Is it true Nolvadex can cause female like fat deposition with regards to fat being stored on your hips?
[quote]muscle_mike wrote:
Is it true Nolvadex can cause female like fat deposition with regards to fat being stored on your hips?[/quote]
How could that be? It inhibits estrogen. If anything, it should decrease estrogen-mediated fat stores.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
muscle_mike wrote:
Is it true Nolvadex can cause female like fat deposition with regards to fat being stored on your hips?
How could that be? It inhibits estrogen. If anything, it should decrease estrogen-mediated fat stores.[/quote]
In breast tissue, that is.
[quote]Cartman8675 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
muscle_mike wrote:
Is it true Nolvadex can cause female like fat deposition with regards to fat being stored on your hips?
How could that be? It inhibits estrogen. If anything, it should decrease estrogen-mediated fat stores.
In breast tissue, that is.
[/quote]
The breast is not the only area where fat acculmulation can be mediated by estrogen.
Tamoxifen Citrate is SERMs. Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulator. It has a strong affinity for the breast. It targets the breast.
But it won’t cause you to store fat on the hips “like a woman”. At least I have never heard of such a thing.
In response to someones post above and their question of how it would cause that; since Nolvadex is a synthetic estrogen that is how it would cause it…
[quote]muscle_mike wrote:
In response to someones post above and their question of how it would cause that; since Nolvadex is a synthetic estrogen that is how it would cause it…[/quote]
Really? I would think that it’s activating receptors yet not working the way normal estrogen does and there’d be a decrease in estrogen-mediated fat deposits everyone. Whenever I’ve used OTC anti-estrogens, I always lean up and dry out a little without changing anything else up.
I am using some letro to get rid of gyno and boy does it ever dry you out. I have never heard of what the op asked.
[quote]muscle_mike wrote:
In response to someones post above and their question of how it would cause that; since Nolvadex is a synthetic estrogen that is how it would cause it…[/quote]
Can you please cite where tamoxifen citrate is called a synthetic estrogen?
It is an estrogen agonist/antagonist that binds to estrogen receptors.
I think you are wrong.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
muscle_mike wrote:
In response to someones post above and their question of how it would cause that; since Nolvadex is a synthetic estrogen that is how it would cause it…
Can you please cite where tamoxifen citrate is called a synthetic estrogen?
It is an estrogen agonist/antagonist that binds to estrogen receptors.
I think you are wrong. [/quote]
That’s what I thought. It binds to the receptors but can’t act as an estrogen does so would have none of its effects. On the contray. An antagonist really means a blocker.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
muscle_mike wrote:
In response to someones post above and their question of how it would cause that; since Nolvadex is a synthetic estrogen that is how it would cause it…
Can you please cite where tamoxifen citrate is called a synthetic estrogen?
It is an estrogen agonist/antagonist that binds to estrogen receptors.
I think you are wrong.
That’s what I thought. It binds to the receptors but can’t act as an estrogen does so would have none of its effects. On the contray. An antagonist really means a blocker.
[/quote]
yep. That’s why it is used by some as a fat loss agent.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
muscle_mike wrote:
In response to someones post above and their question of how it would cause that; since Nolvadex is a synthetic estrogen that is how it would cause it…
Can you please cite where tamoxifen citrate is called a synthetic estrogen?
It is an estrogen agonist/antagonist that binds to estrogen receptors.
I think you are wrong.
That’s what I thought. It binds to the receptors but can’t act as an estrogen does so would have none of its effects. On the contray. An antagonist really means a blocker.
yep. That’s why it is used by some as a fat loss agent. [/quote]
Yup. Like I said, I typically experience some minimal leaning out and drying up just if I take an OTC anti-estrogen without switching anything else up. I imagine this would only be more pronounced with nolva.
Hmmmmm, I am pretty sure that my citing tamoxifen as a synthetic estrogen is correct; it is a SERM but does that mean it is not a synthetic estrogen? If anything, that kind of supports the idea of it mimicking estrogen; in the sense that it binds to the same receptors. As well as the benefits it has on lipids; and the response of raising testosterone.
[quote]muscle_mike wrote:
Hmmmmm, I am pretty sure that my citing tamoxifen as a synthetic estrogen is correct; it is a SERM but does that mean it is not a synthetic estrogen? If anything, that kind of supports the idea of it mimicking estrogen; in the sense that it binds to the same receptors. As well as the benefits it has on lipids; and the response of raising testosterone.[/quote]
I searched “Anabolics 2006” and there is no mention of it being a synthetic estrogen.
It does not mimmick estrogen other than it will bind to estrogen receptor. It is also considered an “anti-estrogen”.
You need more proof than just your opinion. At least you do for me to believe you.
Synthetic estrogens are things like birth control pills, that actually bind to the same receptors and work in the same way and have the same effects and even stronger. Nolva is an antagonist or estrogen blocker. Think of it like a key that fits in a lock that estrogen also fits in. But unlike estrogen, it can’t actually open the door, so you see none of the actions in the body that estrogen causes. On the contrary, because the pseudo-key is stuck in the lock, estrogen can’t open the door and do its job and the normal effects you would see from estrogen are minimized.
You can lower the overall estrogen levels in your body with an aromatase inhibitor such as arimidex, femara or aromasin, and use a topical product like yohimburn to spot reduce.
AG-Guys
[quote]rainjack wrote:
muscle_mike wrote:
Hmmmmm, I am pretty sure that my citing tamoxifen as a synthetic estrogen is correct; it is a SERM but does that mean it is not a synthetic estrogen? If anything, that kind of supports the idea of it mimicking estrogen; in the sense that it binds to the same receptors. As well as the benefits it has on lipids; and the response of raising testosterone.
