Thread: Nolvadex vs Clomid - Open Debate

Not looking to be "productive", just looking to find which is best suited for PCT. Normally, its an accepted basis to take one drug with one goal, instead of two of the same, like taking two different PDE5's for dick issues, instead of one or the other. Theres been no hard evidence of this "synergy" when both used, yet some (including many doctors!!!) believe in it purely on speculation. But for practical PCT purposes, we stick to one drug. Nolva and Clmoid are both SERSM, but they do act very differently in the body, and this is where the synergy theory comes into play. Why do you prefer both Nohe?

-T

Originally Posted by Noheawaiian

This thread isn't very productive. Trying to find the "better" pct drug seems like an excuse to use "just" one of them in your pct. If you can't afford a great arsenal for your pct (clomid/nolva/aroma/etc) then maybe you shouldn't be running the cycle to begin with. They both have their side effects and such; clomid has been known to cause some vision abnormalities, nolva has been shown to lower igf-1; but when it comes down to it, instead of arguing about which is best for stimulating natural test production, you should really just incorporate both into your pct protocol. There should be no real excuse for only using one or the other, unless you're low on funds (in-which case you shouldn't be cycling anyway.)

Noheawaiian

A long long time ago...we used Nolva for pct and before that nothing at all for PCT.

again not saying it was the smartest way but at the end I go by how I feel as Clomid made me feel off.

I feel normal when I used Nolva for PCT...at the of the day a blood test will tell all.

Side note: I never used more than 800mg of injectable a week and that was the highest I ever went.

The idea that correlation proves causation is a logical fallacy. A study done on female rats with their ovaries removed does little to prove what will happen to a male attempting to restart Testosterone production after the administration of anabolic steroids. You are also wrong about the idea that data can not be dated. The fact is, to make across the board conclusions about what a study means you have to take into consideration the methdology used and many other elements in order to reach conclusions, especially when you are talking about a test invloving female rats with removed ovaries and concluding that the same results will happen with a male human who has been administering anabolic steroids and is looking to restore testosterone function. Thats quite a leap if you ask me. So no, I do not find your evidence convincing. Plus, you are a world class prick, so I am also not going to spend any more time debating anything with you, on this subject or any other. Clomid simply works better for me when it comes to post-cycle recovery, and I see no valid evidence here to the contrary.

Originally Posted by TwisT

Have humans evolved in the last 30 years in which our bodies react differently to the chemical Tamoxifen? What does the studys age have to do with the outcome? You clearly have no medical understanding. Yes, every year what we know medically changes, but the outcome of a controlled study does not become "wrong". Again, this is about why Tamoxifen is superior to clomid for PCT purposes, prove me wrong.

I wont reply until you come up with something educated pertaining to your point, which you still havn't.

Read this a few times, before you blow more smoke out your ass, IGF-1 and GH have nothing to do with this argument, we are talking about HPTA restoration in PCT

No need to post anything more about IGF-1, GH, or whatever else you want to divert to. Tell my why you think I'm wrong about my above post proving why Clomid is inferior to restoring HPTA in PCT.

I've always taken both clomid and nolva. Now I do inject igf-1, ghrp-2, and cjc-1295 alongside my pct. That was the greatest recovery I have ever had. Will do the same again.

Originally Posted by MDR

The idea that correlation proves causation is a logical fallacy. A study done on female rats with their ovaries removed does little to prove what will happen to a male attempting to restart Testosterone production after the administration of anabolic steroids. You are also wrong about the idea that data can not be dated. The fact is, to make across the board conclusions about what a study means you have to take into consideration the methdology used and many other elements in order to reach conclusions, especially when you are talking about a test invloving female rats with removed ovaries and concluding that the same results will happen with a male human who has been administering anabolic steroids and is looking to restore testosterone function. Thats quite a leap if you ask me. So no, I do not find your evidence convincing. Plus, you are a world class prick, so I am also not going to spend any more time debating anything with you, on this subject or any other. Clomid simply works better for me when it comes to post-cycle recovery, and I see no valid evidence here to the contrary.

