding places.
I knew I shouldn’t be the only one suffering from the negative effects of CLOMID, so I did my own investigation. Of the more than 100 bodybuilders I asked, about one in four who had experience with steroids and aromatase blockers admitted that CLOMID did not give the desired results. Many also claimed that NOVALDEX, which has a structure very similar to CLOMID but much more specific to the breast, caused a loss of libido and weak ejaculation. Even among those who thought the drug was helpful, I heard complaints of “emotional stress” and “depression,” two factors that lead to speculation about an increase in estrogen. So how can anyone be sure that Clomid is really good? And yet the story continues …
I recently visited a popular internet forum where someone complained that they were unable to restore the volume of atrophied testicles despite taking 50 mg of CLOMID for 2 weeks. The forum guru suggested taking 100 mg for another 2 weeks. This way of thinking comes from the Middle Ages, when doctors prescribed leeches to cure diseases. If the patient felt even more ill, the solution was to increase the number of leeches! Funny? Obviously. Some ways of thinking never change.
Several important issues are associated with CLOMID, in addition to NOVALDEX or any other antiestrogen. These substances act indiscriminately in relation to the amount of estrogen they block. So what’s wrong with that? Well, the reason an anti-estrogen is used is to protect yourself from the release of excess estrogen due to androgen abuse. If the body cannot aromatize all of this testosterone, it will indeed aromatize it in estrogen. The experts do not pay enough attention to the fact that the amount of flavorings varies greatly from subject to subject. If steroid doses are moderate, then there will be no flavoring or effects, and anti-estrogens can drive levels lower than they normally would. Remember the really important fact that estrogen is needed to maintain a normal libido in a person. (In addition, there must be other reasons, including bone density and skin tone, but I cannot think of anything more dear to a man than his own penis.)
More recently, some researchers have suggested that estrogens may play a role in the proliferation of androgen receptors. This theory may explain why some people who have been using steroids for years claim to notice decreased results by adding anti-estrogens to their cycles. Scientists once believed that antiestrogens like CLOMID and NOVALDEX lowered IGF-1, but this hypothesis has never been confirmed in practice. However, studies in rats showed that androgen receptor binding increased dramatically after estradiol administration, and androgen anabolic activity increased. This result indicates that estrogens, at a certain level, are directly or indirectly involved in the process of stimulating muscle growth. In addition, an element of increasing strength and volume is added due to estrogen-induced water retention. And just as a kind of start-up fuse, anti-estrogens can even raise sex hormone binding globulin, which is the last thing to hope for at the end of a cycle. The effects of CLOMID are even worse than those of other antiestrogens, because CLOMID itself is a mild estrogen. The fundamental theory of its use (which sounds more and more silly every day) is that in practice, CLOMID occupies estrogen receptor sites and therefore prevents the formation of other estrogens. Perhaps.
It is equally likely, especially in cases where estrogen levels are normal, that clomid does not add anything other than other estrogens. This effect may explain some people’s apparent aversion to CLOMID and its side effects, which resemble those of estrogen. Incidentally, this is the same premise as naturally occurring anti-estrogenic DIM (methandiindole), a substance found in cruciferous plants. DIM also acts as a weak antiestrogen that occupies receptor sites and prevents the binding of the strongest estrogens. As with CLOMID, in some subjects DIM improves the estrogen profile, while in others it simply adds other estrogens, exacerbating the estrogen dominance problem. Therefore, at its best, very similar to the analog presented by CLOMID, it is tantamount to rip-off.
The two alternatives to CLOMID are much better in terms of preventing excess estrogen. One of these is Mesterolone, better known as PROVIRON, an androgen that cannot aromatize. PROVIRON does not block estrogens, but prevents them from binding and then removes them along with other waste products. Unfortunately proviron is also suppressive, so you can’t use it for too long after a cycle.
Another, more logical choice is the anti-aromatase ARIMIDEX, which instead of occupying the estrogen site and blocking it. the action primarily prevents the conversion of excess testosterone into estrogen. But ARIMIDEX is far from benign. It is a very powerful drug that suppresses estrogens to dangerously low levels with consequent loss of skeletal tissue, elevated LDL cholesterol, and an increased risk of myocardial infarction.
