PCT actually necessary?

Aaron.Cole said:
Culture shift. When popular articles are written for the masses, the goal is to hit a 4th grade reading level.

But that's all stuff for another thread.
Click to expand...
I actually do some freelance writing and I have to do a reading level check on everything I right to make sure it isn't too hard to understand for people. If it comes back too high, I have to dumb it down
 
Is that why you wrote "right" instead of "write"? Too high of a reading level for us?
 
jswain34 said:
Is that why you wrote "right" instead of "write"? Too high of a reading level for us?
Click to expand...

Yeah I was wondering if that was on purpose. Anyway this is a good time to post this video again,




A "Culture shift" is a poor excuse for typing like a retard. No child left behind strikes again I guess....Not that I'm calling anyone retarded or anything, just learn how to use punctuation and proper grammar. I mean come on, at least use the built in spell checker that comes with Chrome.
 
I think a lot of people fail to realize that SERMs have been shown to be extremely toxic and cause different types of cancers. I'm not saying someone should or shouldn't use a SERM but it seems like there's a lot of dogma and overall lack of knowledge amongst many AAS/PH users who think SERMs are safe just because that's what everyone uses. There's quite a bit of research regarding the carcinogenic effects of SERMs especially Nolva and Clomid but here's a few:

ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pubmed/10845279
aje.oxfordjournals. org/content/161/7/607.long
.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pubmed/16780365
.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pubmed/1348345

Again, I'm not claiming someone shouldn't use a SERM, but people should be better educated about what they are taking before they consider using anything that requires a pct.
 
:dance:
 
moleculargnz said:
I think a lot of people fail to realize that SERMs have been shown to be extremely toxic and cause different types of cancers. I'm not saying someone should or shouldn't use a SERM but it seems like there's a lot of dogma and overall lack of knowledge amongst many AAS/PH users who think SERMs are safe just because that's what everyone uses. There's quite a bit of research regarding the carcinogenic effects of SERMs especially Nolva and Clomid but here's a few:

ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pubmed/10845279
aje.oxfordjournals. org/content/161/7/607.long
.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pubmed/16780365
.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pubmed/1348345

Again, I'm not claiming someone shouldn't use a SERM, but people should be better educated about what they are taking before they consider using anything that requires a pct.
Click to expand...

women aged 57-75 years of age was analyzed. Women reporting treatment with tamoxifen were categorized as standard-term users (4-5 years), short-term users (<4 years), or long-term users (6+ years) and compared to non-users.

I'm not disagreeing with awareness but the practicality of taking it for 4 weeks and many years make it quite a stretch in this instance
 
David Dunn said:
I'm not disagreeing with awareness but the practicality of taking it for 4 weeks many and years make it quite a stretch in this instance
Click to expand...

For sure.

I would think striving for some sort of balance between minimising exposure to these compounds (dose strength and duration) but whilst also reaping the desired benefits, would be ideal.

Obviously regular blood panels would help achieve this balance.
 
NewAgeMayan said:
For sure.

I would think striving for some sort of balance between minimising exposure to these compounds (dose strength and duration) but whilst also reaping the desired benefits, would be ideal.

Obviously regular blood panels would help achieve this balance.
Click to expand...

I think one of the issues is that blood panels are not cheap. I did a pre-cycle, a pre-PCT, and about to do a post PCT. Just that, put me 300 in the hole. In comparison, the Osta, Rebirth, DAA, and bulbine was around 150-200. So it's cheaper to skip the bloods and put that money against another 1 or 2 cycles.
 
JudoJosh said:
I actually do some freelance writing and I have to do a reading level check on everything I right to make sure it isn't too hard to understand for people. If it comes back too high, I have to dumb it down
Click to expand...

My wife does the same thing. Boggles my mind. She told me she's getting closer, but it's difficult.

Ernest Hemingway wrote at that level though, so I guess there is something to it.
 
David Dunn said:
women aged 57-75 years of age was analyzed. Women reporting treatment with tamoxifen were categorized as standard-term users (4-5 years), short-term users (<4 years), or long-term users (6+ years) and compared to non-users.

I'm not disagreeing with awareness but the practicality of taking it for 4 weeks and many years make it quite a stretch in this instance
Click to expand...

I completely agree with that. Although, there are numerous studies that are much more relevant but I just put together what I could dig up real quick to point out that SERMs can be very toxic.
 
moleculargnz said:
I completely agree with that. Although, there are numerous studies that are much more relevant but I just put together what I could dig up real quick to point out that SERMs can be very toxic.
Click to expand...
I never use SERM but I'd sure love to see the studies that show that they are very toxic.