You're impossible kid. I still have yet to see you prove any of your points, and you keep going with these cop-outs. You should go tell the entire industry of medical science and biological research that they should stop all research and testing because testing on rats is "quite a leap" and is so "unrelated" to human biological structure...boy youre going to have a global breakthrough with your new theoretical advances. Way to go!

Originally Posted by TwisT

Im kind of shocked that you dont understand lol. What is the point of PCT? Now when you answer that, what would you rather have, lower IGF-1 levels or a lowered pituitary sensitivity to gnrh? Especially when you can supplement IGF-1 in PCT.

Really a no-brainer.

If this is such a no-brainer why are there so many guys who use and recommend Clomid for PCT here? It is a choice that we all are entitled to make. So what you are suggesting is instead of using Clomid I should buy (run) Aromasin, Nolva, and IGF-1 and when Clomid works well with Aromasin without the added hassle and cost of adding IGF1. Not everyone wants to use these peptides, some of which have had very little longterm studies completed on their use or any studies on Human use. Clomid is not as good as nolva for antiestrogenic purposes I'll give you that but that is why we are using Aromasin with it. You are referencing William Llewellyn who recommends Tamox for 45 days, Clomid for 30, with Hcg for PCT (no AI) . The fact is you are referencing very outdated information and went as far as making these two threads stickies(this is what is shocking to me). Clomid works just as well as nolva at restoring Test levels post cycle without IGF and GH suppression. Yeah it may take a higher dose but we are comparing differnt drugs. You speak of GnRH suppression which isn't that big of a deal with clomid since it still does just as good of a job as Nolva at restoring the HPTA just requires a higher dose. The possible upregulation of the LH receptors produced by Nolvadex is caused by the antiestrogenic effects produced in the pituitary by Nolva where clomid is not as much antiestrogenic in this area. I say possible upregulation because this is based off the fact that Nolva doesn't lower LH sensitivity where Clomid does slightly most likely due to the higher dose required for Clomid and the antiestrogenic effect nolva has on the pituitary. Add in an AI, Specifically Aromasin you also get an increase IGF1 Test, LH, FSH, and lowered E2 which will make either choice work just fine for PCT. Clomid is better for restoration of the sexual reproductive organs and sperm production which is why it is used as a fertility drug. Nolvadex is not used for this purpose as a first choice. My choice is Clomid and Aromasin which is not very shocking and is the more common current choice for PCT. All in all they both will restore the HPTA for PCT just at different doses. I would rather not have decreased IGF-1 and GH during PCT, I would like an increase in all anabolic hormones if possible but it is not so we have a choice to make. They both have the positives and some negatives but Clomid is my choice. My question to you is Why make this a Sticky, when it is controversial and outdated?

----

Originally Posted by TGB1987

If this is such a no-brainer why are there so many guys who use and recommend Clomid for PCT here?

No idea, thats what I'm asking them to explain

It is a choice that we all are entitled to make.

I agree

So what you are suggesting is instead of using Clomid I should buy (run) Aromasin, Nolva, and IGF-1

Yes

and when Clomid works well with Aromasin without the added hassle and cost of adding IGF1.

never said they dont

Not everyone wants to use these peptides, some of which have had very little longterm studies completed on their use or any studies on Human use.

IGF has since the 70's(earlier most likely), but the new ones like folli havn't, you're right.

Clomid is not as good as nolva for antiestrogenic purposes I'll give you that but that is why we are using Aromasin with it. You are referencing William Llewellyn who recommends Tamox for 45 days, Clomid for 30, with Hcg for PCT (no AI) .

I quoted him for his info on nolva, yeah I agree his dosing and some of his theories are out dated, but most of his data is spot on. even his info on anabolics is quite off in todays standards, his old "cycles" are quite off today. You're 100% right.

The fact is you are referencing very outdated information and went as far as making these two threads stickies(this is what is shocking to me).

Ill find some time soon to find some recent studies for you guys, understandable

Clomid works just as well as nolva at restoring Test levels post cycle without IGF and GH suppression.

Thats what this whole debate is about

Yeah it may take a higher dose but we are comparing differnt drugs. You speak of GnRH suppression which isn't that big of a deal with clomid since it still does just as good of a job as Nolva at restoring the HPTA just requires a higher dose.

