Post Cycle Therapy (PCT)

[winger]

Still a good read though.

[hooker]

Originally Posted by SWALE

Far better it is to use HCG all through the cycle. Why don't we keep the horse in the barn, instead of letting him out, then having to chase him across three counties?

I notice that all the studies abstracted so far were conducted on human females (in particular, female subjects with breast cancer). Extrapolating conclusions applied to males, from studies performed on females, is a strategy frought with peril.

What about the one on Vitamin E?

Originally Posted by SWALE

Having said that, we also need to keep in mind we are just doing the best we can with what we have to work with.

Exactly. Glad we're in agreement. I guess you posted 0 references in your PCT article for the same reason I posted 37 of them...we're just doing the best with what we have to work with.

I, however, am not a doctor, and realize you have vastly greater credibility for being one. Hence...I need to validate my opinions in a way that you don't need to. Ergo, the tons of references....

Sorry...I just have a couple of degrees, and none are science related...

From your PCT article, SWALE:

Originally Posted by SWALE

So far, all of them who have tried it have reported they are recovering faster than when they have tried other protocols.

This is actually the same thing the few people who have already tried my protocol have said....

[jb55638]

CAN SOME ONE PLEASE POINT ME IN THE DIRECTION OF SWALE'S PCT REGIME.............I WOULD LIKE TO JUXDEPOSE BOB'S AND THE DOC'S.
THANKS,
JB

[SWALE]

I'm not sure why it is I make mention of the fact you have heavily relied upon studies conducted on a completely different patient population, you completely ignore that fact. It would have been correct and appropriate instead to include in your paper verbage such as "while this study was actually conducted on females", or "this study was conducted on females with breast CA" to maintain scientific integrity.

Referencing studies which have little or nothing to do with the subject at hand adds no weight to any arguement. It also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the science involved.

As to the very interesting study regarding Vit E, it is not an issue with my patients, as they are already properly supplementing same. The important point then to make is that it must be a true "natural" Vitamin E, including the full spread of tocopherols. Basically, just look for the word "gamma" on the breakdown, and you should be alright.

[hooker]

Originally Posted by SWALE

I'm not sure why it is I make mention of the fact you have heavily relied upon studies conducted on a completely different patient population, you completely ignore that fact. It would have been correct and appropriate instead to include in your paper verbage such as "while this study was actually conducted on females", or "this study was conducted on females with breast CA" to maintain scientific integrity.

Referencing studies which have little or nothing to do with the subject at hand adds no weight to any arguement. It also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the science involved.

As to the very interesting study regarding Vit E, it is not an issue with my patients, as they are already properly supplementing same. The important point then to make is that it must be a true "natural" Vitamin E, including the full spread of tocopherols. Basically, just look for the word "gamma" on the breakdown, and you should be alright.

As I recall...Dan Duchaine pioneered the use of Nolvadex in males to prevent Anabolis Steroid induced gynocomastia, based on research done in women solely, as his basis for formulating his theory.

How many such ntheories have you pioneered?

Im confused...did all of the abstracts refer to women or didn't they? You said they did. Did they or didn't they....it would seem that you made a comment without even reading all of the appropriate material.

You said "ALL" and it was not all.


Clearly.


There was one which did not fall into that category...hence "ALL" was an incorrect statement. So...I am left thinking you didn't even read ALL of the studies you saw fit to comment on.

Do you commonly make such oversights, where you say "ALL" of something is the case when it clearly isn't? Or do you simply not read all of the available evidence, then see fit to comment on it anyway? Did you read all of your medical textbooks, doctor, or only most of them...or some of them?

Funny that I have people on my PCT protocol right now and they're saying it's been working great, keeping their mood, libido, and strength up...and your protocol is used by...um...HRT-patients...yeah...great...really...lets talk about relevance now....

[SWALE]

Aren't all the studies you have "abstracted so far" with respect to estrogen metabolism conducted on females? And I'm not sure why the point is still lost on you that you should edit your paper to delineate which of the studies you reference were conducted on males, and which on females.

Earlier in this thread I asked if anyone had time to dig up and post the abstracts in sincere scientific curiosity. I'm not sure why the author has to immediately stoop to such baseless levels of communication. But it is my experience that it is common when someone is insecure of their knowledge base to resort to immature insult. It's just not what people of academic integrity do. Instead, they welcome such dialogue, as doing so SHOULD reinforce the author's original points, and illuminate same for all to learn and appreciate.

There is no question drugs of the SERM class antagonize estrogen at the breast of both males and females. That is not news. But trying to extrapolate to situations involving more complex drug-to-drug interactions is not scientifically valid. Male and female Endocrine systems are just too different to do that without actual proof. This, too, is an important point for you to grasp.

