Ditch your AI now - you don't need it!

[Vince Carter]

Seems as those all these studies, reason I pay them ZERO attention, are these huge doses they resort to in order to make their conclusions.

 

[Simon7]

What I find most dangerous is the current fad promoted by the TOT crowd and their blind followers that it's supposedly healthy to let E2 run as high as you like without being managed at all.

We currently don't have many studies on the dangers of high E2 in men, but some studies are already available. For instance see this study that high Estrogen plays a role in the development of breast cancer and that men with high E2 have a 2.5 fold risk of developing breast cancer.

We know that E2 has a normal range in healthy men in the range of 20-30 pg/ml. Thus the responsible thing would be to manage E2 to keep it in a healthy range either by manipulating the T dose, its frequency or by the use of micro dose AI. The responsible thing is certainly not let E2 run as high as you like and to wake up in 20 years to a whole bunch of studies documenting the damage you have caused yourself.

Use your heads and don't blindly follow the reckless advice promoted on the TOT roundtable.

 

[dbossa]

@Simon7 you are indeed correct. That study simply won't do from an evidence perspective. I didn't see the dosage they were giving the rats and, I agree, the dose is beyond ridiculous.

The question remains - is it at least 'possible' that even trace amounts of the stuff can be detrimental... even to a small degree? Is it also at least possible that perhaps the 20-30 range for E2 that everyone used to use might be TOO low to allow E2 to provide the cardio protective benefits it has?

I know this is going to sound unbelievable, but I swear on my first born that since I dropped the AI I actually BREATHE better than before. It's like I need less air... and my heart rate is not quite as quick as it used to be. I did not read this as a benefit anywhere... it's simply something that I've been experiencing and it's literally the ONLY thing I've changed.

 

[dbossa]

@Simon7 they are not specifying what level they actually determined to be 'HIGH'.

 

[dbossa]

@Simon7 there's another issue now that I'm going through the study. Look at how low their testosterone levels were. 13.07 nmol/L is only 376.7 ng/dl. Sure, if their E2 was high and their test was that low perhaps it would cause problems. What is their test was at 1500 ng/dl? What then? Same results? I somehow doubt it.

 

[Simon7]

dbossa, re what is considered in the study as high E2: If you look at Table 2 in this link you can see that men with E2 greater than 86 pg/ml had a risk of 2.47 fold risk of developing breast cancer as compared with men with E2 less than 52 pg/ml. In fact men with E2 between 65-86 pg/ml had a 3 fold risk of developing breast cancer as compared with men with E2 under 52 pg/ml.

Do you still think it's a good idea to let your E2 run high and unmanaged as promoted by the TOT roundtable reckless advice???

Per your second post, Testosterone level was not found to be a significant risk factor for breast cancer. The levels of testosterone varied between the sample and about a quarter of them had Testosterone higher than 16.4 nmol/L. Thus you seem to misunderstand the T data in the study.

 

[equel]

@Simon7 you are indeed correct. That study simply won't do from an evidence perspective. I didn't see the dosage they were giving the rats and, I agree, the dose is beyond ridiculous.

The question remains - is it at least 'possible' that even trace amounts of the stuff can be detrimental... even to a small degree? Is it also at least possible that perhaps the 20-30 range for E2 that everyone used to use might be TOO low to allow E2 to provide the cardio protective benefits it has?

I know this is going to sound unbelievable, but I swear on my first born that since I dropped the AI I actually BREATHE better than before. It's like I need less air... and my heart rate is not quite as quick as it used to be. I did not read this as a benefit anywhere... it's simply something that I've been experiencing and it's literally the ONLY thing I've changed.

You breate better and heart rate is better cause u had too low estrogen before, those are the exact symptoms I get when I lower my e2 too far.

 

[equel]

dbossa, re what is considered in the study as high E2: If you look at Table 2 in this link you can see that men with E2 greater than 86 pg/ml had a risk of 2.47 fold risk of developing breast cancer as compared with men with E2 less than 52 pg/ml. In fact men with E2 between 65-86 pg/ml had a 3 fold risk of developing breast cancer as compared with men with E2 under 52 pg/ml.

Do you still think it's a good idea to let your E2 run high and unmanaged as promoted by the TOT roundtable reckless advise???

Per your second post, Testosterone level was not found to be a significant risk factor for breast cancer. The levels of testosterone varied between the sample and about a quarter of them had Testosterone higher than 16.4 nmol/L. Thus you seem to misunderstand the T data in the study.

Exactly. Young health men have e2 between 20 and 30 and testosterone around 700-900, so its just logical to keep ur levels around there somewhere, NOT let ur estrogen climb to 80 like the nutcase Jay promotes.

 

[equel]

In simple English, your article DOES NOT support your claims that AI is toxic and you misunderstood the article completely. The article discusses the effect of elimination of E2 on mice and shows that entirely eliminating E2 in mice either by castration or by administering HUGE doses of AI will cause adverse effects.

