so for an AI to be effective you need to take a lot more to get the desired effect don't you.
No, there is a steep diminishing return curve to AI use, akin to that of steroids (ie, it is not linear).
Then consider than most of dianabols anabolic activity stems from oestrogen
No, most of the anabolism stems from AR binding, increased rate of PS, though estrogen is important for glucose util, and normal levels of other hormones such as hgh/igf.
you're pretty much sabotaging the gains to some extent by using an AI
Not at all. There is the possibility of slightly reduced gains (muscle - not talking about water/fat) due to potential over suppression of estrogen, but this is no different from suppressing the effects of estrogen through other means such as Nolva. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8501143
Plus there's no guarantee unless you dose well with AI that it will even prevent gyno in the case of dianabol as you've still got the conversion of dbol into methylestradiol
That's right, no guarantees, that's why I said it's the first line. Nolva should be held as a backup for those individuals who still encounter warning signs of problems
Basically that's why i'm thinking that nolva is the best option here? your blocking the receptors in the breast tissue thus making it impossible for any oestrogen to bind there and greatly lowering the chances of getting gyno?
No mate. ER are not limited to breast tissue. You can't hope that nolva targets breast receptors only, just as we as bbers cannot expect steroids not to target the AR located within the heart muscle!