When it comes to using natural alternatives to maintain estrogen, two substances have proven worthy of attention in maintaining estrogen at normal levels. One is 5,7-DIHYDROXYFLAVONE and the other is CALCIUM D-GLUCARATE. Both act as PROVIRON and ARIMIDEX (although not nearly as strongly, obviously), as they help remove excess estrogen without completely eliminating it. Calcium d-glucarate is available at supplement stores, but not everywhere. It is even more difficult to find 5,7-dihydroxyflavone, which is better absorbed with bioperine. Internet searches for 5,7-dihydroxyflavone, bioperine, and calcium d-glucarate to be taken at the end of a cycle may offer some choices and are worth investing some time in. Even if you don’t use steroids, these substances can help you lower your steroids and therefore have a leaner, firmer physique.
It is a common misconception that less estrogen equals more testosterone, but this is not necessarily the case. WITHOUT ANYTHING IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE LOW ESTROGENS TOGETHER WITH LOW TESTOSTERONE SO ONE IS NOT ANOTHER, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT REGGA CAN DO IT. Interestingly, while CLOMID is a substance that is considered useful in this aspect, very little research has been done on CLOMID’s ability to restore testicular functionality, especially since CLOMID was not developed for this purpose. The few studies that exist are polluted with biased information. For example, in the study, the subject was over 50 years old (this is not the best indicator of what is effective in a young athlete). In another widely cited study, a test was performed on a person with chronically low hormone levels who attempted to return to normal function after 5 years of continuous steroid use. After 4 months of therapy, natural testosterone levels began to rise, but this would probably have happened with or without CLOMID. This example shows how some research can be misleading.
In studies from the most accredited researchers, CLOMID has been shown to induce a decrease in the LH response to the hormone-stimulating LH itself. Curiously, despite the fact that such conclusions date back to 1978, scientists have ignored them. Of course, they don’t do steroid research for bodybuilders, so sometimes we have to learn to read between the lines. In doing so, we can come to other conclusions. Too often, however, steroid gurus get their conclusions wrong.
The following information is taken from a brief review of a study of the use of CLOMIDE by 14 men aged 21 to 35 years: “THERAPY OF IDIOPATIC OLIGOSPERMIA FOR 6-9 MONTHS DUE TO INCREASED VALUES OF GONADOTROPINE AND ESTRADIOL. Significant increases in sperm density were only observed in subjects with decreased and lower sperm counts than normal baseline FSH levels. In cases where semen density increased, FSH levels decreased, suggesting an inhibitory effect. ”
In bad words, this is a statement that not everyone responds to Clomid therapy in the same way and sperm count must be abnormally suppressed for the drug to be used. Even in situations where this happens, the SIDE EFFECT WAS A REDUCTION OF THE FORMILIC HORMONE. It is a hormone that controls the amount of the hormone lutein secreted by the body and, in turn, regulates the testosterone levels we have. This is why many bodybuilders claim that after stopping CLOMID there was a fall.
Some of those who oppose my theories claim that the fall is due to the suppression of the VPTA, but this is not the case. I have personally used CLOMID between one cycle and another, and I have noticed the same side effects.
If estrogen control were as easy as taking pills every day, no bodybuilder would have gynecomastia. Instead, they have it. For many bodybuilders with a predisposition to gynecomastia, the tumors are simply surgically removed. Be that as it may, perhaps the greatest protection of CLOMID is performed by men who have used it and have never had gynecomastia. In any case, it is impossible to know if they will have gynecomastia without taking it. The reasoning seems to be more about iron and hope than real science.
CLOMID is also known to cause visual impairment. Many bodybuilding professionals no longer have a good relationship with this drug. Since their lives depend on the effectiveness of these substances, we can say that CLOMID does not give as good results as expected.
For safe and healthy prevention of excess estrogen, adhere to the old axiom: “it’s better than sorry.” If you have a problem with excess estrogen, then this is a sure sign that you are not responding well to steroids or are simply taking too much. Avoid carelessness and expect CLOMID to save you later. It may work as it may not. In any case, since there are safer alternatives, it looks like it’s worth it.