GnRH suppression is a HUGE deal in regards to HPTA restoration...why suppress when the goal is the oposite

The possible upregulation of the LH receptors produced by Nolvadex is caused by the antiestrogenic effects produced in the pituitary by Nolva where clomid is not as much antiestrogenic in this area.

Not at all, its actually estrogenic in fact...

I say possible upregulation because this is based off the fact that Nolva doesn't lower LH sensitivity where Clomid does slightly most likely due to the higher dose required for Clomid and the antiestrogenic effect nolva has on the pituitary. Add in an AI, Specifically Aromasin you also get an increase IGF1 Test, LH, FSH, and lowered E2 which will make either choice work just fine for PCT.

I agree, both are great for PCT, I have always said that. I'm just showing why I believe nolvadex is the superior drug for PCT purposes. I never said clomid is bad, it is a VERY effective drug for PCT

Clomid is better for restoration of the sexual reproductive organs and sperm production

Based on what study, show me proooof

which is why it is used as a fertility drug. Nolvadex is not used for this purpose as a first choice. My choice is Clomid and Aromasin which is not very shocking and is the more common current choice for PCT. All in all they both will restore the HPTA for PCT just at different doses. I would rather not have decreased IGF-1 and GH during PCT, I would like an increase in all anabolic hormones if possible

wouldnt we all

but it is not so we have a choice to make. They both have the positives and some negatives but Clomid is my choice. My question to you is Why make this a Sticky, when it is controversial and outdated?

No longer a sticky, thats why it is a debate now, check the title

Originally Posted by TGB1987

If this is such a no-brainer why are there so many guys who use and recommend Clomid for PCT here? It is a choice that we all are entitled to make. So what you are suggesting is instead of using Clomid I should buy (run) Aromasin, Nolva, and IGF-1 and when Clomid works well with Aromasin without the added hassle and cost of adding IGF1. Not everyone wants to use these peptides, some of which have had very little longterm studies completed on their use or any studies on Human use. Clomid is not as good as nolva for antiestrogenic purposes I'll give you that but that is why we are using Aromasin with it. You are referencing William Llewellyn who recommends Tamox for 45 days, Clomid for 30, with Hcg for PCT (no AI) . Also you mentioned Anthony Roberts which is funny to me because you wrote an article in the past bashing his character and his status as a self proclaimed Steroid Guru. The fact is you are referencing very outdated information and went as far as making these two threads stickies(this is what is shocking to me). Clomid works just as well as nolva at restoring Test levels post cycle without IGF and GH suppression. Yeah it may take a higher dose but we are comparing differnt drugs. You speak of GnRH suppression which isn't that big of a deal with clomid since it still does just as good of a job as Nolva at restoring the HPTA just requires a higher dose. The possible upregulation of the LH receptors produced by Nolvadex is caused by the antiestrogenic effects produced in the pituitary by Nolva where clomid is not as much antiestrogenic in this area. I say possible upregulation because this is based off the fact that Nolva doesn't lower LH sensitivity where Clomid does slightly most likely due to the higher dose required for Clomid and the antiestrogenic effect nolva has on the pituitary. Add in an AI, Specifically Aromasin you also get an increase IGF1 Test, LH, FSH, and lowered E2 which will make either choice work just fine for PCT. Clomid is better for restoration of the sexual reproductive organs and sperm production which is why it is used as a fertility drug. Nolvadex is not used for this purpose as a first choice. My choice is Clomid and Aromasin which is not very shocking and is the more common current choice for PCT. All in all they both will restore the HPTA for PCT just at different doses. I would rather not have decreased IGF-1 and GH during PCT, I would like an increase in all anabolic hormones if possible but it is not so we have a choice to make. They both have the positives and some negatives but Clomid is my choice. My question to you is Why make this a Sticky, when it is controversial and outdated?