Even the uterine cancer one shows an very tiny percentage of woman getting the cancer over many years - (The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study of 8,431 US women (145,876 woman-years) evaluated for infertility during 1965–1988. Through 1999, 39 uterine cancers were ascertained by questionnaire or cancer and death registries.) and at high doses - (Uterine cancer risk increased with clomiphene dose (RR = 1.93, 95% CI: 0.9, 4.0 for >900 mg), and where at increased risk due to obesity - (was more strongly associated with clomiphene among nulligravid (RR = 3.49, 95% CI: 1.3, 9.3) and obese (RR = 6.02, 95% CI: 1.2, 30.0) women, with risk substantially elevated among women who were both obese and nulligravid (RR = 12.52, 95% CI: 1.5, 108.0).)

I believe that rate of uterine cancer in infertile obese woman over that many woman over than many years is probably still substantial in and of itself and the clomid correlation may just be casual.

Again, not disagreeing with its potential to be toxic but I believe even the glycerine and glycol solution that most RC suppliers use is more toxic and that is minuscule to say the most. I'm debating the actual data being conclusive.
 
I like how I've tailored pct for myself. I feel good post cycle an all through pct.

Find a plan that works well for you an stick with it.

If that's a serm, great.

If it's a serm, ai, cortisol control, prolactin control, osta and natty pct product, cool

Nothing? That's fine, your life your decisions
 
Be careful what you disclose. I work in healthcare. Depending on what they document, you could run into insurance issues.. especially with any sort of life insurance.
 
David Dunn said:
I never use SERM but I'd sure love to see the studies that show that they are very toxic.

Even the uterine cancer one shows an very tiny percentage of woman getting the cancer over many years - (The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study of 8,431 US women (145,876 woman-years) evaluated for infertility during 1965–1988. Through 1999, 39 uterine cancers were ascertained by questionnaire or cancer and death registries.) and at high doses - (Uterine cancer risk increased with clomiphene dose (RR = 1.93, 95% CI: 0.9, 4.0 for >900 mg), and where at increased risk due to obesity - (was more strongly associated with clomiphene among nulligravid (RR = 3.49, 95% CI: 1.3, 9.3) and obese (RR = 6.02, 95% CI: 1.2, 30.0) women, with risk substantially elevated among women who were both obese and nulligravid (RR = 12.52, 95% CI: 1.5, 108.0).)

I believe that rate of uterine cancer in infertile obese woman over that many woman over than many years is probably still substantial in and of itself and the clomid correlation may just be casual.

Again, not disagreeing with its potential to be toxic but I believe even the glycerine and glycol solution that most RC suppliers use is more toxic and that is minuscule to say the most. I'm debating the actual data being conclusive.
Click to expand...
If I recall, there is some data on nolva and liver toxicity. Clomid causes eye issues but I think they are transient issues that go away once drug is DC'd. There is prolly an effect on lipids too from their use but I'm just guessing on that one. Too lazy to actually look
 
According to "Anabolics", endogenous test levels return to baseline 1-4 months(depending on the length of the cycle I.e. How long you were suppressed) after cessation of the exogenous hormone and persistent hypogonadism in steroid users usually occurs when the user is onheavy doses longer than he is off, in essence "making the body believe that being suppressed and producing no test on your own is the new normal"(im paraphrasing)
 
David Dunn said:
I never use SERM but I'd sure love to see the studies that show that they are very toxic.

Even the uterine cancer one shows an very tiny percentage of woman getting the cancer over many years - (The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study of 8,431 US women (145,876 woman-years) evaluated for infertility during 1965–1988. Through 1999, 39 uterine cancers were ascertained by questionnaire or cancer and death registries.) and at high doses - (Uterine cancer risk increased with clomiphene dose (RR = 1.93, 95% CI: 0.9, 4.0 for >900 mg), and where at increased risk due to obesity - (was more strongly associated with clomiphene among nulligravid (RR = 3.49, 95% CI: 1.3, 9.3) and obese (RR = 6.02, 95% CI: 1.2, 30.0) women, with risk substantially elevated among women who were both obese and nulligravid (RR = 12.52, 95% CI: 1.5, 108.0).)

I believe that rate of uterine cancer in infertile obese woman over that many woman over than many years is probably still substantial in and of itself and the clomid correlation may just be casual.

Again, not disagreeing with its potential to be toxic but I believe even the glycerine and glycol solution that most RC suppliers use is more toxic and that is minuscule to say the most. I'm debating the actual data being conclusive.
Click to expand...

Here's a pretty lengthy overview from the IARC on the toxic effects of Nolva. Most studies referenced here are of longer duration than what most people on this board use but none the less, the toxic effects are very clear.

monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol66/mono66-15.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top