# using oxy 50 without tomoxifen



## technics1210 (Apr 22, 2008)

Hi all my fellow bodybuilders just starting a course that involves oxy50.used them b4 but been told if i dont use tommoxifen with them they work better risky i think but does any one no of this been the case


----------



## nibbsey (Feb 12, 2008)

TBH if you are prone to gynea then you'd be mad not to. That said you won't loose any effect by taking it so don't worry. Tamoxifen only binds to oestrogen receptors.

Better be safe than sorry or just go buy a bra lol.


----------



## Mars (Aug 25, 2007)

technics1210 said:


> Hi all my fellow bodybuilders just starting a course that involves oxy50.used them b4 but been told if i dont use tommoxifen with them they work better risky i think but does any one no of this been the case


Tamoxifen is a wise choice to use as it blocks the receptor for estrogen, this as said will help avoid gyno issues so if your not prone and the water weight doesn't bother you then don't use them, running them along with the drol will lessen gains simply because the bulk of the gains on drol is water weight.


----------



## bigacb (Nov 13, 2007)

by Bill Roberts - Like methandrostenolone (Dianabol), oxymetholone does not bind well to the androgen receptor (AR), and most of the anabolism it provides is via non-AR-mediated effects. It is therefore a Class II steroid and is best stacked with a Class I steroid. The drug appears to give the same benefits as Dianabol. Unlike Dianabol, however, it seems that oxymetholone is progestagenic. It has been observed to cause nipple soreness or to aggravate gynecomastia even in the presence of high dose antiestrogens, strongly suggesting that the effect is not estrogenic. That effect can be reduced by concurrent use of stanozolol (Winstrol), which is anti-progestagenic. This progestagenic effect of oxymetholone is only a concern when using aromatizing steroids. With androgens such as Primobolan, oxymetholone stacks very nicely and is a surprisingly friendly drug. In contrast, with testosterone it is a very harsh drug.

Oxymetholone does not convert to estrogen, and thus antiestrogens are not required if no aromatizable AAS are being used. However, in concert with aromatizing drugs, oxymetholone is notorious for worsening "estrogenic" symptoms, possibly by producing progestagenic symptoms which the bodybuilder confuses as estrogenic, or by altering estrogen metabolism, or by upregulating aromatase.

Compared to what bodybuilders expect of it, the drug is reasonably mild when no aromatizing steroids are present. I consider its potency approximately comparable to Dianabol. It is not unusual for a first time user to do quite well on an oxymetholone-only cycle, but more advanced users will want to stack with another steroid. Typical use is 50-150 mg/day, which should be divided into several doses per day.

Because oxymetholone is 17-alkylated, it is stressful to the liver. It is better to limit use to no more than 6 weeks or preferably four weeks before taking a break of at least equal length. Many users feel that it is more effectively used in the beginning parts of the cycle, rather than in the last few weeks.


----------



## TypeR (May 28, 2004)

i get sore nips with oxy, if your prone already i would use tomoxifen or armindex?

Ben


----------



## bigacb (Nov 13, 2007)

Like said above if used with aromatising steroids then it can worsen the effects but used on its own it doesnt convert into estrogen so AI's or serms shouldnt be needed for gyno etc.


----------



## Mars (Aug 25, 2007)

bigacb said:


> by Bill Roberts - Like methandrostenolone (Dianabol), oxymetholone does not bind well to the androgen receptor (AR), and most of the anabolism it provides is via non-AR-mediated effects. It is therefore a Class II steroid and is best stacked with a Class I steroid. The drug appears to give the same benefits as Dianabol. Unlike Dianabol, however, it seems that oxymetholone is progestagenic. It has been observed to cause nipple soreness or to aggravate gynecomastia even in the presence of high dose antiestrogens, strongly suggesting that the effect is not estrogenic. That effect can be reduced by concurrent use of stanozolol (Winstrol), which is anti-progestagenic. This progestagenic effect of oxymetholone is only a concern when using aromatizing steroids. With androgens such as Primobolan, oxymetholone stacks very nicely and is a surprisingly friendly drug. In contrast, with testosterone it is a very harsh drug.
> 
> Oxymetholone does not convert to estrogen, and thus antiestrogens are not required if no aromatizable AAS are being used. However, in concert with aromatizing drugs, oxymetholone is notorious for worsening "estrogenic" symptoms, possibly by producing progestagenic symptoms which the bodybuilder confuses as estrogenic, or by altering estrogen metabolism, or by upregulating aromatase.
> 
> ...


 With regard to BR's take on the possible progestenic effects, i think it's worth quoting a paragraph from bigcats profile of oxymetholone.

It has been suggested that the estrogenic effects of oxymetholone may not be as much mediated by estrogen, as by oxymetholone itself activating the estrogen receptor. Because there is little to no aromatisation off oxymetholone, the possible progestational effect was examined first. Similar to that of nandrolone perhaps. But a study2 testing the progestational effects of oxymetholone and methandrostenolone against those of testosterone as well as nandrolone and its metabolites showed that the progestagenic activity of oxymetholone wasn't even in the neighbourhood of that of testosterone, let alone nandrolone. Ruling out the possibility of progestagenic activity and aromatisation, that only left oxymetholone engaging in a structure with the estrogen receptor itself. Since it has an A-ring similar to that of estradiol (the prime estrogen) so this would be the most logical explanation. Since progesterone acts as an estrogen agonist, it would require circulating estrogen to negotiate such levels of water build-up as oxymetholone causes, so it seemed like a far-fetched idea to begin with.


----------



## bigacb (Nov 13, 2007)

Good post ive read some of big cats steroid profiles in the past. Do you not find how steroid usage must be one of the most debated. There never seems to be a right or wrong answer. When someone says something a study will come out and show the complete opposite...i never know what to believe!


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

bigacb said:


> Good post ive read some of big cats steroid profiles in the past. Do you not find how steroid usage must be one of the most debated. There never seems to be a right or wrong answer. When someone says something a study will come out and show the complete opposite...i never know what to believe!


educated decisions

trial and error

together they work for me


----------



## Mars (Aug 25, 2007)

bigacb said:


> Good post ive read some of big cats steroid profiles in the past. Do you not find how steroid usage must be one of the most debated. There never seems to be a right or wrong answer. When someone says something a study will come out and show the complete opposite...i never know what to believe!


For sure mate, thats the trouble with pretty much only anecdotal evidence.

I have one of the very few studies done on subjects using 600mg test wk for ten wks, it's by sheledin bhasin, the chief endo at a university i can't recall, got it on PDF, if you haven't read it PM me with an e-mail, it's damn interesting stuff.


----------



## bigacb (Nov 13, 2007)

Its crazy because you think one thing is set in stone then you read another study and it says its the opposite. Well we'l have to wait and see what happens to us all.


----------

