goreblaster
New Member
Since I do want to sign up for jay Campbell's 50$/month forum to maybe get access to Dr. Keith Nichols, Dr. Rob etc. I will post these questions here. This is not intended to invite argument for/against aromatase inhibitor usage. I simply want to understand the perspective of AI opponents better.
If aromatase inhibitors are in fact dangerous and "harmful to biological systems", then how? Is it only through lowering estrogen via aromatase inhibition, or do the chemical compounds have other, unintended biochemical effects that cause harm?
If AI's are harmful ONLY because they can crash estrogen, thus increasing osteoporosis and heart disease risk, then why is micro-dosing an AI to lower estrogen slightly, harmful as well? The doctors on the TOT Revolution podcast respond to this redundantly with "why would you want to even cause slight harm?". The belief is that estrogen only confers benefits, so blocking it is always causing harm. If this is the case, why don't they prescribe men estrogen on top of testosterone?
Before TRT my estrogen was at 13. After 3 months of TRT it is at 76. If I took a low dose AI to decrease it to say, 50, have I really caused harm? Even If I were to reduce it to say, 30, I'm still way better off than before I was on TRT, right? Or is this is not the case because my testosterone and DHT have increased? Do androgens inherently have negative effects that need to be "offset" by correlated estrogen levels? For instance, does testosterone increase LDL oxidation while estrogen decreases LDL oxidation?
Surely there is an upper limit to the benefits, just like there is surely a lower threshold before negative effects occur. It seems to me that androgen to estrogen ratios are what really matter, but I don't hear that discussed much by AI opponents.
As others on this forum have noted, the AI opponents' perspective is arguably too extreme. At the very least it isn't nuanced enough. If lowering estrogen from 76 to 50 is "only causing harm", even though my estrogen was a measly 13 before TRT, I want to know why.
If aromatase inhibitors are in fact dangerous and "harmful to biological systems", then how? Is it only through lowering estrogen via aromatase inhibition, or do the chemical compounds have other, unintended biochemical effects that cause harm?
If AI's are harmful ONLY because they can crash estrogen, thus increasing osteoporosis and heart disease risk, then why is micro-dosing an AI to lower estrogen slightly, harmful as well? The doctors on the TOT Revolution podcast respond to this redundantly with "why would you want to even cause slight harm?". The belief is that estrogen only confers benefits, so blocking it is always causing harm. If this is the case, why don't they prescribe men estrogen on top of testosterone?
Before TRT my estrogen was at 13. After 3 months of TRT it is at 76. If I took a low dose AI to decrease it to say, 50, have I really caused harm? Even If I were to reduce it to say, 30, I'm still way better off than before I was on TRT, right? Or is this is not the case because my testosterone and DHT have increased? Do androgens inherently have negative effects that need to be "offset" by correlated estrogen levels? For instance, does testosterone increase LDL oxidation while estrogen decreases LDL oxidation?
Surely there is an upper limit to the benefits, just like there is surely a lower threshold before negative effects occur. It seems to me that androgen to estrogen ratios are what really matter, but I don't hear that discussed much by AI opponents.
As others on this forum have noted, the AI opponents' perspective is arguably too extreme. At the very least it isn't nuanced enough. If lowering estrogen from 76 to 50 is "only causing harm", even though my estrogen was a measly 13 before TRT, I want to know why.
