Clomid (Clomiphene) to increase Testosterone for everyday Performance Enhancement

[Vastness]

I have recently been reading about Clomid, ie Clomifene/Clomiphene, and it seems an interesting compound - at least, what's interesting to me is it's effect on testosterone levels in men. So I thought I would get some input from the knowledgeable members of Bluelight...

Anyway my takeaway so far is that it increases natural testosterone levels in men by some method relating to it's action as a SERM. Supposedly it doesn't cause any kind of hormonal rebound when coming off it (although I find this kind of hard to believe, the rebound if there is one seems to be minimal), and there are widespread anecdotal reports of it inducing a general feeling of well-being (presumably due to the increased testosterone, but I see much fewer reports of this kind of positive psychological effect from, for example, classical AAS compounds).

In fact as far as I can tell it seems to have minimal downsides (not saying there aren't any of course, just saying I haven't seen many reported). Some guy here claims to have been taking it EOD for 2 years. Although I did also find an older post on Bluelight where someone posted his blood test results after taking it every day for "a few months" - testosterone at this point is pretty high, maybe too high to be sustainable anyway, but so is estradiol, which is (apparently) a potential danger.

Mostly what I've seen looking for reports of people taking this long term, or even as a very lightweight "cycle" is just people saying, it'll raise your testosterone but not as much as AAS, why bother, etc, etc...

However my interest in this compound is primarily as a general purpose enhancer, that can potentially be taken long term.

So my main question is, for someone who has normal testosterone levels, what risks would there be taking Clomid long term (or even short term), at quite conservative doses, just to boost testosterone towards the upper end of the reference ranges?

Apart from that, is this even worth doing? If not, why not? I would welcome anyone's opinion on the benefit and risks of having higher testosterone levels in general - or if anyone would like to point me in the direction of some definitive research. Opinion seems to be mixed and I haven't been able to find anything I would consider a scientific consensus on whether higher (within reason, or, I should say, within the generally accepted reference ranges) is better, or not.




Just to be clear, I'm not planning to jump straight into anything, so my interest at this point is largely academic. I did get a blood test for Testosterone quite recently but obviously didn't research the company well enough, so what I had presumed was a full hormone test actually just came back with a single number, which I presume to be "total" testosterone, at 734 ng/dL. As far as I can tell this is a pretty normal value, but again, my interest is in general purpose enhancement - if it is indeed enhancement - if the risks are low enough to be acceptable. Obviously if I did decide to proceed with this experiment I would get a more extensive set of tests done first.

As ever, thanks in advance for any input!

 

[Serotonin101]

There was some mma fighter who got popped for using clomid to boost his test levels. Can't remember his name right now. As for having high normal levels of test, I don't really see any issues from anything I've read. The elevated estradiol levels could be a concern as it can be carcinogenic.
People have also reported vision problems with clomid as well though. May be something to be aware of.

 

[Swim15]

I looked into this before I got on gear and clomid did a good job of raising test levels. There was some article on this I'll have to try and dig up but it's likely pretty safe compared the myriad of things people take like even pre-workouts. I'd bet a lot on the fact that from a 'potential harm' standpoint, half the pre's on the market are going to be worse long term.

What the consensus boiled down to I believe was that 12.5mg 2-3x a week would be plenty to elevate test levels in terms of what you are looking for

 

[Vastness]

The potential for vision problems is a particular concern for me as I already have a congenital retinal dystrophy which is stable at the moment but usually progressive. I would like to put the stability down to a healthy lifestyle and targeted supplementation, but I realise that a big part of it is probably genetic luck, and there is a good chance it will become progressive again eventually... so anything with the potential to mess with or weaken the retina and/or the associated optical systems is something I need to be really wary of.

I would think that a dose of 12.5mg twice a week would be low enough to avoid any undesirable vision effects... but I guess it depends on the mechanism of action and whether these effects only start beyond a certain threshold dose, or if they are always happening but are just of negligible significance and usually not noticed at very low doses.

 

[BehindtheShadow]

Isnt clomid a fertility drug?

 

[Vastness]

^ Indeed it is, for both men and women in fact, in a way, although it is mainly prescribed to women.

 

[BehindtheShadow]

I am planning on going on clomid in the next few months
So I had a read very interesting indeed

 

[Phobos]

As far as my experience goes, racemic Clomiphene can have significant negative impact on your mood at first, I'm my case it resolved quickly but YMMV.

