meatbeater
Registered
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There is a study in resistance trained males administered arimidex. There was a test increase of almost 60% ..at the end of the study there was no difference in body composition between those using adex and those not. My point- the test increase provided by ai's and serm's , while they sound significant , are not when it comes to losing fat and building muscle. In other words - dont waste your time.
I don't see how that's possible. For instance, a guy with 500 ng/dL (mid, borderline low) takes arimidex and gets 800 ng/dL (high) instead. And there's no difference in anabolism and body comp? This contradicts other research on test levels and effects on muscle & fat.
Here's the classic AJP article on test effects. Note the charts where it shows a positive change in fat-free mass and negative changes in fat mass for every increase in dose, with only one exception at the 25 and 50 mg/wk (subphysiological) doses on the fat mass chart. We're talking about endogenous vs. exogenous sources here but the anabolic/body-comp effects should be the same.
Testosterone dose-response relationships in healthy young men
There are studies everywhere..young resistance trained males , older hypo gonadal men you name it. It just doesnt work that way with ai administration. Its easy to try to say it should when you use a study where test is purposely suppressed and exogenous test introduced in varied doses..however why speculate when studies exist using the exact compounds that show no change in body comp is observed? You can speculate in theory what you think should of would happen , but when concrete data exists saying it doesnt the point becomes moot.
Good point, solid data is king. Sure would be nice to have some... Guess I'll go looking, curious about this one.