Or are you claiming that because one application of one specific medication, created originally for treating females, also works for males, means that every single such medication, and more importantly, polypharmacy, therefore must also be true? This is sort of a logic question--but one with real life application. And it is critical to your arguement.

You should grasp the importance of stating when studies have been performed on a population different from the desired application. This is just common practice when presenting scientific works. This is an absolute necessity if one is to be taken seriously by those who actually possess professional expertise.

This has been a peave of mine on the Boards for years now. We have to apreciate not only what scientific studies say, but also what they DO NOT say.

You might also want to learn something about works of the physician you are trying to insult here before making any more comments embarrassing to yourself. I may have been working in this area before you were even born. There are countless thousands of guys on the Boards who can set you straight on this point. Alternqatively, you could actually do a little research before you write.

[ciobl]

Originally Posted by hooker

As I recall...Dan Duchaine pioneered the use of Nolvadex in males to prevent Anabolis Steroid induced gynocomastia, based on research done in women solely, as his basis for formulating his theory.

he has been criticized for the lack of scientific references provided.

How many such ntheories have you pioneered?

uncalled for...a better answer would have been "swale, my product is aimed at a bodybuilding community - male and female species" ...........or........."sure swale, next time i will correct these textual mishaps"

Originally Posted by hooker

...and your protocol is used by...um...HRT-patients...yeah...great...really...lets talk about relevance now....

to say that hrt patients are not relevant to you in the presence of personal tastes, preferences, likes, dislikes, beliefs, judgements although are not appropiate or advisable to use have no place on the discussion about the references in question and therefore it is a disputable unlogical assertion from a scientific gradual progressive standpoint and it is one of the biggest absurdities i have come across. Relevancy it is viewed from a scientific point of view as anything that does not interferes, obstructs, tampers any scientific study or progression of the material in question not as a personal preference of any individual or specie. so it seems the use of 'relevancy' about hrt patients was not a matter of scientific discussion but more a personal preference of such dialogist. Any point we try to make we must not forget the above indirect or direct assertion about relevancy that indirectly suggests your writings are directed to a bodybuilding community but from a scientific gradual progressive standpoint any writing about bodybuilding medical supplementation if it is related to any medical supplementation must be referenced, cited, quoted and mentioned with plenty, various and detailed medical references.

[hooker]

Originally Posted by ciobl

he has been criticized for the lack of scientific references provided.

Duchaine was right more often than not. He pioneered the use of Nolvadex, Periactin/Zaiteden (SP?) with Clen, brought DNP to the BB'ing world...

So...yeah, he's been criticized...but not by anyone who his achievements haven't dwarfed.

[HeadDoc]

the relevance of the article is dependant upon its ultility to those using hormones at superphysiologic levels. The validity of its conclusions and recommendations depend upon the quality of the research included and the generality of results to the populations studied. Good science requires that the scientist qualify conclusions to the population or sample under study and the conditions under which the conclusions are drawn. For instance, in vitro studies on cells, tissue, and organs can offer promising hypotheses without much generality at all. For instance, I could hypothesize that arsenic kills the AIDS virus in a petri dish, but no one would run out and start using arsenic to treat AIDS. Within in vivostudies, new research must clearly show how the current investigation systematically extends or limits conclusions based upon exisiting data. An honest appraisal of some intervention needs to state the conditions under which the prior research is conducted. If the conditions of prior research is based upon postmenapausal females or females with cancer, than the results are certainly limited to those populations. Any other use of a hypothetical intervention is purely speculative and most scientist would state such.

Many people post trial or experimental variations of standard protocols on the boards. They are looking for feedback--hopefully before they start something. This is how we help one another. We give advice based on our experience of the same or similar intervention. Some of these variants are worth formal investigation for purposes of helping specific individuals under limited or specific conditions. Then real science can begin. After reading the article I am left to conclude that the real science could begin once the author's recommendatons are studied in conditions that can be systematically replicated for the specific samples under identical biophysical conditions. Until then, buyer beware.

[hooker]

Originally Posted by SWALE

Aren't all the studies you have "abstracted so far" with respect to estrogen metabolism conducted on females? And I'm not sure why the point is still lost on you that you should edit your paper to delineate which of the studies you reference were conducted on males, and which on females.

Earlier in this thread I asked if anyone had time to dig up and post the abstracts in sincere scientific curiosity. I'm not sure why the author has to immediately stoop to such baseless levels of communication. But it is my experience that it is common when someone is insecure of their knowledge base to resort to immature insult. It's just not what people of academic integrity do. Instead, they welcome such dialogue, as doing so SHOULD reinforce the author's original points, and illuminate same for all to learn and appreciate.