I was depressed with significant suicidal ideation for a few days, to give you a measure of how it can be.

I found Enclomiphene, the (E)- enantiomer to be completely devoid of this action, and much more powerful at providing the desired result.

 

[Vastness]

That is interesting about Enclomiphene indeed! I had a little look for more information on Enclomiphene specifically, and I found this particularly interesting study which directly compares the 2 isomers of Clomiphene in mice. The researchers hypothesize that it is actually the Zuclomiphene isomer that is responsible for a lot of the reported negative side effects, and looking at the data, that seems believable (at least, to my untrained eye).

We have determined that one of the two isomers of Clomiphene citrate, Zuclomiphene citrate, a component of a drug believed to be safe, has deleterious effects on the male reproductive organs of mice [23]. There are known effects of clomiphene on the eyes [24-26] as has been recognized in the product label [27]. These might be a result of an accumulation of the zuclomiphene isomer over time.

Obviously more research is needed to see if the apparently improved safety profile of Enclomiphene does translate to humans as might be reasonably expected. Unfortunately it's probably unlikely any such research is going to be coming anytime soon. But still, very interesting indeed.

 

[Serotonin101]

That is interesting about Enclomiphene indeed! I had a little look for more information on Enclomiphene specifically, and I found this particularly interesting study which directly compares the 2 isomers of Clomiphene in mice. The researchers hypothesize that it is actually the Zuclomiphene isomer that is responsible for a lot of the reported negative side effects, and looking at the data, that seems believable (at least, to my untrained eye).



Obviously more research is needed to see if the apparently improved safety profile of Enclomiphene does translate to humans as might be reasonably expected. Unfortunately it's probably unlikely any such research is going to be coming anytime soon. But still, very interesting indeed.

And it says accumulation over time. Clomiphene has a very long half-life which means I can accumulate fairly easily with every day dosing and once issues arise, take a while to go away

 

[Phobos]

Enclomiphene is undergoing the approval process in the USA and EU, so I'm positive some research will pop up soon.

The supposedly bad enantiomer has a strong effect of Testosterone suppression, but Clomiphene is a mix of 62% Enclomiphene and 38% Zuclomiphene (the bad enantiomer) so that's why you get a boost of test production.

 

[Vastness]

Ah I was under the impression that the regulated future of Enclomiphene is a little uncertain because the FDA and other regulatory agencies are generally not too interested in testosterone boosters, and this is the area where most of the research is being done rather than for fertility as with Clomiphene (racemic). I could be wrong though.

Something I am wondering about is whether a lower dosage would be advisable for Enclomiphene compared to racemic, if using it as an "enhancer" rather than a "corrector", so to speak. Assuming that 12.5mg racemic Clomiphene 2-3x a week is reasonable, it would seem reasonable also that 6.25mg Enclomiphene, or even less, would be a safer equivalent. But I'm not sure this is actually reflected in the data, most of the studies I've seen start from 6.25mg EVERY DAY, and even up to 25mg/day did not raise testosterone to obscenely high levels (maybe 2-300ng/dL from baseline, IIRC, which, IIRC again, is actually comparable with racemic Clomiphene)... I'm guessing that perhaps, firstly, the effects do not scale linearly when baseline hormones are not impaired and secondly, I guess there is just a ceiling with the benefits that Clomiphene can give and so the main advantages of Enclomiphene come from a reduced side effect profile.

Also, I can't find where I read it now but I am pretty sure I saw somewhere earlier hat the half life of Zuclomiphene is something like 30 days, compared to Enclomiphene which is around 10 hours. I have a feeling writing this I might be mistaken because it just sounds ridiculous, but, well, yeah, that's just ridiculous if it's true.

What the consensus boiled down to I believe was that 12.5mg 2-3x a week would be plenty to elevate test levels in terms of what you are looking for

Would be very interested to see it if you have a source for this!