We know that driving E2 dangerously low is bad for you, there's nothing new or debatable about that. However nowhere in that that study does does it state nor propose that AI is toxic.
In order to eliminate E2 the researchers used 10mg/Kg/day of Anastrazole, which is equivalent to daily doses of 800mg Anastrazole per day for a man who weighs 80Kg=176lbs. 800mg Anastrazole per day is 6,400 times the daily dosage of 0.125mg that is often used with men on TRT in order to keep E2 in the healthy range, not to eliminate it.

Please put more effort into understanding what you are reading before promoting false information.

800mg anastrazole per day, holy shit that would be something .. Gotta love it when guys use studies like that to claim "arimidex is toxic".

 

[dbossa]

On a dose of 0.25mg twice a week, my E2 was at 35-40. As per your ideal ranges, that would not be considered 'too low'.

Might I ask in return how you can back up your own claims about 20-30 range as being ideal? What study demonstrates that? I know we have all read it and that's what I once believed. But where are those studies?

 

[Gman86]

On a dose of 0.25mg twice a week, my E2 was at 35-40. As per your ideal ranges, that would not be considered 'too low'.

Might I ask in return how you can back up your own claims about 20-30 range as being ideal? What study demonstrates that? I know we have all read it and that's what I once believed. But where are those studies?

How did you feel with E2 around 35-40?

 

[dbossa]

Not as good as I feel now. Not by a long shot. The biggest benefit has been sleep. Fall asleep in minutes and sleep the entire night. I never had that before. I have no idea where my E2 is now. It could be 100+ for all I know.

 

[DragonBits]

Not as good as I feel now. Not by a long shot. The biggest benefit has been sleep. Fall asleep in minutes and sleep the entire night. I never had that before. I have no idea where my E2 is now. It could be 100+ for all I know.

To get my E2 to 100, my total T would need to be 2500 ng/dl.

For all you know, your E2 could still be 35-40.

If I were you, I would at least be curious about where my E2 was.

 

[Gman86]

To get my E2 to 100, my total T would need to be 2500 ng/dl.

For all you know, your E2 could still be 35-40.

If I were you, I would at least be curious about where my E2 was.

That’s not a bad idea. Always good to know where your E2 is when you feel great.

 

[tmaxey1]

On a dose of 0.25mg twice a week, my E2 was at 35-40. As per your ideal ranges, that would not be considered 'too low'.

Might I ask in return how you can back up your own claims about 20-30 range as being ideal? What study demonstrates that? I know we have all read it and that's what I once believed. But where are those studies?

We keep talking about the levels of E2 that becomes protective in women. My wife has estrogen levels of 80-100. She also has a nice set of tits. I don’t want to be a woman. Now the average E2 of post menopausal women is less than 10. Yet many women live 30 years post menopause with these low E2 levels. Meanwhile men die younger and have raising E2 levels as they age.

The number 20-30 people consider ideal comes from tons of blood test on many men. If our goal is to mirror hormone levels of a 25 year old man then we don’t want E2 of 80. High estrogen causes water retention, and blood pressure issue in many men. This isn’t what we want.

I’m glad you feel good with estrogen levels higher than a woman. You have zero evidence that AIs are toxic or harmful. This has been established.

I’m not following your lead my friend. If my labs say my E2 is 25 the last thing I plan to do is to ask my doctor to put my on female birth control pills.

 

[equel]

On a dose of 0.25mg twice a week, my E2 was at 35-40. As per your ideal ranges, that would not be considered 'too low'.

Might I ask in return how you can back up your own claims about 20-30 range as being ideal? What study demonstrates that? I know we have all read it and that's what I once believed. But where are those studies?

For you, it could absolutely be too low. I dont know about those studies, I go about what people report and most report a great well being at that range.

 

[dbossa]

There was a point way back when I started where my Total T measured as +1500 (the test wasn't sensitive enough to go higher) while experimenting with 200mg compounded cream with no AI and my E2 was 50. Now taking 30mg SubQ a day with no AI - zero symptoms.

Tmaxey1, we both have the wife with nice tits in common lol! However, nice tits and cardio protective are two separate things, n'est pas?

You demanded studies and evidence from me about the AI. Are you able to do the same in regards to 20-30 being the ideal range? Do we have any kind of proof or evidence of this?

 

[equel]

Why should a male have as high estrogen as a woman? Ever heard of any doc recommending women to have testosterone levels of 1000ng/dl cause it can be beneficial to men?!

 

[dbossa]

As high as a woman? Do you know what women's levels of estrogen's levels are? It's hardly the same.

 

[Cataceous]

As high as a woman? Do you know what women's levels of estrogen's levels are? It's hardly the same.

From LabCorp's sensitive test:
Female (pg/mL)
Follicular 30.0−100.0
Luteal 70.0−300.0
Postmenopausal <15.0

This brings up an important consideration: there's at least some evidence that males and females respond differently to estradiol, even at the level of vasculature. We can't assume that just because high estrogen has benefits for females that it's always good for males.