Very nicely stated. At the very least the opinion in favor of Nolva over Clomid is a matter of some real controversy and is decidedly outdated. I'm old enough to remember when Nolva was the popular choice (I'm almost 45), but times change. A lot of people find it easier and more effective to just use Clomid and Aromasin. I know a lot of serious lifters having competed in powerlifting for over 10 years at a national level, and Clomid and Aromasin is absolutely the preferred choice these days, at least among the lifters I know. I've been training for going on 30 years now, and it is interesting to see how these things evolve and change over time. Glad to see that this is no longer a sticky.

Remember when converse were cool, then they weren't and now some really sexy girls are starting to wear them? Things come back bro, they come back. Ha, I will push for nolva to the end!

Originally Posted by MDR

Very nicely stated. At the very least the opinion in favor of Nolva over Clomid is a matter of some real controversy and is decidedly outdated. I'm old enough to remember when Nolva was the popular choice (I'm almost 45), but times change. A lot of people find it easier and more effective to just use Clomid and Aromasin. I know a lot of serious lifters having competed in powerlifting for over 10 years at a national level, and Clomid and Aromasin is absolutely the preferred choice these days, at least among the lifters I know. I've been training for going on 30 years now, and it is interesting to see how these things evolve and change over time. Glad to see that this is no longer a sticky.

I appreciate the answers and I am always open to learn. This thread is a good thread for debate but was a terrible idea for a sticky.

Show me where Tamox results in better recovery than Clomid? This suppression of the GnRH you keep refering to please post a study on this. Nolva seems to increase LH responsiveness to GnRH but where is the proof? From what I have seen it just doesn't lower the responsiveness. I think you are blowing this GnRH issue way out of proportion as to actual proof as to what the true results are. Clomid only lowers LH resposiveness to GnRH a very small amount not enough to cause major concern. Where it is proven that Nolva does lower IGF-1 and GH by about 18%. Another thing about suppression, Hcg can be very suppressive but we don't shy away from using it as a kickstart for PCT or maintaince during on cycle. As for nolva being estrogenic, It is both. It displays very potent estrogenic activity in the liver but also antiestrogenic activity in the pituitary and other brain tissues. So I was not wrong saying Nolva is antiestrogenic in the pituitary. Clomid on the other hand is estrogenic in the liver, pituitary, and possibly other brain tissues. Here is a clip from Bill Roberts made this year.

The main pharmacological difference between Clomid and Nolvadex is that Clomid is estrogenic in the pituitary and perhaps other brain tissues where Nolvadex is antiestrogenic.

Having only antiestrogenic activity perhaps may not give optimum effect, as estrogen can actually result in better responsiveness to LHRH, but having only the estrogenic activity of full dose Clomid can indeed be unsuitable for some. Cutting that in half, and then adding half-antiestrogenic activity, may markedly reduce or eliminate your problems.

Read more from the MESO-Rx Steroid Forum at: 2-on/4-off cycles...BR, Dr Scally - Page 7



Clomid is better for restoration of the sexual reproductive organs and sperm production here is the study on Clomid

Urol J. 2010 Summer;7(3):188-93.
Safety and efficacy of clomiphene citrate and L-carnitine in idiopathic male infertility: a comparative study.

Moradi M, Moradi A, Alemi M, Ahmadnia H, Abdi H, Ahmadi A, Bazargan-Hejazi S.
Source

Fertility-Infertility Research Center, Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Imam Reza Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran. drmrmoradi@yahoo.com

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To compare the effects of L-carnitine with clomiphene citrate in idiopathic infertile men.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Fifty-two men with idiopathic infertility were recruited in this randomized controlled trial. They were randomly assigned into 2 treatment groups, group 1 (n = 20) and group 2 (n = 32), who received L-carnitine 25 mg/day and clomiphene citrate 2 gr/day, respectively, for a period of 3 months.
RESULTS:

Comparing the effect of L-carnitine and clomiphene on sperm parameters before and after the treatment, both medications had influence on sperm count and motility (P = .01). L-carnitine significantly increased the semen volume (P = .001), while clomiphene citrate was significantly associated with the motility percentage and normal morphology (P = .008).
CONCLUSION:

It seems that the use of clomiphene citrate and L-carnitine, either individually or in combination, as the first step of idiopathic male infertility treatment is reasonable, safe, and effective.