 

[Swim15]

At work so don't feel like digging too hard but here are a couple posts I found to support similar clomid use and effectiveness

https://forums.t-nation.com/t/long-term-clomid-anastrozole-use/208632

https://forums.t-nation.com/t/clomid-for-long-term-use/233423

 

[alan2102]

I've read a lot about clomiphene for this purpose. It is still the Wild West with no
clear answers. Widely varying doses; widely varying results. It certainly works
to raise T, but it does not necessarily make every user feel better. Some guys get
depressed on even low doses. You'll have to experiment. Might I suggest starting
with a very low dose, like 5 mgs/day, and see how it goes. I've read about cases
that seem to get good results with doses on that order, in the 5-10 mg range.

Justin Saya, MD, is using it with apparent success in most cases; here is his experience:
https://www.excelmale.com/showthrea...-dose-clomid-unicorns-or-do-they-really-exist
... lots of interesting practical detail there. Note that he prefers to start with a higher dose, like
25 mgs/day, to see if the HPG axis is going to respond at all, and then lowers it gradually.

If I were doing this I would be inclined to go with toremiphene or raloxiphene (or perhaps a lower-dose
combo) since those two are more modern and appear to have better overall effect profiles. I would also
not try to do it all with just the "-phenes". I would add ultra-low-dose letrozole or some other AI (see
my post on the letrozole thread, today), and low-dose naltrexone (which de-represses luteinizing
hormone, possibly enhances -phene sensitivity, has been used successfully to raise T, treat ED, etc.).
Plus maybe some HCG. Maybe toss in acetylcarnitine and D-aspartic acid. IOW, make it a stack that
attacks the thing from various angles, rather than relying on one molecule. Call it the
portfolio/chemodiversity approach, except done intelligently with reasonable likelihood of success
(unlike the typical "test boost" supplement).

PS: I forgot: PDE5 inhibitors! Boost T synthesis, and a ton of other beneficial effects.

 

[Phobos]

A couple of thoughts:

HCG has been linked to desensitisation of Leydig cells to LH, if used too often or at high doses.

DAA (D-Aspartic Acid) in non-salt forms may not work due to very poor bioavailability and may produce acute diarrhea shortly after ingestion, meaning that for some it is impossible to take it as you would become malnourished and dehydrated in a few days, due to going to the toilet and losing all the food you were digesting plus a LOT of water.
Those that don't get diarrhea won't get any boost in test as a trial with plain DAA showed.

The Calcium Chelate and Sodium DAA forms have good bioavailability and a research shows significant increase in test after a few days on one of those forms, can't recall which.

I have tried DAA Calcium chelate and after a week my LH levels tested out of the upper range.
I had just did Ostarine for 4 weeks and my test was partially suppressed at about 50% of my normal level, and I had taken the DAA the last week of the Ostarine cycle.
Ofcourse I cannot know if it had been the DAA to produce that high level of LH, but it might have been.

 

[Vastness]

If I were doing this I would be inclined to go with toremiphene or raloxiphene (or perhaps a lower-dose combo) since those two are more modern and appear to have better overall effect profiles. I would also not try to do it all with just the "-phenes". I would add ultra-low-dose letrozole or some other AI (see my post on the letrozole thread, today), and low-dose naltrexone (which de-represses luteinizing hormone, possibly enhances -phene sensitivity, has been used successfully to raise T, treat ED, etc.). Plus maybe some HCG. Maybe toss in acetylcarnitine and D-aspartic acid. IOW, make it a stack that attacks the thing from various angles, rather than relying on one molecule. Call it the portfolio/chemodiversity approach, except done intelligently with reasonable likelihood of success (unlike the typical "test boost" supplement).

PS: I forgot: PDE5 inhibitors! Boost T synthesis, and a ton of other beneficial effects.

Thanks for responding! I would be very interested if you could also post some sources that support these suggestions - my own research so far doesn't really support some of them.

I would be very open to trying newer SERMS, IF they had a similar or better effect to the primary one that interests me about (en)Clomiphene (increase in testosterone with minimal to zero side effects). However from what I've seen the effect of raloxifene on testosterone is a lot more minor, while it has a lot of the same estrogenic effects as clomiphene. Unlike clomiphene, raloxifene is a little too new for there to be any research into isomer-specific properties that might minimise estrogenesis and potentially other undesirable side effects.

As far as I can tell there is not really any scientific evidence to support the idea that acetylcarnitine or DAA is a useful testosterone booster long term. While DAA it seems does cause a transient increase in testosterone in sedentary men, most of the studies I've seen reported basically no effect or even a negative effect in "resistance trained" men.

