New thoughts on AI

Gman86 · May 5, 2019

JimBob said:
Have you, by chance, seen these studies Dr. Kominiarek referred to? I'm finding it hard to imagine that Dr. Kominiarek is so stupid as to refer to studies such as what you are describing. Can anyone provide a link to these studies?

Good point. I'd like to think he isn't that stupid either. And I honestly don't think he's stupid at all. In fact, quite the opposite. He's by far my favorite doc that was on the TRT roundtable. I was just saying that extrapolating information from these extremely flawed studies that use subjects with tanked E2, just makes him look extremely ignorant.

You're right though, I should definitely be reviewing these studies first, before assuming they are all extremely flawed. But as far as I know, there hasn't been a study done, to date, that uses men on TRT, and administers very low doses of ai, to get their sensitive E2 levels within a healthy range. So knowing this, wouldn't it be safe to say that all the studies that he is referring to have to be very flawed?

Cataceous · May 5, 2019

Gman86 said:
... So knowing this, wouldn't it be safe to say that all the studies that he is referring to have to be very flawed?

Presumably it's not the studies that are flawed, but the subsequent (mis)interpretations. It's like looking at studies finding low cholesterol is bad and assuming cholesterol should be as high as possible.

Gman86 · May 5, 2019

Cataceous said:
Presumably it's not the studies that are flawed, but the subsequent (mis)interpretations. It's like looking at studies finding low cholesterol is bad and assuming cholesterol should be as high as possible.

Most likely it's both. But I'll be honest, Dr. Rouzier has taught these guys how to interpret studies extremely well, imo. I think if the studies were done on men taking TRT, while taking a very low dose of ai, to get their E2 levels in a healthy range, that they would interpret the results just fine.

Appassionato · May 5, 2019

user_joe said:
I don’t believe the objective is to replicate physiological testosterone levels. That may be what works for some, but I believe enhanced quality of life is the goal.

I’m not even saying this with 100% certainty. I’m open to being wrong, but the evidence isn’t there, and what is there seems to indicate quite the opposite.

As far as high test levels causing cardiovascular damage due to and enlarged heart, call me insanely skeptical. Find me even one guy out there who blasts high levels of test that only ever touched test. Same guy who runs a gram of test a week is experimenting or routinely running other serious compounds.

There’s too many guys out there abusing test and similar compounds that are living long lives to make the assumption that some moderate dose above TRT is going to have negative consequences without evidence. I’ve seen zero.

You're right in terms of compounds used by people on steroids, I never knew one doing only testosterone.
On the other hand, I think we should stick to what a human body is supposed to have on natural real examples of healthy people. If there's no one hitting 2000 ng/dL of total T or 90 pg/mL of E2 by himself, it means the organs and tissues aren't probably made to sustain such amount of hormones. The lab ranges, after all, are made on direct observations on what is the average within the population.
Also, bear in mind, history of pro, semi-pro and amateur bodybuilding is full of sudden deaths due to abuse of steroids and diuretics. Some of the former Mr. Olympia competitors are living with transplanted organs or only 1 kidney (Ronnie Coleman, just to name one).
Schwarzenegger had several heart surgeries and he's living with 3 pacemakers.

DragonBits · May 5, 2019

I guess you if you want to run supra-physiological doses of testosterone you could add ECG / EKG, echocardiograms and MRIs to your blood tests, maybe on a yearly or once every 2 years?

To check for excess heart hypertrophy.

Sounds expensive, unless you are trying to make big bucks being another Schwarzenegger, it wouldn't be worth it to me.

I have never been keenly interested in making an extreme effort/expense to only be in the top 10%. If there isn't a good chance of being in the top 1%, then for me at least I don't see killing myself to achieve a goal that isn't going to net me money or fame or news worthy or professional athlete or noteworthy actor, something special, then what's the point of beating the guy next to me at a gym?

And for me running T levels consistently over 1300/1400 is moving into the extreme effort area.

Appassionato · May 6, 2019

user_joe said:
You don’t know that the body isn’t going to handle those levels well. That is a theory which we already discussed can’t be proven right or wrong since the data doesn’t exist.
if I’m wrong and having a little more test than healthy young men is bad I can live with the outcome. Studies seem to indicate the opposite.