Twist please show me a study where Nolvadex is used for male reproductive health or sperm production. Or even male infertility. I posted one proving Clomid works for stimulating the male reproductive system and if there are none for Nolvadex I think that means Clomid is better for reproductive health restoration IMO.


I tried to answer your questions to my comments the best I could and think I answered them all with enough backing to prove my statements. Again this issue can not be proven either way to be better than the other and once the differences are taken into consideration the user must choose.

I will get you the studies you request very soon, (check the first page, I already posted one on GnRH I think)

I will read into your post more in the morning, but did you know Dr. Scally actually advocated both Nolva and Clomid? His reasoning has always been theory though, I've read a lot of his stuff.

Anyways, I'll get back to you! Thanks for the good debate!

PS- your study is irrelevant, Yes Clomid is good, but your study doesn't do a comparison with tamoxifen so you cant say that it proves anything is "better" then anything at anything Your study is about l-carn in conjunction with clomiphine.

To be honest, I dont think you will find the study I am asking for, because I am not sure a study like that has been done in men comparing post-administration sexual function including sperm count and total HPTA hormone levels ect. of both nolvadex and clomid. One would be VERY interesting to see. I wonder what dose they would use to compare to nolva's 20mg baseline? 100mg? 150? Hm

-T

Originally Posted by TGB1987

I appreciate the answers and I am always open to learn. This thread is a good thread for debate but was a terrible idea for a sticky.

Show me where Tamox results in better recovery than Clomid? This suppression of the GnRH you keep refering to please post a study on this. Nolva seems to increase LH responsiveness to GnRH but where is the proof? From what I have seen it just doesn't lower the responsiveness. I think you are blowing this GnRH issue way out of proportion as to actual proof as to what the true results are. Clomid only lowers LH resposiveness to GnRH a very small amount not enough to cause major concern. Where it is proven that Nolva does lower IGF-1 and GH by about 18%. Another thing about suppression, Hcg can be very suppressive but we don't shy away from using it as a kickstart for PCT or maintaince during on cycle. As for nolva being estrogenic, It is both. It displays very potent estrogenic activity in the liver but also antiestrogenic activity in the pituitary and other brain tissues. So I was not wrong saying Nolva is antiestrogenic in the pituitary. Clomid on the other hand is estrogenic in the liver, pituitary, and possibly other brain tissues. Here is a clip from Bill Roberts made this year.

The main pharmacological difference between Clomid and Nolvadex is that Clomid is estrogenic in the pituitary and perhaps other brain tissues where Nolvadex is antiestrogenic.

Having only antiestrogenic activity perhaps may not give optimum effect, as estrogen can actually result in better responsiveness to LHRH, but having only the estrogenic activity of full dose Clomid can indeed be unsuitable for some. Cutting that in half, and then adding half-antiestrogenic activity, may markedly reduce or eliminate your problems.

Read more from the MESO-Rx Steroid Forum at: 2-on/4-off cycles...BR, Dr Scally - Page 7



Clomid is better for restoration of the sexual reproductive organs and sperm production here is the study on Clomid

Urol J. 2010 Summer;7(3):188-93.
Safety and efficacy of clomiphene citrate and L-carnitine in idiopathic male infertility: a comparative study.

Moradi M, Moradi A, Alemi M, Ahmadnia H, Abdi H, Ahmadi A, Bazargan-Hejazi S.
Source

Fertility-Infertility Research Center, Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Imam Reza Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran. drmrmoradi@yahoo.com

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To compare the effects of L-carnitine with clomiphene citrate in idiopathic infertile men.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Fifty-two men with idiopathic infertility were recruited in this randomized controlled trial. They were randomly assigned into 2 treatment groups, group 1 (n = 20) and group 2 (n = 32), who received L-carnitine 25 mg/day and clomiphene citrate 2 gr/day, respectively, for a period of 3 months.
RESULTS:

Comparing the effect of L-carnitine and clomiphene on sperm parameters before and after the treatment, both medications had influence on sperm count and motility (P = .01). L-carnitine significantly increased the semen volume (P = .001), while clomiphene citrate was significantly associated with the motility percentage and normal morphology (P = .008).
CONCLUSION:

It seems that the use of clomiphene citrate and L-carnitine, either individually or in combination, as the first step of idiopathic male infertility treatment is reasonable, safe, and effective.