As far as adding an AI - overall, to me it doesn't look like in this instance, a portfolio of substances is a better option than a single substance - clomiphene for better or worse does have a lot of research behind it, and the En- isomer seems to be far more "selective" for testosterone, especially in low doses, as far as such a thing is even possible. So even though it does have side effects I think using a whole cocktail of chemicals to achieve the same result is just too many variables, and is asking for more unexpected interactions and side effects.

Do people take PDE5 inhibitors semi-regularly with the express purpose of boosting testosterone? I have never heard of this before, but that is interesting if so. Do they take lower doses than those usually prescribed for ED? Again I think the side-effect profile of these drugs is a little too high for my liking but I am curious.

 

[Phobos]

As far as I can tell there is not really any scientific evidence to support the idea that acetylcarnitine or DAA is a useful testosterone booster long term. While DAA it seems does cause a transient increase in testosterone in sedentary men, most of the studies I've seen reported basically no effect or even a negative effect in "resistance trained" men.

Check the studies where DAA was ineffective for what type of DAA was used, as I said, the pure form is not going to work, and the only research I've seen where DAA worked used the sodium salt.
I am not sure that the chelates would work, although I have bloodwork that may indicate that it is the case, but I am pretty sure that the pure form does not work.

 

[alan2102]

HCG has been linked to desensitisation of Leydig cells to LH, if used too often or at high doses.

Not to sound too flip, but everything has been (or will be, in good time) linked to desensitization/downregulation
of something else if used too often or at high doses.

I would use HCG at low physiologic doses. Perhaps 150 IU thrice weekly or thereabouts. No need (one
would hope) to use a ton of it when you have a portfolio approach.

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2004-0802
Low-Dose Human Chorionic Gonadotropin Maintains
Intratesticular Testosterone in Normal Men with
Testosterone-Induced Gonadotropin Suppression

DAA (D-Aspartic Acid) in non-salt forms may not work due to very poor bioavailability and may produce acute
diarrhea shortly after ingestion, meaning that for some it is impossible to take it as you would become
malnourished and dehydrated in a few days

God, that sounds horrible! I had never heard that. I did not find DAA to have that effect personally, in
3 and 6-gram doses, and info I've collected did not mention that problem. Go ahead and post a link, please.
I get that some people may be sensitive to it in that way, in which case they won't be able to use it. No
big deal. There are other approaches.

I have tried DAA Calcium chelate and after a week my LH levels tested out of the upper range.
I had just did Ostarine for 4 weeks and my test was partially suppressed at about 50% of my normal level,
and I had taken the DAA the last week of the Ostarine cycle. Ofcourse I cannot know if it had been the DAA
to produce that high level of LH, but it might have been.

Did you ever try the free DAA? (i.e. not a salt)

 

[alan2102]

I would be very open to trying newer SERMS, IF they had a similar or better effect to the primary one
that interests me about (en)Clomiphene (increase in testosterone with minimal to zero side effects).

If you can get ENclomiphene, then do it! AFAIK it is still in the "research chemical" world, and not
even commonly available there.

However from what I've seen the effect of raloxifene on testosterone is a lot more minor, while it has a
lot of the same estrogenic effects as clomiphene.

You are right that it has a modest effect on T. Not sure about estrogenic sides. Generally, from both
published lit and anecdotal reports, it looks to be better than clomiphene and tamoxifen. It has nice
effects on LDL and HDL.

Toremifene might be even better. Check out this guy's take:
https://supplementreviews.com/forum/index.php?topic=23029.0

I like the idea of preventing prostate cancer (at least as important a goal, to me, as raising T):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16503765
Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2006 Mar;15(3):293-305.
Toremifene--a promising therapy for the prevention of prostate cancer and complications
of androgen deprivation therapy.

As far as I can tell there is not really any scientific evidence to support the idea that acetylcarnitine or
DAA is a useful testosterone booster long term.

Is ANYTHING proven to be useful as a T booster long term? Maybe clomiphene. My part
in this discussion is more along the lines of "research agenda" rather than "proven
reliable cut-and-dried prescription". It began with a question about clomiphene for this
purpose, and clomiphene does work to increase T, but it has drawbacks. Maybe we can do
better. Indeed, all of my comments are derived from that proposition: maybe we can do
better. We probably can. In the coming years and decades, given the high interest in this area,
I expect we will acquire a lot of useful knowledge about optimizing T levels and (putatively)
related subjective states without using T itself, using combinations of substances. At this point
it is necessarily speculative. But I doubt that any single molecule will ever give us all that we want.