There is no question drugs of the SERM class antagonize estrogen at the breast of both males and females. That is not news. But trying to extrapolate to situations involving more complex drug-to-drug interactions is not scientifically valid. Male and female Endocrine systems are just too different to do that without actual proof. This, too, is an important point for you to grasp.

Or are you claiming that because one application of one specific medication, created originally for treating females, also works for males, means that every single such medication, and more importantly, polypharmacy, therefore must also be true? This is sort of a logic question--but one with real life application. And it is critical to your arguement.

You should grasp the importance of stating when studies have been performed on a population different from the desired application. This is just common practice when presenting scientific works. This is an absolute necessity if one is to be taken seriously by those who actually possess professional expertise.

This has been a peave of mine on the Boards for years now. We have to apreciate not only what scientific studies say, but also what they DO NOT say.

You might also want to learn something about works of the physician you are trying to insult here before making any more comments embarrassing to yourself. I may have been working in this area before you were even born. There are countless thousands of guys on the Boards who can set you straight on this point. Alternqatively, you could actually do a little research before you write.

Nope. The one I abstracted on Vitamin E was done in rodents and human males.

I would welcome it if you had what I consider to be valid points (and some are and some aren't), and if you read the studies you are talking about. You asked me if one of them was conducted in "Place XYZ" and claimed another was "done in females" and finally claimed "ALL abstracts..." When all 3 of your questions or claims made it obvious you didn't even read all the work you were commenting on. I don't generally reply to people who didn't read the thing they are commenting on. I showed you a modicum of courtesy by even addressing your ill-informed claims.

No. I never made that sweeping claim. I made that claim in certain specific instances. You are creating a clear strawman fallacy.

No, it is not. My degree (one of them) is in philosophy with a concentration in logic, so I think I know how logic works...and you are saying that my claim must encompass "ALL" of a certain class of medications, when really it need only encompass the ones I specifically mention in the way I mention them. An analogy: I can claim that the engine in my car is grey without making the claim that other engines are grey, and without also claiming that my car is grey. Again, you are claiming otherwise, creating another informal fallacy.

Oh...like the 0-references in your PCT? Is that research? How about I just never use any references in anything I write? Then I could be just like you...

Perhaps it was your insulting PMs. You asked me several questions which told me you didn't even research the abstracts you were criticizing, and then questioned my educational background.

Its not.

I guess. Another mediocre mod isn't who I'm trying to impress though. I'll have to consult with someone who actually produced a body of work that I respect for an opinion on that that I'll actually consider.


As you did via PM to me?


I'll be frank and say that I'm no longer going to reply to your PMs or your public posts. You don't even read the studies I reference, you don't have a grasp of logic, and you don't produce any work that impresses me, from what I've read of you on various boards. Sorry, but this dialogue with you is over. You can critique my work all you want, by creating logical fallacies and by not even reading the abstracts, then misrepresenting them. You may even convince the less educated people on the boards, who aren't versed in logic or valid argumentation, that you are correct. But you still won't be. It's sad that in PM to me you said my work will help people, etc...then in another one, after I asked you to stop PM'ing me without reading the studies I referenced, you replied and said you're going to discredit me publicly. Pathetic.

[SWALE]

Well said, HeadDoc.

On the matter of "relevancy", while AAS use clearly is not TRT (as, for instance, 100mg of test cyp per week is not a "good cycle") both topics are involved with hormonal manipulation, the same hormones, the same medications are used, in the same body system (Endocrine), in the same body (specifically, the MALE Body Human). The EXTREME relevancy is blatantly apparent to any- and everyone who has any knowledge of the subject at hand.

[SWALE]

Umm..does anyone see, in the article on Vit E, any mention of estrogen metabolism or manipulation?

[ciobl]

he showed potential until i saw this:

Originally Posted by hooker

I can claim that the engine in my car is grey without making the claim that other engines are grey, and without also claiming that my car is grey.

[Millard Baker]

Originally Posted by HeadDoc

Many people post trial or experimental variations of standard protocols on the boards. They are looking for feedback--hopefully before they start something. This is how we help one another. We give advice based on our experience of the same or similar intervention. Some of these variants are worth formal investigation for purposes of helping specific individuals under limited or specific conditions. Then real science can begin. After reading the article I am left to conclude that the real science could begin once the author's recommendatons are studied in conditions that can be systematically replicated for the specific samples under identical biophysical conditions. Until then, buyer beware.

