Thread: AI Impact - Blood Tests

I've been thinking how we often share our pre/on cycle bloods when talking about test levels. This is usually discussed in terms of x amount of test equals x amount of T raised in bloods.

What I have yet to see is the same type of feedback when it comes to AIs impact to Estro on blood tests. The reason why this interest me is because my E registered around 12 on my pre-cycle bloods. What I would like to collect, or have someone point me to, are the result of AI protocols and their impact shown via actual blood tests.

Now, before you jump in and say "that's impossible to tell you x will give you x amount of reduction," and, "everyone is different," I get it. This should be no different than the generalized statements around test dosing that everyone expects as a result of taking certain amounts.

Therefore, I am curious to see some real blood work examples, or just the numbers before and after, with the dose/frequency you were taking to keep it in check. Again, I am not looking for a magical formula to tell me how much to take, I just want some examples backed up by numbers.

I think this would be super helpful to people new to using AIs.

- SB

Then you’re not really paying attention IMO. Most everyone posting bloodwork has the E included. Most people posting bloodwork are also stating their cycles and or what they’re using... so I’m not sure what it is you’re driving at here brother... you want a specific test, with specific dosages? Or to only highlight the E and not talk about the T?

Maybe you’re not following the right people? I see this all the time. So it’s confusing to me how I am and you are not.

And your E is low at 12, FYI

Thanks, Cowboy. To be more specific what I see most often is blood focused on Test, which is what you are stating as well. I would like to see blood work at a stable/current test level and then the result the anti-e had on the E level.

Your reference, if I am reading it correctly, is pointing out that E levels are within a good range due to the results of a users protocol. Yes, that is true, but we have no idea what exactly the test is doing to the E level because everyone is different. Therefore the true impact of the anti-e is a hypothetical number (from what I have seen).

Hope that makes sense. Help a brother out and point me to some posts I can review. Maybe I'll look for some "help my E is too high" posts.

Originally Posted by Cowboymike

Then you’re not really paying attention IMO. Most everyone posting bloodwork has the E included. Most people posting bloodwork are also stating their cycles and or what they’re using... so I’m not sure what it is you’re driving at here brother... you want a specific test, with specific dosages? Or to only highlight the E and not talk about the T?

Maybe you’re not following the right people? I see this all the time. So it’s confusing to me how I am and you are not.

Yep. Fully aware that this is at the low end of the range. Here was the range for my particular lab - 7.6-42.6 pg/mL

Thanks again for the input.

Originally Posted by Cowboymike

And your E is low at 12, FYI

Originally Posted by SunBorne

Thanks, Cowboy. To be more specific what I see most often is blood focused on Test, which is what you are stating as well. I would like to see blood work at a stable/current test level and then the result the anti-e had on the E level.

Your reference, if I am reading it correctly, is pointing out that E levels are within a good range due to the results of a users protocol. Yes, that is true, but we have no idea what exactly the test is doing to the E level because everyone is different. Therefore the true impact of the anti-e is a hypothetical number (from what I have seen).

Hope that makes sense. Help a brother out and point me to some posts I can review. Maybe I'll look for some "help my E is too high" posts.

Ah! Ok I get what you’re saying now. Sorry man, it appears my reading and comprehension skills need a bit of brushing up on...

Originally Posted by GearHeaded

I posted this elsewhere but may have some relevance here as well. I don't think E levels while on cycle are really all that important. and trying to keep it in range is futile, and possibly hindering your gains.

keeping your estrogen in the normal optimal range while OFF cycle is completely reasonable. but when on cycle the normal range of estrogen does not apply to us, it applies only to ''normal'' people, i.e., guys that produce natural test that puts them in a range of 250-900 ng/dl. When we are enhanced this 'normal' range does not apply to us because our test levels may be 5000-20,000 ng/dl . as test levels go up , estrogen is supposed to go up, thats how the body works.. when on cycle its more about balancing the RATIO of test to estrogen thats important, not trying to stay in the low normal range (you'll feel like shit trying to do that).. again we can simply run a SERM to prevent gyno and let our blood levels of estrogen elevate as test levels rise, if they get too too high, then sure we can add in an AI, but again we shouldn't attempt to stay low normal while on cycle (for contest prep this is a whole different thing).

also Estrogen is key for building muscle.. it works much like human growth hormone does and accelerates sattelite cell proliferation in the muscle, also estrogen in the presence of high levels of androgens will dramatically increase your IGF levels and thus build much more muscle then one could with low estrogen. theres a reason that when cattle are injected with Tren they are injected with a shit ton of estrogen at the same time (high estrogen plus high androgen = a ton of growth).

imo, all you guys running a bunch of AI's with every cycle you ever do are much smaller then you could of been had you not over done the AI usage. and again if you were worried about gyno you could of just ran a low dose SERM

You seriously put it in a new perspective for me... I’ve always thought it was fragile and important to stay low-mid range... brother I appreciate the new angle. Even if I slap myself in the face with a lot of wasted time and money wired with the wrong understanding... I’ve definitely short changed myself.. never again. To you I thank!

Originally Posted by Cowboymike

You seriously put it in a new perspective for me... I’ve always thought it was fragile and important to stay low-mid range... brother I appreciate the new angle. Even if I slap myself in the face with a lot of wasted time and money wired with the wrong understanding... I’ve definitely short changed myself.. never again. To you I thank!

sure thing brother . my 'angle' is not the norm on the Internet forums but is common in the real world of bodybuilding trenches.

21827233_132524750718803_2099566922671587328_n.jpg

pro bodybuilder Jordan Peters. He is another guy that advocates NOT using an AI for your cycles and only using a SERM to prevent gyno. advocating estrogen is needed for growth. he is over 300 pounds ripped, so it definitely has been working for him

Originally Posted by GearHeaded

sure thing brother . my 'angle' is not the norm on the Internet forums but is common in the real world of bodybuilding trenches.

21827233_132524750718803_2099566922671587328_n.jpg

pro bodybuilder Jordan Peters. He is another guy that advocates NOT using an AI for your cycles and only using a SERM to prevent gyno. advocating estrogen is needed for growth. he is over 300 pounds ripped, so it definitely has been working for him

so in your opinion (which imho, is worth its weight in gold), what is a good ratio to aim for?

test/estrogen
5:1
7:1
etc?