nolva toxicity more/less/same as oral aas

[nclifterz71]

I was just wondering what everyone's opinions are on the toxicity level's of nolva. I realize that it is toxic but i was wondering if it was less/more/same toxicity as the orals (pp,drol)?

 

[RisingAgainst]

I was just wondering what everyone's opinions are on the toxicity level's of nolva. I realize that it is toxic but i was wondering if it was less/more/same toxicity as the orals (pp,drol)?

I have no idea why people think that PP and DROL are actually the worst of the bunch all the time... but Nolva has more problems than being hepatoxic. It's probably ON PAR with most methylated prohormones, but the additional effects make it far worse in terms of general health, not just liver toxicity.

 

[PumpingIron]

I have no idea why people think that PP and DROL are actually the worst of the bunch all the time... but Nolva has more problems than being hepatoxic. It's probably ON PAR with most methylated prohormones, but the additional effects make it far worse in terms of general health, not just liver toxicity.

Are you going to contribute anything else to this board other than your anti-serm propoganda?

 

[m4gnum]

From what I've read the hepatoxicity of nolva is relatively low (less than 17aa orals).

 

[LakeMountD]

Yes, I would definitely say that is is less than 17aa orals. I will search around and see what kind of references I can find on it. Most are done on rats with higher dosages and for longer periods of time. Frankly toremifene is much less hepatoxic and more effective in PCT anyways. I would recommend it over nolvadex any day.

 

[LakeMountD]

Yes, I would definitely say that is is less than 17aa orals. I will search around and see what kind of references I can find on it. Most are done on rats with higher dosages and for longer periods of time. Frankly toremifene is much less hepatoxic and more effective in post cycle therapy anyways. I would recommend it over nolvadex any day.

Here is one that I was referring to. I know these dosages are high, but no matter how you look at it, it shows that toremifene isn't really all that liver toxic at all. Even at high dosages for 15 months it did not cause liver cancer as opposed to 100% of the cases that were caused with tamoxifen.



"Major difference in the hepatocarcinogenicity and DNA adduct forming ability between toremifene and tamoxifen in female Crl:CD(BR) rats.

* Hard GC,
* Iatropoulos MJ,
* Jordan K,
* Radi L,
* Kaltenberg OP,
* Imondi AR,
* Williams GM.

American Health Foundation, Valhalla, New York 10595.

The hepatoproliferative effects of 2 antiestrogens, tamoxifen and toremifene, were compared in a sequential 15-month study in which 2 doses of each compound were administered by daily gavage to female Sprague-Dawley rats for up to 12 months. The doses were 11.3 and 22.6 mg/kg for tamoxifen and 12 and 24 mg/kg for toremifene. There were scheduled sacrifices at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months, the latter including a 3-month recovery period from the 12th through the 14th month. In the chronic toxicity study, tamoxifen at 22.6 mg/kg produced 100% incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma at the 12- and 15-month sacrifice intervals and 67% and 71% incidences at the 11.3-mg/kg dose. Sequential observations showed an increased incidence of glutathione S-transferase-positive foci of hepatocellular alteration by 3 months with tamoxifen in the absence of hepatotoxicity, with the first liver carcinoma appearing by 6 months of treatment. Unscheduled deaths occurring beyond 7.5 months in the tamoxifen treated groups were due in almost all cases to liver cancer. In striking contrast, toremifene did not produce any hepatoproliferative effects at 12- and 24-mg/kg dose levels, nor in a pilot study at 48 mg/kg. The 24-mg/kg dose of toremifene exerted an inhibiting effect on foci of hepatocellular alteration in rat liver detectable by glutathione S-transferase immunohistochemistry at 3 months and by conventional histology at 12 months. An antiproliferative effect was also evident in mammary gland and anterior pituitary where both toremifene and tamoxifen suppressed tumor incidence in comparison to the control group. The ability of these drugs to modify rat liver DNA after p.o. administration was investigated using the 32P-postlabeling assay. Administration of tamoxifen at 45 mg/kg for 7 days produced liver DNA nucleoside modifications represented by 7 spots on the autoradiogram. Unlike tamoxifen, toremifene did not produce any modified bases in rat liver DNA detectable by the 32P-postlabeling technique. The dose levels of tamoxifen that are strongly hepatocarcinogenic in the rat are compared with doses used in humans in various applications. Taking internal drug exposure into account, we conclude that the margin of safety for use of tamoxifen as an endocrine prophylactic agent for healthy, but breast cancer prone, women is questionable."

 

[nclifterz71]

thanks for the responses......i realize that torem is better but i already have my nolva and have been taking it....i will def. use torem for my next pct

 

[PumpingIron]

Nice post LMD...thanks for the info...

But isn't the reason Torem is used at higher doses because it is less effective and less heptoxic, thereby using it at the dosages we do, provide higher toxicity levels and effectiveness relative to tamox?

 

[LakeMountD]

Nice post LMD...thanks for the info...

But isn't the reason Torem is used at higher doses because it is less effective and less heptoxic, thereby using it at the dosages we do, provide higher toxicity levels and effectiveness relative to tamox?