As for carnitine/alcar:

carnitine upregs androgen receptor:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16826026
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006 Jul;38 (7):1288-96.
Androgenic responses to resistance exercise: effects of feeding and L-carnitine.

alcar+propionyl-carnitine have effects similar to TRT:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15072869
Urology. 2004 Apr;63(4):641-6.
Carnitine versus androgen administration in the treatment of sexual dysfunction, depressed mood, and
fatigue associated with male aging.

... also lots of other literature showing complementary action with PDE5Is, improved body composition and
skeletal muscle protection, diminished stress-induced T depression, etc., etc. Not to mention all the other
benefits unrelated to T/sex/etc. Alcar is great stuff.

I agree that DAA results have been disappointing. That is, in narrow single-agent trials. But I'm not quite
ready to give up on it entirely. We might find its action to be complementary with other agents, e.g.:

http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic Acid/
"D-Aspartate can influence the testicles via the NMDA receptors, present in both Leydig and Sertoli cells
of the testes.[33] After being taking up into a cell, D-Aspartate appears to have the ability to induce
testosterone release, although it tends to work synergistically with hCG by increasing the efficacy of
hCG on a testicular cell.[34]

.... But as a standalone, single agent, I agree. Fuck it. Give up.

As far as adding an AI - overall, to me it doesn't look like in this instance, a portfolio of substances is a
better option than a single substance

Cool. Do as thou wilt, as they say.

So even though it does have side effects I think using a whole cocktail of chemicals to achieve the same
result is just too many variables, and is asking for more unexpected interactions and side effects.

I look at it the opposite way. Life, at every moment, involves being exposed to a vast cocktail of chemicals
with a fantastic number of variables. As long as doses are cautious, and as long as intrinsic toxicity is
minimal, the "unexpected interactions" are at least as likely to be desirable as undesirable. A great
plethora of desirable "unexpected interactions" are why you are alive and functioning at this moment.
Side benefits are at least as important as "side effects".

I think the bodybuilders using multiple steroids combined with HGH, insulin, thyroid and a bunch of other
stuff are essentially on the right track -- single compounds will rarely give us what we want -- just that
their DOSES are wild and reckless (and sometimes specific compound selection may be off the beam).
Complex stacks are where it's at, and essential for any hope of retarding age-related deterioration, and
very likely for preventing age-related disease. The bodybuilders have blazed a useful trail for all of
us, IMO. Just that the doses and other specifics have to be dialed-in more wisely.

In my view complex stacks are consistent with a philosophical approach to the world, de-emphasizing
the (useful, but limited) positivism and reductionism of the "magic bullet" (single-agent) approach.
I think stacking of compounds is a good idea on principle. Which is not to say, of course, that all
stacking and all stacks are good! It all depends. It has to be done intelligently, with safety a most
prominent consideration, and it must be guided by empirical results.

I might add that, although safety is very important, it is important also not to be too timid. Fortune
favors the bold. (Though not the reckless!)

But that's just me. If that does not resonate with you, so be it.

Do people take PDE5 inhibitors semi-regularly with the express purpose of boosting testosterone?

As far as I am aware, no. And it would make a lousy exclusive purpose. If that were your only purpose,
then I would say fuck it, don't bother; other things are more effective. There are many and I think
compelling reasons (in sum, if not severally) to take PDE5Is: cardiovascular and endothelial,
cognitive/neuropsychological, athletic performance, sexual performance, GU (LUTS and BPH), etc.
Modest enhancement of T synthesis in the balls is an added, rather minor (in the big picture),
benefit. Oh btw, PDE5Is are also aromatase inhibitors! Not powerful ones, but so what? Another
minor benefit. Great drugs!

Thank you for the conversation and for challenging me, forcing me to get my thoughts a bit more
organized than they were before this interaction. It is an ongoing process, and you contributed. Thanks.

 

[Phobos]

Yes, but I flushed it down the toilet.
One dose at a time..... With loads of liquid shit.

Empty stomach, after a meal, always same result.

It doesn't even dissolve in water.

I used the calcium chelate, 3g in one dose no prob.