You're contradicting yourself here. Do we have or not studies to prove that?
Bear in mind that medical science has been based on empirical observation for centuries as they didn't have blood tests. Now, the empirical observation is telling us that we don't have men running a natural total T level of 2000 ng/dL or and E2 of 90 pg/mL, hence we should have a word of caution at least.
Then, it's your health and you're free to choose your own way of treatment, but this mind set reminds me when I started taking low-dose steroids, repeating to myself I'm not running pro-bodybuilders doses, so I won't have any side effects. I ended up destroying my health.

user_joe said:
You are using extremes instead of median or average to make a point. Olympia level bodybuilders are sabotaging their health for a goal. They don’t sit at 2000 TT.

An amateur body builder usually sits around 2500/3000 ng/dL of total T, not really far from you.

By the way, are you sure you're not affected by such high level of E2? You sound quite edgy from your replies, and that's what happens to me when my E2 level spikes as well, but it could be my impression.

Appassionato · May 6, 2019

user_joe said:
Nope. No contradiction. The proof isn’t there either way. You are interested in winning an argument. I have no interest. Enjoy arguing on the internet about something that can’t be proven.

Mate, I'm not trying to win any argument here. I'm on this forum to learn and to share my experience, like the vast majority of us. This a hot topic at the moment in the TRT community and a key element for a success or a failure of a protocol, so I think it's worth discussing it in a polite way.

You have kept banging on the fact that there's no proof of high E2 being detrimental in men with high T, which is true (because it's naturally impossible to have someone with high T and high E2 without being on TRT or SERMS), but then when you and the guys at the roundtable keep focusing on studies done on people with low E2 (still waiting for the numbers btw) without taking in account T levels, aren't you showing the same flawed logic process you're complaining about?

So if low E2 is detrimental for health in any case (whether your T is high or not), why shouldn't we apply the same logic to all the studies that have shown complications linked with high E2? Don't you see the flaw in this logic?

And dude, I definitely think that you are a bit on the edge, but I won't be able to provide you the evidences that it's actually linked to your high E2.

Gman86 · May 6, 2019

Appassionato said:
You're contradicting yourself here. Do we have or not studies to prove that?
Bear in mind that medical science has been based on empirical observation for centuries as they didn't have blood tests. Now, the empirical observation is telling us that we don't have men running a natural total T level of 2000 ng/dL or and E2 of 90 pg/mL, hence we should have a word of caution at least.
Then, it's your health and you're free to choose your own way of treatment, but this mind set reminds me when I started taking low-dose steroids, repeating to myself I'm not running pro-bodybuilders doses, so I won't have any side effects. I ended up destroying my health.

An amateur body builder usually sits around 2500/3000 ng/dL of total T, not really far from you.

By the way, are you sure you're not affected by such high level of E2? You sound quite edgy from your replies, and that's what happens to me when my E2 level spikes as well, but it could be my impression.

Amateur bodybuilders are well past 2500-3000. When I first started TRT, I was on 100mg/ week of test, and 1000iu’s of HCG, and my total on an EOD trough was 1855. Their levels are easily 5k+.

Appassionato · May 6, 2019

Gman86 said:
Amateur bodybuilders are well past 2500-3000. When I first started TRT, I was on 100mg/ week of test, and 1000iu’s of HCG, and my total on an EOD trough was 1855. Their levels are easily 5k+.

You can get a rough idea visiting the T nation forum. You were on a high dose of HCG, a dose that would have skyrocketed my total T past 2000. Amateur body builders are usually not competing, they just do some photoshoot or they are active on social media. A 3k total T is pretty much the standard.

The guy at 6k on the same forum was doing a combination of T, nandrolone and several different compounds, which is considered a considerable cycle.

Also it depends on every one aromatase activity. Only raising your T dose at some point will give you a small increase in total T, but will shoot your E2 quite high.

Vitamin_C · May 8, 2019

user_joe said:
I don’t believe the objective is to replicate physiological testosterone levels. That may be what works for some, but I believe enhanced quality of life is the goal.

I’m not even saying this with 100% certainty. I’m open to being wrong, but the evidence isn’t there, and what is there seems to indicate quite the opposite.

As far as high test levels causing cardiovascular damage due to and enlarged heart, call me insanely skeptical. Find me even one guy out there who blasts high levels of test that only ever touched test. Same guy who runs a gram of test a week is experimenting or routinely running other serious compounds.

There’s too many guys out there abusing test and similar compounds that are living long lives to make the assumption that some moderate dose above TRT is going to have negative consequences without evidence. I’ve seen zero.