Actually if you read back through that study they found the same thing at 48mg/kg, which is double the dose as tested. They still didn't find any carcinoma. That is a very interesting number indeed.

The higher dosage of torem. doesn't mean it is "less effective". Just means it is less potent/mg. I have many studies finding it to be as effective if not more effective as tamox. but with FAR less side effects.

 

[PumpingIron]

Thats is what I meant...less effective at the same dose...potent would have been a better choice of words...

 

[RisingAgainst]

I can agree with this, toremifene would be the overall better choice for a SERM during PCT, if you were going to use one.

BTW, PumpingIron, grow up dude.

 

[PumpingIron]

Haha, you're a funny guy.

edit: a funny guy that doesn't understand what he's putting into his body...

 

[RisingAgainst]

Haha, you're a funny guy.

edit: a funny guy that doesn't understand what he's putting into his body...

I don't understand what I'm putting into my body? PUHLEASE... my unborn children have more common sense than you could ever dream of having.. putz. But enough about you, lets talk your mother! LMFAO! jk jk

No but on a more serious note, how do I not understand what I'm putting into my body? Are you retarded man?

 

[bpmartyr]

Keep it civil boys.

I have done blood work immediately after cycle with high alt/ast numbers and then again after a standard 60/40/40/20 of Nolva with normal alt/ast.

Nolva also has a tendency to improve lipids as opposed to most oral steroids trending the opposite.

Sure Nolva has other potential side effects but look at the dose and duration we are running compared to the studies and cancer patients.

My vote = Nolva good. Torem better. Clomid baaaaad (sob, sob, why am I crying?)

 

[PumpingIron]

Basically because of the potential side effects...

But honestly, I could care less about your choices and the consequences you will have to deal with. Only thing I have a problem with is you trying to convince other newcomers that a serm is an un-needed harm, which is far from the truth.

 

[RisingAgainst]

Basically because of the potential side effects...

But honestly, I could care less about your choices and the consequences you will have to deal with. Only thing I have a problem with is you trying to convince other newcomers that a serm is an un-needed harm, which is far from the truth.

Whoa whoa whoa... I'm not saying it that way am I? I am saying that it's unnecessary for the majority of cycles these people are running. There's some exceptions, don't get me wrong, I am actually quite tempted to add one to my own post cycle therapy, but albeit it would NOT be Nolvadex. There's some slight advantages to SERM use, but let me ask you this... What's the difference between displacing estrogen, and eradicating it? Answer: Eradicating it can also eradicate good estrogen (side A) Displacing estrogen may not cause an estrogen rebound (side A) Eradicating estrogen during the post cycle time frame, may be just as, if not more effective than displacing it, or in better terms, blocking it. (side B) "Some" SERMs pose a detriment to health (side B) "Some" SERMs may alter hormone levels further, inhibiting gains, shutting down libido, raising body fat, and mood swings. (side B) SERMs are effective with estrogen drops in adipose tissue (side A) Stopping the conversion of testosterone to estrogen is "In MY opinion" more effective in terms of keeping the excess levels down, than blocking receptors (side B) and this arguement could go on forever. The point I want to make most clear, is that both sides have their reasonable, albeit controversial points, and maybe neither is correct, BUT a SERM has been proven unnecessary for those NOT naturally prone to gynecomastia. On the flipside of this, those who are naturally prone to gyno, should NOT be altering their hormone levels in any way to start with. It's, in all honesty, common sense! Now, allow me to apologize for any misconstruations and bitter words. I hope this can 'clear' up any and all arguements over the matter.

 

[LakeMountD]

Keep it civil boys.

I have done blood work immediately after cycle with high alt/ast numbers and then again after a standard 60/40/40/20 of Nolva with normal alt/ast.

Nolva also has a tendency to improve lipids as opposed to most oral steroids trending the opposite.

Sure Nolva has other potential side effects but look at the dose and duration we are running compared to the studies and cancer patients.

My vote = Nolva good. Torem better. Clomid baaaaad (sob, sob, why am I crying?)

When I get back home I will post the study of Nolva vs. Torem. on lipid levels. Guess who won and who did poorly lol.

 

[Dr_C2]

Per the study cited each drug was "administered by daily gavage to female Sprague-Dawley rats for up to 12 months."

Who in the hell is out there taking either of these compounds for 12 months?

I am not even going to comment on the mg/kg cited in the study. That is a whole different post.

Look, if you take Tylenol for 12 months @ 1000 mg ED, promise you there will be major problems.

Glad to see you cite peer-reviewed, double-blind, studies, but let's be careful about what we extrapolate here please.

Dr_C

 

[LakeMountD]

Per the study cited each drug was "administered by daily gavage to female Sprague-Dawley rats for up to 12 months."

Who in the hell is out there taking either of these compounds for 12 months?

I am not even going to comment on the mg/kg cited in the study. That is a whole different post.

Look, if you take Tylenol for 12 months @ 1000 mg ED, promise you there will be major problems.

Glad to see you cite peer-reviewed, double-blind, studies, but let's be careful about what we extrapolate here please.

