For anyone interested in the AI/No AI debate:
Saturday, November 21st, 2020 at 11am EST
Def gonna be watching this one!
Itâs on now. Civil, so far
1 Like
Stayed civil the whole time. Very impressed
Watched it.
Danny need to be able to provide studies where they dont use AI dosages of 7mg of week (or similar) to convince anybody with an analytical mind.
Also comes off too biased and desperate to prove his point.
The argument of: âLots is bad, so a little bit is a little bit badâ is not legitimate, as too much water will kill you, reasonable amount of absolutely needed.
If the doc had been, how do I say it, more âaggressiveâ he would have crushed Danny in this debate but it seemed like he was a nice one and didnt want them to end up on bad terms.
Again: This is not a question about 0mg of AI vs 7mg (which is a redicilous dosage for any guy on TRT), Its a question about: 0mg of AI vs 0.5 or 0.25 a week.
With that said: Danny repeated âNot a single one!â, ânot a single study!â, ânot a single personâ numerous times, again: makes him come off as desperate.
Work on those, and try to place yourself in the mind of the person u are debating, and u will win more people over.
2 Likes
But thatâs the thing. There isnât a single study out there that demonstrates this. How can I word that fact without sounding âdesperateâ as youâre saying. There are none. What am I supposed to do about that? I have to bring it up, donât I? Every study I have shows benefits. We see it in practice. In ever study that it is reduced, you lose those benefits. I had stacks of studies sitting on my desk and I knew I wouldnât be able to go through them. When I asked him to provide just one study that showed a benefit he didnât have one. Youâd think that this would be the type of study he would have brought to the debate. The problem is: no such studies exist.
The toxicity studies had to do with women and they use higher dosages so I agreed to remove them from the discussion. ALL of the studies I had regarding estradiol were specifically for MEN. All of them showed benefits by raising estradiol. None showed benefits when lowering estradiol.
If youâd like, find a study where they gave an AI to men on TRT and it improved their health, regardless of dose, and post it.
Find a study where they lowered estradiol (regardless of the method) and it improved health.
Youâre giving me advice as to how I could have better done the debate. Answer the two questions above by providing evidence to those. There arenât any. Thatâs why I said, as you stated, âNot a single one!â, ânot a single study!â, ânot a single personâ because thatâs what the studies showed.
Also feel free to provide evidence to the benefit of taking even just 0.25mg a week of arimidex.
If you drive e2 to <5pg/mL, youâre going to lose benefits. The studies show that, but I donât think thatâs the real argument.
Is a little bit better than none at all, or vice versa? Hard to use studies to back that up, but real world experience can help
That is NOT what the studies are showing. We are not talking about crashing estradiol levels which brings obvious harm that all of us have encountered. The more we raise estradiol the more the health benefits improve. Every study shows the exact same thing. There are no studies that show health benefits by lowering estradiol by even the tiniest degree. If you believe there are, please provide just one.
Real world experience meaning blaming issues on estradiol instead of the things that are actually causing the issue? Then youâre making an assumption that is in direct contradiction with science.
Did you read the study Rouzier attached to that email you posted? Highest e2 in the non-AI group was 35pg/mL. Highest e2 in the AI group was <5pg/mL. It doesnât take a whole study to know which group of guys is going to feel good and which arenât.
I had about 200 papers on my desk during that livestream. So that one had extremely low levels, all good. In the other ones the more they raised E2 the more they improved. Neal gives tons of guys estradiol, has total T close around the 1500 mark for most patients and estradiol at least 100. Physicians around the world flock to him for a reason. He is, literally, the godfather of HRT.
1 Like
Danny cherry picks his studies and discards the ones that he doesnât like even when they refute his tired argument that the studies are all done on old fat guys with low T. For example this study controlled for T but still he dismisses it because it doesnât line up with his guruâs views. Itâs really much like a Jim Jones kool-aid situation.
1 Like
Now granted Danny is a self-appointed expert himself and most of the people who are happily controlling estrogen have never even heard of the guy so itâs important to keep that in mind.
You think this dude from another board ever heard of Danny Bossa? LOL
Please send me the link to this study. I had over 100 studies on my desk during that livestream. Thatâs hardly cherry picking.
Thatâs wonderful for him. The confirmation bias is so strong he dismisses all evidence to the contrary. Tell him to keep taking that AI.
Hereâs the problem with your study. It showed an association at baseline. Association does not prove causation. You havenât learned how to interpret studies. What you need to do with those same men is either RAISE estradiol or LOWER estradiol (inverventional) to see what effect it has. In every study that they raised estradiol, the men improved. In every study where they lowered it, they got worse. In literally every single study.
So since youâre the new smart ass of T-Nation, I invite you to put your ass on the line here and provide me with a SINGLE STUDY⊠just ONE⊠Iâm not asking for much, am I? Just ONE STUDY where they lowered estradiol in any man and it improved their health. Just one. This should be easy for you, right?
Can you do it? If you canât, admit youâre a moron. Prove me wrong.
You just sent me another study of what they observed at baseline.
Your intellect is poorly equipped to understand what Iâm saying. Please re-read my previous comment and learn the difference between an observation and an intervention.
In every single study where they raised estradiol, it demonstrated cancer protective properties.
Not only no but hell the fuck no. Iâm not going to let you dismiss a study because it doesnât meet your criteria of what a good study is. T was controlled and was not a factor. The only association between male breast cancer and anything else was the amount of estrogen. Period.
I knew youâd say that. Thank you for proving me right.
You can not let me do whatever you wish, but Iâm dismissing it anyway for the following reasons:
In order to prove cancer, you would need to give estradiol to a man and it would demonstrate an increase in cancer. Since estradiol is cancer protective, that never happens, so youâll never find a study demonstrating this. When we give it, it does the exact OPPOSITE of what your associative study observes at baseline.
There is a difference between what you can observe and what you can demonstrate through intervention. If you donât get this, I feel bad for you.
No, it doesnât meet my criteria because I know how to read studies. You clearly lack this ability.