I searched “Anabolics 2006” and there is no mention of it being a synthetic estrogen.
It does not mimmick estrogen other than it will bind to estrogen receptor. It is also considered an “anti-estrogen”.
You need more proof than just your opinion. At least you do for me to believe you. [/quote]
Rainjack, do you know how to use Google?
Yes, tamoxifen (Nolvadex) is a synthetic estrogen. Read this NY Times article from 1998:
[i]So why all the excitement over designer estrogens? … This class of drugs – and tamoxifen and raloxifene are not the only ones in development – are more accurately known as selective estrogen-receptor modulators, or SERM’s. Their acronym is a reference to the efforts of research scientists to design molecules that stimulate only certain estrogen receptors.
“It’s a nice term because it’s somewhat reflective of what were trying to do,” said Dr. Andres Negro-Vilar, the chief scientific officer at Ligand Pharmaceuticals in San Diego. “We’re trying to design a new estrogen that will do all of the good things that estrogen is supposed to do, with none of the bad things that estrogen is not supposed to do.”
The ideal drug would reliably turn off the receptors found mostly in the reproductive tract and turn on receptors in the bones, heart, skin and brain. It would ideally function as an anti-estrogen in the organs where too much estrogen can be dangerous (the breast and uterus in particular), and as an estrogen promoter in organs where estrogen is beneficial (especially the heart and bones).[/i]
There are plenty of other references out there to tamoxifen (and its close cousin Clomid) being in fact synthetic estrogens, if you had bothered to look. I know that Bill Roberts discussed this clearly in his articles.
[quote]jwillow wrote:
rainjack wrote:
muscle_mike wrote:
Hmmmmm, I am pretty sure that my citing tamoxifen as a synthetic estrogen is correct; it is a SERM but does that mean it is not a synthetic estrogen? If anything, that kind of supports the idea of it mimicking estrogen; in the sense that it binds to the same receptors. As well as the benefits it has on lipids; and the response of raising testosterone.
I searched “Anabolics 2006” and there is no mention of it being a synthetic estrogen.
It does not mimmick estrogen other than it will bind to estrogen receptor. It is also considered an “anti-estrogen”.
You need more proof than just your opinion. At least you do for me to believe you.
Rainjack, do you know how to use Google?
Yes, tamoxifen (Nolvadex) is a synthetic estrogen. Read this NY Times article from 1998:
[i]So why all the excitement over designer estrogens? … This class of drugs – and tamoxifen and raloxifene are not the only ones in development – are more accurately known as selective estrogen-receptor modulators, or SERM’s. Their acronym is a reference to the efforts of research scientists to design molecules that stimulate only certain estrogen receptors.
“It’s a nice term because it’s somewhat reflective of what were trying to do,” said Dr. Andres Negro-Vilar, the chief scientific officer at Ligand Pharmaceuticals in San Diego. “We’re trying to design a new estrogen that will do all of the good things that estrogen is supposed to do, with none of the bad things that estrogen is not supposed to do.”
The ideal drug would reliably turn off the receptors found mostly in the reproductive tract and turn on receptors in the bones, heart, skin and brain. It would ideally function as an anti-estrogen in the organs where too much estrogen can be dangerous (the breast and uterus in particular), and as an estrogen promoter in organs where estrogen is beneficial (especially the heart and bones).[/i]
There are plenty of other references out there to tamoxifen (and its close cousin Clomid) being in fact synthetic estrogens, if you had bothered to look. I know that Bill Roberts discussed this clearly in his articles.[/quote]
Sorry - I will not believe the NYT over Bill Llewllyn. Use a real reference. Not a 1998 article in the NYT, and I might tend to agree with you.
Post a link to Roberts’ articles. Do anything but make me take yours. or the NYT’s word on the matter.
Beyond that - there is no way Nolvadex will shift fat deposition from the breast to the hips. It is used to lose fat by both men and women - not shift it from the breasts to the hips.
You must do better to be convincing.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Sorry - I will not believe the NYT over Bill Llewllyn. Use a real reference. Not a 1998 article in the NYT, and I might tend to agree with you.[/quote]
Will PubMed do?
And as it turns out, you appear to be right. In the abstracts I found, tamoxifen is variously referred to as a “synthetic estrogen analog”, a “synthetic estrogen receptor ligand”, a “nonsteroidal antiestrogen”, a “sex hormone analog”, a “partial agonist of estrogen”, an “estrogen-receptor antagonist”… but never simply a “synthetic estrogen”. For example:
Tamoxifen is a synthetic estrogen analog…
Synthetic estrogen receptor ligands such as tamoxifen and raloxifene produce biologic responses which can be either estrogenic or anti-estrogenic, depending upon the tissue in which their action is examined. To reflect the fact that they are not ‘pure’ antagonists, such ligands have been more accurately termed selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs).
I can’t post a link here, since they’re hosted on a competing website. (MOD NOTE: Actually, yes you can.)
They can be located easily with Google. And I’ve misquoted Roberts; I just went back to his articles, and contrary to my obviously faulty memory, he does not refer to either tamoxifen or clomiphene as synthetic estrogens.
Finally, looking at the original AstraZeneca package insert for tamoxifen (found on the same site as Roberts’ articles), it’s described as a nonsteroidal antiestrogen and the molecular structure shown is not that of a steroid such as estrogen.
My apologies.
No need to apologize - we’re all here to learn. I’m just an asshole. Ask around. It’s true.