Yep, individual genetics will dictate quite a bit. I've seen patients in their mid 30's who were candidates for pacemakers who had prior anabolic use, and I've seen guys who have blasted tons of gear that don't have any cardiovascular issues. Individual genetics, lifestyle and supplementation are all variables.

mazrim · May 8, 2019

Appassionato said:
By the way, are you sure you're not affected by such high level of E2? You sound quite edgy from your replies, and that's what happens to me when my E2 level spikes as well, but it could be my impression.

User Joe sounds vary rational/willing in his posts so this was completely uncalled for.

Then you do it again in your next post. If you have to resort to that then you are simply just throwing stuff out there because you have nothing else to say or come back with and at that point just agree to disagree or continue a civil discussion.

Also, 3k is not "pretty much the standard".

Appassionato · May 8, 2019

mazrim said:
Then you do it again in your next post. If you have to resort to that then you are simply just throwing stuff out there because you have nothing else to say or come back with and at that point just agree to disagree or continue a civil discussion.

A TRT roundtable fan?

mazrim said:
Also, 3k is not "pretty much the standard".

You can check the attachment, as I don't think I'm allowed to share other forums links

And you can do your conversion here, if you need to, that will show you that's not even 3k on 500 mg per week:

Testosterone conversion to nmol/L, ng/mL, ng/dL, ng/100mL, ng%, ng/L, µg/L. Online converter from conventional units to SI units | UNITSLAB.COM

There are several posts like that on the same forum if you want to dig it up.

mazrim · May 8, 2019

Appassionato said:
A TRT roundtable fan?

You can check the attachment, as I don't think I'm allowed to share other forums links

And you can do your conversion here, if you need to, that will show you that's not even 3k on 500 mg per week:

Testosterone conversion to nmol/L, ng/mL, ng/dL, ng/100mL, ng%, ng/L, µg/L. Online converter from conventional units to SI units | UNITSLAB.COM

There are several posts like that on the same forum if you want to dig it up.

Nope, just someone who saw you acting arrogantly, etc. and in the wrong and pointing it out. And, as expected, you act immaturely again. "You sound quite edgy" to use your own phrasing that applies to you and not the person you directed it at.

And no, I could care less that you took numbers from one forum and you decided to declare that dose, etc. as the "standard" for amateur bodybuilders. Your premise was invalid to begin with.

RLW · May 8, 2019

user_joe said:
I have no stakes in what the TOT guys do. I listened to them with serious skepticism. I used an ai for 3.5 years at doses lower than my current 300/wk, which may be too high long term. Not sure yet.

Can’t state how skeptical I was. Kept going back to a tiny dose of ai. Eventually I realized more than the normal 7-9 days had passed and libido was right on. Every single day. The results made up my mind.

Your mileage may vary, but I’m so typical in my TRT experiences w no other special health circumstances I just really doubt it. I’ll get my lipids tested soon to see if I am suppressing hdl or not. I’d drop my dose and absolutely not use an ai if that’s what’s needed.

Regardless of how you feel about taking an AI, taking 300mg a week and taking an AI vs taking a replacement/optimization dose with no AI seems like a bad idea. And is your doctor prescribing that dose?

Appassionato · May 9, 2019

user_joe said:
I have no stakes in what the TOT guys do. I listened to them with serious skepticism. I used an ai for 3.5 years at doses lower than my current 300/wk, which may be too high long term. Not sure yet.

Can’t state how skeptical I was. Kept going back to a tiny dose of ai. Eventually I realized more than the normal 7-9 days had passed and libido was right on. Every single day. The results made up my mind.

Your mileage may vary, but I’m so typical in my TRT experiences w no other special health circumstances I just really doubt it. I’ll get my lipids tested soon to see if I am suppressing hdl or not. I’d drop my dose and absolutely not use an ai if that’s what’s needed.

I highly encourage you to skip the AI if you don't need to use it.
I'm skipping the AI myself for now, but didn't manage to control E2 without it yet.
A word of caution was for the high levels of T and E2 and that would have concerned me on the long run, but that's something you have to decide along with your doctor.

Also, I'm curious if you ever checked your prolactin just to know where you sit at with that E2 level. I always had elevated prolactin.

mazrim said:
Nope, just someone who saw you acting arrogantly, etc. and in the wrong and pointing it out. And, as expected, you act immaturely again. "You sound quite edgy" to use your own phrasing that applies to you and not the person you directed it at.