Twist please show me a study where Nolvadex is used for male reproductive health or sperm production. Or even male infertility. I posted one proving Clomid works for stimulating the male reproductive system and if there are none for Nolvadex I think that means Clomid is better for reproductive health restoration IMO.


I tried to answer your questions to my comments the best I could and think I answered them all with enough backing to prove my statements. Again this issue can not be proven either way to be better than the other and once the differences are taken into consideration the user must choose.

Originally Posted by TwisT

I will get you the studies you request very soon, (check the first page, I already posted one on GnRH I think)

I will read into your post more in the morning, but did you know Dr. Scally actually advocated both Nolva and Clomid? His reasoning has always been theory though, I've read a lot of his stuff.

Anyways, I'll get back to you! Thanks for the good debate!

PS- your study is irrelevant, Yes Clomid is good, but your study doesn't do a comparison with tamoxifen so you cant say that it proves anything is "better" then anything at anything Your study is about l-carn in conjunction with clomiphine.

To be honest, I dont think you will find the study I am asking for, because I am not sure a study like that has been done in men comparing post-administration sexual function including sperm count and total HPTA hormone levels ect. of both nolvadex and clomid. One would be VERY interesting to see. I wonder what dose they would use to compare to nolva's 20mg baseline? 100mg? 150? Hm

-T

Yes There are no studies on Nolva for Sperm count, Sexual function but there are some on Clomid the one I posted was on both l-carn and Clomid. It does say they both are effective individually not just together in the conclusion section .When you get some time you may want to read it more throughly. Like I said being there is no evidence or studies on Nolva helping stimulate sexual health or sperm production. If there was a use for Nolva here I believe they would be using it in place of Clomid due to lesser side effects with Nolva. This is why I said I believe Clomid is better than Nolva for Reproductive health. I am looking forward to more studies from you because there is a lot to learn and many studies out there. Always more to learn especially in the world of Anabolics. I would really like to see some more information on the various peptides coming out. In fact I think a great sticky would be a detailed description of the new peptides available. Many guys don't know a whole lot about these peptides myself included. I am just in the learning phase of the many peptides. I believe they have tremendous potential if they can be used safely. I think you and Brundel would be the guys to deliver some much needed information on the various peptides. These things take a lot of time though. Debates like this make you really think things through. The main issue I would like to see is the GnRH information on Clomid and Nolva because this is the turing point that can swing the vote either way. Clomid can produce sides like vision disturbances, acne, and mood issues. So the reason some guys recommend both is due to this being a problem for some and when a milder dose(50-100mgs) of Clomid is combined with 20mgs of Nolva the results would be the best of both worlds with little side effects. Many also say that 20mgs is all the higher you need to go with Nolva because more is not going to produce more results. Similar to the Type I AI Aromasin and how 25mgs produces the practically the same results as 50mgs ed. So combining may be a good thing with some compounds. I am calling it a night myself have to hit the gym at 6 am tomorrow. Will be back tomorrow to read any study you may post.

Originally Posted by TGB1987

Yes There are no studies on Nolva for Sperm count, Sexual function

More research, less guessing You're getting on the right track brother!!

Andrologia. 2011 Jun 8. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0272.2011.01163.x. [Epub ahead of print]
Beneficial effect of tamoxifen on sperm recovery in infertile men with nonobstructive azoospermia.
Moein MR, Tabibnejad N, Ghasemzadeh J.
Source
Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.
Abstract
About 10% of infertile men have azoospermia. After the introduction of microinjection [intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)], many of these men obtain the chance to be a father. But still in many cases of nonobstructive azoospermia, we are not able to find spermatozoa for ICSI. Medications may be able to increase the chance of finding spermatozoa in testis samples. So in this study, we evaluated the effect of tamoxifen citrate on the results of sperm recovery from testis tissue in infertile men with nonobstructive azoospermia. Thirty-two azoospermic infertile men with proved nonobstructive azoospermia were selected. Tamoxifen was administered for 3 months. Semen samples and in the cases of azoospermia second testis biopsy were taken, and the results were compared with the first samples. According to first testis samples, 13 patients had hypospermatogenesis, 9 had maturation arrest and 10 patients sertoli cell syndrome. After tamoxifen treatment, six patients showed spermatozoa in their ejaculates. From other patients all in hypospermatogenesis group, 75% in maturation arrest group and 20% in sertoli cell group showed spermatozoa in their second testis samples. Our study showed that treatment of patients with nonobstructive azoospermia with anti-oestrogenic drugs like tamoxifen can improve the results of sperm recovery in testis samples and also increase the chance of pregnancy by microinjection.

