ExcelMale
Menu
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Videos
Lab Tests
Doctor Finder
Buy Books
About Us
Men’s Health Coaching
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Thyroid, Pregnenolone, Progesterone, DHEA, etc
Thyroid, DHEA, Pregnenolone, Progesterone, etc
When is Prolactin too high and what are benefits of lowering it
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Gman86" data-source="post: 261099" data-attributes="member: 15043"><p>A great example of what I’m referring to when I say that most studies are flawed, in some form or fashion. It’s not a conspiracy theory or anything. If u truly look at most studies, u can usually always find flaws in them somewhere. The issue then becomes how drastically are the results of the study tainted because of these flaws.</p><p></p><p>And then u still have the issue of corruption, which is unfortunately extremely common as well. But just like with government, I don’t blame individual politicians. I blame the corrupt political system that’s been in place way before any of the current politicians got into office. It’s the same with studies, imo. I blame the milieu that studies have to work within. There’s too much incentive to skew results, in order to improve one’s position within the ranks of their occupation, make a school or other facility look good, increase funding, provide results that allow something to be approved to be sold, etc. There’s just too much incentive for corruption. For the people running the studies, as well as the people overseeing studies.</p><p></p><p>But I digress lol. Studies obv have their place, but for me to trust and consider the results of a study valid, I really have to go through it with a fine tooth comb, and make sure it’s a completely altruistic study, and there were no flaws in the study that I can see. I just have found it much more efficacious to observe the real world results/ experiences that people are having</p><p></p><p>A good example, imo, is all the studies that show negative issues from nandrolone monotherapy at low dosages. If testosterone didn’t convert to E2 at the rate that it does, it would be neurotoxic. E2 is what prevents test from being neurotoxic. So slight differences can make a huge impact on how we view a compound, and the effects it can potentially have. Most guys that use nandrolone for hrt purposes are taking it while having decent E2 levels. Until they do studies using nandrolone while making sure the man’s E2 is in a healthy range, I put very little weight in nandrolone monotherapy studies, at low dosages, in regards to its supposed negative effects on the heart, compared to testosterone.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Gman86, post: 261099, member: 15043"] A great example of what I’m referring to when I say that most studies are flawed, in some form or fashion. It’s not a conspiracy theory or anything. If u truly look at most studies, u can usually always find flaws in them somewhere. The issue then becomes how drastically are the results of the study tainted because of these flaws. And then u still have the issue of corruption, which is unfortunately extremely common as well. But just like with government, I don’t blame individual politicians. I blame the corrupt political system that’s been in place way before any of the current politicians got into office. It’s the same with studies, imo. I blame the milieu that studies have to work within. There’s too much incentive to skew results, in order to improve one’s position within the ranks of their occupation, make a school or other facility look good, increase funding, provide results that allow something to be approved to be sold, etc. There’s just too much incentive for corruption. For the people running the studies, as well as the people overseeing studies. But I digress lol. Studies obv have their place, but for me to trust and consider the results of a study valid, I really have to go through it with a fine tooth comb, and make sure it’s a completely altruistic study, and there were no flaws in the study that I can see. I just have found it much more efficacious to observe the real world results/ experiences that people are having A good example, imo, is all the studies that show negative issues from nandrolone monotherapy at low dosages. If testosterone didn’t convert to E2 at the rate that it does, it would be neurotoxic. E2 is what prevents test from being neurotoxic. So slight differences can make a huge impact on how we view a compound, and the effects it can potentially have. Most guys that use nandrolone for hrt purposes are taking it while having decent E2 levels. Until they do studies using nandrolone while making sure the man’s E2 is in a healthy range, I put very little weight in nandrolone monotherapy studies, at low dosages, in regards to its supposed negative effects on the heart, compared to testosterone. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Share this page
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Sponsors
Forums
Thyroid, Pregnenolone, Progesterone, DHEA, etc
Thyroid, DHEA, Pregnenolone, Progesterone, etc
When is Prolactin too high and what are benefits of lowering it
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top