And no, I could care less that you took numbers from one forum and you decided to declare that dose, etc. as the "standard" for amateur bodybuilders. Your premise was invalid to begin with.

Sorry, no time for kids.
You're accusing me of the very same behaviors you adopted. Hilarious.
We can continue in PM if you want, but I highly doubt that would be beneficial for any of us. You won't accept anything different from your opinion, even if all the data in the world are showing you're wrong.

Let's get back to topic.

Gman86 · May 9, 2019

Appassionato said:
Also, I'm curious if you ever checked your prolactin just to know where you sit at with that E2 level. I always had elevated prolactin.

So quick question. You said you always had high prolactin. When your prolactin was elevated, did you have any symptoms? Like itchy or sensitive nipples? I’m just wondering, because when I used to be on HCG mono, I had super itchy nipples. I never had my prolactin tested, but I suspect it was elevated. Because on TRT, my E2 has been much higher, with zero itchy nipples. Thanks.

Appassionato · May 9, 2019

Gman86 said:
So quick question. You said you always had high prolactin. When your prolactin was elevated, did you have any symptoms? Like itchy or sensitive nipples? I’m just wondering, because when I used to be on HCG mono, I had super itchy nipples. I never had my prolactin tested, but I suspect it was elevated. Because on TRT, my E2 has been much higher, with zero itchy nipples. Thanks.

I had elevated prolactin since started with finasteride 8 years ago. Then when I dropped it, my T was 200-300 and my estradiol around 28 pg/mL, but the unbalanced testosterone to E2 ratio was raising my prolactin to around 20 ng/mL.
So for me the biggest symptoms are gynecomastia and hair loss when it's elevated. I have a 2 cm gynecomastia under my left nipple that flares out when my prolactin goes above 13-14 ng/mL. I know many people says gynecomastia is caused my E2, but in my case is mostly related to prolactin, that spikes when there's a sub-optimal T/E2 ratio.

To give you an example, when I was on HCG and T enanthate, without any AI, my E2 was 102 pg/mL and prolactin reached 48 ng/mL in one blood test, maximum I ever had.
While when I was on T enanthate and 6.25 mg of exemestane per week, E2 was 27 pg/mL and prolactin 9 ng/mL, lowest I ever had without using cabergoline.

Gman86 · May 9, 2019

Appassionato said:
I had elevated prolactin since started with finasteride 8 years ago. Then when I dropped it, my T was 200-300 and my estradiol around 28 pg/mL, but the unbalanced testosterone to E2 ratio was raising my prolactin to around 20 ng/mL.
So for me the biggest symptoms are gynecomastia and hair loss when it's elevated. I have a 2 cm gynecomastia under my left nipple that flares out when my prolactin goes above 13-14 ng/mL. I know many people says gynecomastia is caused my E2, but in my case is mostly related to prolactin, that spikes when there's a sub-optimal T/E2 ratio.

To give you an example, when I was on HCG and T enanthate, without any AI, my E2 was 102 pg/mL and prolactin reached 48 ng/mL in one blood test, maximum I ever had.
While when I was on T enanthate and 6.25 mg of exemestane per week, E2 was 27 pg/mL and prolactin 9 ng/mL, lowest I ever had without using cabergoline.

Awesome! Thanks, was just what I was looking for. So I think it’s safe to assume high prolactin was the cause of my nipple issues on HCG mono. I started to form a small lump under my nipple during that time. I increased my anastrozole dose, and luckily it got rid of it. I still think it was due to prolactin. As we know, prolactin and E2 can tend to follow each other. Not all the time though. But anyways, thanks for the reply.

seb288 · Oct 8, 2024

Vince Carter said:
And you don't feel that 12mg/D is going to have your Free T under the lab range? That's what I found for myself as a trough number. How do you think it will be for you?

I only take 3.5mg/D of T and also inject estradiol and I feel far better than when I was on 35mg/D.

Bmac · Oct 8, 2024

seb288 said:
I only take 3.5mg/D of T and also inject estradiol and I feel far better than when I was on 35mg/D.

How much estradiol may I ask?

New thoughts on AI

Member

Super Moderator

Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Member

New Member

Active Member

Attachments

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

Attachments

Member

Active Member

Member

Member

Member

Share this page

Sponsors

Online statistics