© 2011 Blackwell Verlag GmbH.

Not bad. It would be nice to find one comparing Clomid and nolvadex on this. Nolvadex is not used for this purpose very often and it is hard to find studies on it. Where did you pull this one from?

nice article... I noticed that on Clomind my testicles get fuller...

I'm with TwisT on the IGF statement. I've use IGF during PCT once after a pretty harsh cycle and recovery was great. As for the Clomid/Nolva debate, I use them both on most cycles. If I feel like prolactin may be an issue I'll drop the Nolva and run with just clomid.

Where does Torem fit into this picture?

Better than both? Perhaps only clearly better than Nolva.

The New Debate Would Be:
Torem VS Clomid

This has to be the best debate on the subject I have read in all the forums I am registerd with. Keep up the good work fellas.

Originally Posted by xJolt

Where does Torem fit into this picture?

Better than both? Perhaps only clearly better than Nolva.

The New Debate Would Be:
Torem VS Clomid

I would like to know this too.

Apologies for bringing an old thread back to life but I came across it and found it extremely interesting, in fact it is the reason I registered on the site. I cam across a recent study which I think might be important to the debate. Tamoxifen is an estrogen antagonist on gonadotropi... [Endocrine. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI

Now I am fairly new to this and do not have a preference either way at moment, hence why i found the thread so interesting, but according to this study "

Tamoxifen also antagonized the facilitating effects of estradiol on basal and CRH-induced ACTH and cortisol secretion"

which surely must be negative? In my personal situation I am looking for something that will boost LH and also fix blunted hpa axis, i.e increase cortisol. So if i understand this correctly then tamoxifen would not be for me as it could reduce cortisol output.

Actually, I might be reading this the wrong way. Could any you guys who know your stuff explain that study to me. Does Tamoxifen increase acth and cortisol secretion or does it reduce it? Also does it show that tamoxifen does not increase LH secretion? Very confused

I think the main points are:

1)

Both doses of tamoxifen effectively antagonized the negative feedback efficacy of estradiol on LH secretion. In contrast, neither the low- or high-dose tamoxifen alone had any effect on LH secretion, as concentrations during tamoxifen treatments were indistinguishable from those during placeb

2) Tamoxifen also antagonized the facilitating effects of estradiol on basal and CRH-induced ACTH and cortisol secretion. However, this antagonism produced basal and CRH-stimulated cortisol and ACTH concentrations that were lower than placebo-treated females. Interestingly, tamoxifen in the absence of estradiol produced a similar diminution in ACTH and cortisol response.

Please ignore post above:

Actually, I might be reading this the wrong way. Could any you guys who know your stuff explain that study to me. Does Tamoxifen increase acth and cortisol secretion or does it reduce it? Also does it show that tamoxifen does not increase LH secretion? Very confused

I think the main points are:

1)

Both doses of tamoxifen effectively antagonized the negative feedback efficacy of estradiol on LH secretion.
2)In contrast,neither the low- or high-dose tamoxifen alone had any effect on LH secretion, as concentrations during tamoxifen treatments were indistinguishable from those during placebo

3) Tamoxifen also antagonized the facilitating effects of estradiol on basal and CRH-induced ACTH and cortisol secretion.

4) However, this antagonism produced basal and CRH-stimulated cortisol and ACTH concentrations that were lower than placebo-treated females.

5) Interestingly, tamoxifen in the absence of estradiol produced a similar diminution in ACTH and cortisol response.

So if I understand this correct, tamoxifen alone did not increase LH secretion and it lowered ACTH and cortisol secretion?