Dr_C

A) Often high dosages are purposely used to study what really happens with these drugs. It is a lot harder to detect the impact of a substance when you are doing lower dosages of it. The fact that toremifene was given to the rats at 48mg/kg for 18 months and there was NO instance of any liver damage tells me a great deal about the advantage to toremifene. The fact that ALL the rats had liver cancer after a year on tamoxifen, despite the dosage, tells me it is more harsh. Why make it worse on yourself after a long cycle by taking something more toxic to your body?

B) At the end of that study it even says, "The dose levels of tamoxifen that are strongly hepatocarcinogenic in the rat are compared with doses used in humans in various applications."

C) The point of all this is how toremifene is overall superior. The HDL level increase alone is enough to make me switch, not to mention the much faster recovery time of the HPTA

 

[Dr_C2]

C) The point of all this is how toremifene is overall superior. The HDL level increase alone is enough to make me switch, not to mention the much faster recovery time of the HPTA

First, I'll state now that I am not trying to provke a pissing contest with you. However, it's statements like these that concern me "...toremifene is overall superior."

Given the application of this study and the fact that it has not been replicated in any other fashion let alone in any other clinical setting beyond those described is an EXTRAPOLATION on your part that is well beyond any plausible clinical generalization.

Again, I applauded you for reading the research and drawing your own educated conclusions. That constitutes the basis for an informed choice. However, the broad generalizations such as those in your current and previous posts within this thread are not supported by the statistically significant inferences provided in this study.

FWIW, I do understand the nature of the treatments described in this study. I am quite familiar with experimental effect size and the notion of experimental power of an inferential statistical test. After 10 years of conducting structured field and lab experiments at one of the largest research universities in the country and millions of NSF dollars in funding, I have simply learned to be very careful regarding generalizations about research conclusions.

 

[LakeMountD]

First, I'll state now that I am not trying to provke a pissing contest with you. However, it's statements like these that concern me "...toremifene is overall superior."

Given the application of this study and the fact that it has not been replicated in any other fashion let alone in any other clinical setting beyond those described is an EXTRAPOLATION on your part that is well beyond any plausible clinical generalization.

Again, I applauded you for reading the research and drawing your own educated conclusions. That constitutes the basis for an informed choice. However, the broad generalizations such as those in your current and previous posts within this thread are not supported by the statistically significant inferences provided in this study.

FWIW, I do understand the nature of the treatments described in this study. I am quite familiar with experimental effect size and the notion of experimental power of an inferential statistical test. After 10 years of conducting structured field and lab experiments at one of the largest research universities in the country and millions of NSF dollars in funding, I have simply learned to be very careful regarding generalizations about research conclusions.

I respect that . I am not trying to say that EVERYONE should take it because I said so. In fact the last comment about it being superior was only stated as a, "personal experience" type of comment. Between blood work and just the speed of recovery between the two it was readily apparent to me and many others.

If you would like (and I am saying this out of respect not trying to be sarcastic lol), I can post more studies on the differences between the two if that is what you are truly looking for? I did not post a lot of studies in this thread mainly because I have done so a lot in other threads on the same compound and figured it might be redundant.

Sorry if I came off as pushy or what not, some say that is how my posts come off, but that is just the way I type on line, I am about as nice as they come, ask Mike McCandless! Okay don't ask him, ask like JMH80 or something .

 

[Dr_C2]

Sorry if I came off as pushy or what not, some say that is how my posts come off, but that is just the way I type on line, I am about as nice as they come, ask Mike McCandless! Okay don't ask him, ask like JMH80 or something .

I neither took offense to any of your comments nor did I intend to hijack this thread. Apologies to all those subscribers who suffered this sidebar on my account.

I appreciate a grounded discussion particularly when the propositions are supported scientifically as you have done herein.

Obviously, I wholeheartedly agree with you in your assertion that much of what we are discussing boils down to personal preferences and therefore ultimately individual choice.

More importantly, I also agree with your assertion that there are additional factors that require consideration regarding one's choice between treatments of tamoxifen and toremifene. I myself choose the later and recommend the same for those that ask my opinion.

So in the end, we share that commonality as well.

As I have expressed my opinions directly as well as indirectly, I will now exit stage left and return this thread from whence it came.

:cheers:

 

[PumpingIron]

Discussions like this are what this board is all about...

Please continue.

 

[bpmartyr]

I like the discussion but the original question was in relation to Nolva compared 17a orals not Nolva vs Torem.

 

[charger71]

i find it hard to believe that nolva is as toxic on the liver as 17a orals, maybe mega dosed at 80-120mg a day, but who in their right mind would do that??

and maybe im lucky but clomid never made me emotional at all, im running it again in 5 weeks so maybe ill dose it higher to see if i start crying

 

[bpmartyr]

and maybe im lucky but clomid never made me emotional at all, im running it again in 5 weeks so maybe ill dose it higher to see if i start crying

Turns me into an over emotional Mullet. I cry watchin UFC! WTF?

 

[charger71]

Turns me into an over emotional Mullet. I cry watchin UFC! WTF?

hahahaha well i hope upping the dose doesnt make me do that! i got like that while i was on trn/ergo, i was constantly holding back the tears because of stupid crap.