Are Anti-E's really Neccesary?

[Massive G]

I question the "experts" all the time. Having been on the boards for 8 years (starting off at Miscfitnessweights and the ol Elite then to bolex, UG, Etc..now there are soo many it's hard to keep up!)-the advice given on most boards stands out.
A lot of people are very young and in this board bizness you can hide behind a computer post and be well respected..but for the most part these guys are of two types..paupers or parrots.
The paupers will follow and agree with anyone to fit in where as the parrots will surf various boards and copy and paste information as their own.
IF I do I always give credit to the site or author.

Now where is this leading..well..one thing that always bothered me is the "experts" laying out exotic AAS cycles loaded with anti-E's from day one.
Basically they have no idea if they are prone to gyno and never will be as they are on them from DAY one.
How do you know if you are succesptible to gyno if you are on arimidex, femara, nolvadex etc?
Itchy or sensitibve nips aren't gyno and most people get scared and pop the anti-e's.

Now the advice I give isn't for those who get lumps and are prone to gyno but you have to find out some time.

I feel the aromatization of AAS stimulates a lot more growth in the form of the estro than to block it alone. A little fat and a little bloat are gonna go a long way in maximizing your gains.
Again each individual is different and I have gotten feedback from those that let the anti-e's stay on the shelf for the contest and they typically report more overall mass gains.
Studies in cows I have read with the synovex have a greater net effect on weight gain and of course higher slaughter weight and better feed conversion-more mass with less food.
One of the higlights is a gain in intramuscular fat-of which I believe is promoted somewhat by insulin.

Not saying this is right or wrong but one of the many things that are traditional mythical in bb'ing and may or may not be true.

I am not encouraging anyone to do this and will write more later as this is just MG pondering and posting feedback on experience!
PEACE

[Prot]

I was banned from Elite for suggesting that anti Es are not at all necessary if usinmg 750mg or less a week...unless you are prone to gyno. They may not even be necessary at higher dosages of some drugs that do not aromatize but gyno was unknown until the 80's when dosages exceeded a gram a week.

The fact is that selling anti-E's is more profitable and safer than selling steroids and many site sponsors will not tolerate saying anything else on "their" boards. I personally will not take ANY because they all effect my libido and I think they are unhealthy.

[anabolic2k]

personly i like to leave any anti E`s till 15 days into my course to allow estrogen to run rampant and increase IGF-1 production.
As i only do 4 week courses i then start anti E`s for the last 2 weeks (ari & clomid) and continue them for a further 2 weeks!
I feel the reason while so many people now take antiE`s is to cut the water bloat from the gear and helping keep blood pressure under control (always a good idea)

Just my 2 cents worth anyway!

[ctgblue]

I take 10mg nolva for the reason above, I am prone to high BP and the nolva helps to keep it under control when on high test doses
When I run a lower dose cycle, I won't use any until about the 4th, 5th, or 6th week
I recommend against starting it with the cycle for most B&B cycles as you just don't need it usually

[BeeJ]

I don't see a problem with people advising from day one on a message board or in an article. They are just covering all their bases, and being precautionary to make sure those prone to gyno aren't going to get it. Being general in this regard is fine, but if someone states that it is absolutely necessary for everyone (which I have never really read) from week-1 of the cycle, then I think that is ludacris. I have a friend who has been on for nearly a year straight (10 months) with no form of anti-E's what so ever and using high dosages of androgens without any problems (knock on wood).

I've done cycles with and without anti-E's, and just felt better with them then without. This may have all been psychological, but I can get extremely paranoid about things in general, let alone when I'm using androgens.

In terms of gains, I didn't notice any greater affect on muscle mass, but then again, I wasn't actually going with anything other than measurements, weight, and appearance (from looking in the mirror). Somebody would need to get a DEXA scan done pre, mid, and post cycle with and without E's while keeping all other variables the same to truly be able to state they gained more mass without E's.

Good post G, and I would like to hear more about what you have experienced or others that you know.