T Nation

Question About Clomid?


Alright i already im a noob when it comes to the whole steroid subject. I had a look in the nooob section for the answer but coulnt find it, so thought id post it up.

CLOMID: I Read the the whole steroid profile.

so my question is.

For someone not taking any Anabolics at all or has never taken any. Would using CLOMID increase the body natural testosterone production to its optimum levels and keep it there?

because as we all grow older, out natural test drops slowly, therefore by supplementing with Clomid (obv. not on a regular basis) be beneficial to body mind and soul?

cheers guys


I wouldn't use it on a chronic basis because it does have a degree of toxicity (low, but not zero).

It does increase testosterone even when never having used steroids, but there doesn't seem to be noticeable mass gain or performance enhancement from this.

The exception is with extreme endurance exercise, e.g. competitive cycling, where Clomid does provide clear benefit. Probably because in that situation T can drop very badly and/or because Clomid has a partial protective effect with regard to exercise-induced muscle damage, and there is a great deal of muscle damage associated with extreme endurance exercise.'

But for bb'ing, it's not a performance enhancer outside of the PCT context.

As to being beneficial to the soul, that could be the case if more estrogenic effect in the brain were good for the individual's soul. In most instances there is no important difference, in a few this is a positive effect or can temporarily be a positive effect (some degree of estrogenic effect is normal to male brain function) and for some it's an adverse effect.




So your saying that if taken, it just increases your testosterone to the individuals body limit?? IS this why no noticeable changes in lean body mass have occurred?

saying that, im guessing there is no adverse side effects from clomid once in a while, to boost the body's natural production of testosterone.


You did read the part where Bill said, "but there doesn't seem to be noticeable mass gain or performance enhancement from this. "?

In other words, there probably are no adverse side effects from clomid once in a while to boost the body's natural production of testosterone even though there doesn't seem to be noticeable mass gain or performance enhancement from this.




Sweet , thanks for clearing it up.


Bill Roberts:

Given that clomiphene, tamoxifen and even anastrazole provide in terms of percentages, a large boosts to endogenous testosterone production but seemingly minimal (if any?) mass gains, then why does anyone bother with supplements such as tribulus, DIM, D-aspartic acid and the countless others?

Are people just clutching on to the hope that over months and months of supplementation, the 5-25% increase in testosterone they -may- receive is doing them some good?

Note: I pulled 5-25% out of my ass as an arbitrary number, I don't actually know how effective they are supposed to be.


It's a very interesting (to me) fundamental question.

A general area where erroneous or invalid conclusions is commonly drawn is mistaking undetected effect for being no effect.

For example there are countless studies that state, as a fact, that a thing was seen to have no effect when the more exact wording would be "Our study did not detect an effect."

Where this is prone to happen is where effects are subtle, at least over the time course being looked at, and random variation is large. When analyzing the statistics, it will be concluded that even if a small change on average was tabulated, chance alone (estimating chance from the random variation that was also seen) would in many cases provide an equally large apparent effect.

There are many studies where an effect absolutely could be real, but swamped by random variation, and the authors wrongly put it as "there was shown to be no effect." There are even studies where there was on average a substantial effect among the subjects, but due to the degree of random variation this was not "statistically significant" and the authors will state that their study demonstrated no effect.

So could I well be falling into the very same error (though if so, I'm trying to at least not do it as badly) in saying that there seems to be noticeable mass or performance gain from non-PCT use of Clomid?

Could be. It is very likely I think that effects such as increased T from these sources DO add up over time and can be significant and worthwhile over time. Very plausible: makes sense.

But I'm saying that this is not clear from observation, unlike with performance-enhancing drug use in general. If so, it isn't striking, and I can't back up that it happens at all if it does. (Other than with extreme endurance athletes, where the effect is major.)

I also don't wind up saying that Tribulus provides noticeable mass or performance gains either, or DIM, or d-aspartic acid. So, particularly if the question is being put in performance-enhancing drug terms, I wind up giving similar answers for them as for Clomid.

For all of them, I do agree it's plausible that over time an individual might achieve a significant (for example a couple of pounds of muscle) difference due to using them versus not doing so. But it would be gradual, and it's hard to be sure what is happening. So these are supplements that I think are more in the category, if the individual finds that they seem to suit him, then very good; if that doesn't seem to be the case, then move on rather than assuming there must be a clear mass-gain benefit.


Thank you for the informative response.

I've often thought similar things when reading studies that quote a P value > 0.05. The authors completely discredit the treatment, yet the results numbers still seem to show what I would have thought to be an undeniable impact. I've always just dismissed it as being something that is beyond my comprehension as to how 'variance of chance' can be such a wide variance.


Clomid is an estrogen blocker, therefore lack of estrogen leads to lower bone density? Is this only due to chronic use? also what HCG be better to take or Clomid?


Clomiphene is estrogenic in bone though. This is an example of why it is not a simple estrogen antagonist (blocker.) In some tissues it activates the estrogen receptor. In others, it occupies the receptor without activating it, thus blocking the effect of estrogen.

Intermezzo, actually -- and sadly -- it gets worse with the statistics.

Not only does it occur that in many cases actual effect may exist and a study did nothing to demonstrate it does not exist but claims to have done so, we also have the opposite situation where an effect is "significant" to p <= 0.05 but most likely IS a result of chance. Yet the opposite is presented as being the case.

Although it is fundamental to the use of the statistics and therefore should be understood by the authors using the statistics, most authors clearly appear to not understand the meaning of p values.

P values don't mean that the probability only, for example, was 5% that the results seen WERE a result of chance, or 95% probability that they WERE a real effect.

They mean that in cases where there was no actual effect but only random variation of the type seen, 5% of the time there would be an appearance of effect just as great as seen in the study.

Which is deeply different from how p values are typically misinterpreted by authors.

For example, suppose we have a hypothesis that if we mumble an incantation over a rat's water bottle as we fill it, this will extend the life of the rat.

We test this on some moderate number of rats, with one group's water bottles receiving the mumbled incantations and the other, not.

The statistics are analyzed and lo and behold, to a p value of 0.05 the average lifespan of the incantation group was some percentage longer than that of the control group. The difference was "statistically significant."

And to understand this example, it's relevant also to understand that thousands of studies unlikely to have any real effect behind them are done all the time, and we will tend to hear only about the ones showing a positive outcome.

Furthermore, many studies look at 20 or so effects all at the same time. So even within one study, it's highly likely, instead of being of negligible likelihood, that at least one observed effect is produced by chance, where p values are on the order of 0.05.

Back to the rats and the mumbled incantations. Is it really only a 5% likelihood that only chance resulted in those rats having longer lives? A 95% likelihood that there was real life-extending effect from the incantations?

No, if having before the experiment considered to best knowledge that it was highly unlikely that the hypothesis was true, then now with these test results it is highly likely that chance was the only cause of those rats living longer.

It should be considered more likely that this was one of those 5%-of-the-time-chance-alone-will-yield-such-an-outcome cases than that it is now a scientific truth that incantation over water bottles extends lifespan. The probably-chance interpretation should be our best guess of what happened. Despite results being "statistically significant."

There actually are, incidentally, statistics to deal with the likelihood that chance was the cause of the ACTUAL results seen. But the p value is not such a statistic: it does not refer to likelihood of the results being chance.

It is the percentage of cases that with no real effect but same variability, chance alone would result in an apparent effect of the size seen.


Bill, your last post inspired me to get off my ass and go to my statistics class in 20 minutes