Nolva, Clomid, Torem?
- 07-22-2012, 11:26 PM
- 07-23-2012, 01:23 AM
07-23-2012, 03:30 AM
so here's what i have found
>is clearly the stronger in decreasing overall estrogen with 20-40 mg a day, than Clomid can in doses
of 100-150 mg a day.
>nolva is clearly a more powerful anti-estrogen than clomid,
>Nolvadex has a direct influence on bringing back natural
testosterone, where as Clomid may actually have a slight negative influence.
The reason being that tamoxifen (as in Nolvadex) seems to increase the responsiveness
of LH (luteinizing hormone) to GnRH (gonadtropin releasing hormone), whereas
Clomid seems to decrease the responsiveness a bit1.
can have a very positive impact on negative cholesterol levels2 in the body
>one should be aware that use of these compounds can reduce the gains
made on steroids. Nolvadex more so than Clomid, simply because it is stronger.
>Common adverse drug reactions associated with the use of clomifene (≥1% of patients) include: vasomotor flushes (or hot flashes), abdominal discomfort, visual blurring (dose-dependent), and/or reversible ovarian enlargement and cyst formation. Infrequent adverse effects (0.1–1% of patients) include: abnormal uterine bleeding, nausea, and/or vomiting. Rare adverse effects (<0.1% of patients) include: reversible alopecia and/or ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.[
> Fareston differs from Nolvadex in several ways, however- even though it’s very similar to it in others. Firstly, the risk of certain side effects (although relatively rare with Nolvadex) is actually quite a bit lower with Fareston.However unlikely these risks are in the first place, the risk of stroke, pulmonary embolism, and cataract is probably lower with Fareston than with Nolvadex. This is going to be of interest to people who have issues with “floaters” in their vision, which is sometimes caused by Nolvadex and Clomid, as this product may represent significantly less occular toxicity. It also differs slightly from Nolvadex in its potent with regards to improving lipid (cholesterol) profiles. In terms of improving bone mineral density, Fareston is roughly equal to Nolvadex.(2)
Although anecdotal evidence on this compound is rare, bodybuilders who have already experimented with this stuff seem satisfied. In my estimation, it would seem to be a more potent and safer alternative to Nolvadex, for those who are worried about side effects. I’m also predicting that it may provide a greater increase in LH and therefore testosterone levels, in men when compared to Nolvadex (when an appropriate dose of each is utilized). This makes its use a strong possibility for PCT in the future, when studies on its ability to elevate testosterone is more fully studied and understood.
Fareston would also make a welcome addition to a cycle where Cholesterol issues may be a concern, or where something slightly stronger than Nolvadex may be required to prevent gyno.
i couldn't find substantial differences any vets chime in? research people!
Similar Forum Threads
- By Husker89 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 1Last Post: 02-14-2012, 05:29 PM
- By manofbushido in forum Post Cycle TherapyReplies: 0Last Post: 12-27-2009, 02:02 AM
- By Lineman in forum Post Cycle TherapyReplies: 4Last Post: 07-14-2009, 05:38 PM
- By thething86 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 13Last Post: 12-12-2008, 11:23 PM
- By LeanGuy in forum Male Anti-Aging MedicineReplies: 37Last Post: 02-27-2008, 11:06 PM