Headdoc, I think you captured the essence of "science" very well. But also keep in mind that there is little incentive for "real science" to invest in formal investigations of bodybuilding polypharmacology. Bodybuilding drug use is simply not recognized as a legitimate area of scientific inquiry. Science therefore presents a lot of limitations when it comes to bodybuilding.

To put this in perspective, I am almost certain that there is no direct relevance in the scientific literature to the drug protocols used by the top five elite bodybuilders competing today. I'm sure there may be clues in the literature that have informed the drug use. But by no means would anyone say there is strong scientific support for what they are doing.

Does this mean that these bodybuilders are clueless or misinformed? Are they or there consultants incapable of deciding how to achieve their respective goals because they lack medical or educational credentials?

The fact is no legitimate researcher or health care practictioner would have any experience with the goals of elite bodybuilders. They have little to offer since their research is restricted by some ethics committee or institutional review board and justly so.

So, the experts here generally tend to be the renegade researchers who operate outside of legitimate science. This is science nonetheless - but not anything that will be published in NEJM.

Even though those in the ivory tower arrogantly tend to dismiss "unscientific" approach that goes on in bodybuilding, they have no problem whatsoever borrowing from the drug practices of bodybuilders for use in their own "real science" as head doc called it. Witness, TRT and adjunctive therapies...

Who really thinks the concommitant use of SERMs and AIs and HCG in TRT was derived from the scientific literature? Did some ivory tower researcher first propose it? No. It started with "real' scientific research on postmenopausal females and breast cancer. Then a non-credentialled, non-medical professional proposes a well-informed theory for use in bodybuilding for estrogen management. This evolved over several years in the bodybuilding underground with several theories of PCT. During this time, TRT as it existed involved T only protocols. Only after a few progressive physicians, like SWALE, with his connections to bodybuilding, saw the validity of SERMs, AIs, HCG as adjunctive therapy to TRT, did it start seeing legitimate scientific inquiry take place.

Yet, even now, out of the thousands of doctors who are prescribing testosterone, only a minority are even open to the idea of adjunctive AIs or HCG, citing "lack of scientific research"

Can thousands of doctors be wrong? Yes! Even their credentials also have limitations in their respective fields.

I think one is more likely to get better information on proper TRT from members of the TRT forum (thanks to SWALE) that a random group of 100 doctors.

My point of this long diatribe is this:

(1) Credentials don't carry a lot of weight when it comes to bodybuilding applications of AAS. Most physicians/health professionals are clueless about how to achieve bodybuilding goals. They may have better grasp of the side effects and respect for the dangers of drugs, although more often than not they overstate the dangers. They are not in the business of creating muscular bodybuilding freaks, but presumably for restoring and maintaining health.

(2) Credentials don't mean a lot when it comes to cutting edge therapies such as TRT. Some physicians with doctorates, tenure at major medical research universities, and dozens of peer-reviewed papers attributable to their name and/or research groups don't believe AIs or HCG should be used as an adjunct to TRT. So should this be the criteria by which we decide what is the optimal TRT? The person with the most "credentials" decides by default? Or should the person with the most logically coherent rationale and scientific support (if available), not to mention experience with actual clients have some credibility as well, even in the absence of M.D. or Ph.D. after his/her name?

(3) Anyone who dares to significantly extrapolate results from any study will open themselves up to criticism. The clues are readily available in the literature, but the primary strength of such arguments usually depend on the logical coherence and integration of available information from the literature and from the real world.

[SWALE]

Agreed, Administrator. However, no one who knows anything about medicine, physiology, pharmacology, etc. would hang their hat on studies conducted on a completely different patient population. It is profoundly ignorant to do so.

The simple fact of the matter is there is not one shred of evidence that using an aromatase inhibitor during PCT in any way hastens the process of recovery of the HPTA. IMPO, it makes no sense to further disrupt the Endocrine system while attempting to normalize same. This opinion is formed not only by my extensive medical training, but also the experience of working with literally hundreds of patients who use/used AAS--especially those whose systems did not recover once the cycle was over (even with "PCT" employed). On top of that I will add my "instinct"--which has proven, at every point along the way, to be amazingly reliable.

By contrast, there are numerous studies which demonstrate SERM-class drugs are effective and relatively safe.

I am very much concerned about extending the time of Lipid Profile damage by employing an AI during PCT.

The best PCT is that which starts at the very beginning of the cycle. My guys control their estrogen along the way. They also use HCG from the start, and at appropriate dosing--no more than 250IU per day.

Using HCG during PCT has been commonly done for many years now, by many practitioners. The real craft is in how to employ it to maintain testicular function without further inhibiting the HPTA.