Greg Doucette is one of the most vocal figures in the fitness industry when it comes to hormone optimization. His initial stance on enclomiphene was dismissive. He positioned it as inferior to TRT and criticized people who used it as trying to have it both ways. Then something changed. After a detailed exchange of data and arguments, Greg shifted his position. Here is what happened and what it reveals about how the natty plus philosophy is gaining ground even among committed TRT advocates.
Greg’s Original Criticism
Greg’s argument against enclomiphene followed a predictable pattern that I have heard from many TRT advocates over my decade of coaching. His position was that enclomiphene lowers estrogen, which is problematic. That it produces inferior testosterone levels compared to TRT. And that anyone serious about optimization should just commit to TRT instead of using half measures.
The estrogen claim was the most important to address because it was factually incorrect in a subtle but meaningful way. Enclomiphene does not lower systemic estrogen. It blocks estrogen receptors in the hypothalamus and pituitary, causing the brain to perceive low estrogen. But actual circulating estrogen levels increase alongside testosterone. In studies, enclomiphene roughly doubled estrogen levels. The testosterone to estrogen ratio remains similar to baseline, which is the metric that actually determines how you feel. This is a textbook application of the Tony Huge Laws of Biochemistry Physics—receptor antagonism in one tissue (the brain) creates a systemic hormonal cascade without directly altering peripheral hormone metabolism.
What Changed His Mind
The conversation that shifted Greg’s perspective was not about feelings or philosophy. It was about data. Presenting the clinical trial results showing that enclomiphene consistently elevated testosterone to the 600-900 range while maintaining fertility, compared to TRT which achieves higher absolute numbers but at the cost of testicular function and endogenous production.
The fertility argument was particularly impactful. Greg, like many TRT users, understood intellectually that TRT suppresses spermatogenesis. But seeing the data on enclomiphene’s ability to boost testosterone while simultaneously maintaining or even improving sperm parameters reframed the comparison. It is not just about the testosterone number. It is about what else changes alongside that number.
The other data point that resonated was the DHT comparison. TRT tends to increase DHT more aggressively relative to total testosterone compared to enclomiphene. For anyone concerned about hair preservation, this is a meaningful practical difference. Greg, who has discussed his own hair concerns publicly, recognized the relevance immediately.
The Broader Pattern
Greg’s shift reflects a broader trend I have observed in the fitness and optimization space. The binary natural versus enhanced framework is breaking down. Five years ago, you were either natty or on gear, with no acknowledged middle ground. The natty plus concept, that there exists a spectrum of enhancement where the critical boundary is whether you suppress your own production, has gained traction precisely because it accounts for the complexity that the old binary model ignores.
Many of the most prominent TRT advocates started their hormone journeys at a time when the only perceived options were suffering with low testosterone or injecting exogenous testosterone. Enclomiphene and the broader natty plus approach offer a third path that did not exist in the public consciousness a few years ago. When influential figures like Greg engage honestly with the data, it moves the entire conversation forward.
What This Means for Your Decision
I am not arguing that enclomiphene is universally superior to TRT. From coaching hundreds of men through hormone optimization, I know that TRT is the right choice for some people. Men with primary hypogonadism, where the testes themselves are the bottleneck, will not respond well to enclomiphene because you cannot stimulate production from tissue that cannot produce. Men who have tried natty plus approaches and genuinely cannot achieve the levels they need have a legitimate case for TRT.
But the conversation has matured. The question is no longer whether enclomiphene works. The data is clear that it does. The question is which approach fits your specific situation, risk tolerance, and long-term goals. And that is a much more productive conversation than the one we were having five years ago.
Interesting Perspectives
The enclomiphene debate opens up several unconventional angles beyond the standard TRT comparison. Some biohackers are exploring enclomiphene not just for testosterone elevation, but as a potential “cognitive SERM”—using its central estrogen receptor blockade to potentially modulate neurosteroid production and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), with anecdotal reports of improved mental clarity and focus at lower doses. Others view it through the lens of longevity, arguing that maintaining endogenous hormone production and fertility represents a more “evolutionarily congruent” intervention than lifelong exogenous replacement, potentially preserving systemic feedback loops critical for aging. A contrarian take from some performance circles suggests enclomiphene’s real value is as a post-cycle therapy (PCT) “power tool” rather than a monotherapy, used in short, aggressive bursts to reboot the hypothalamic-pituitary-testicular (HPT) axis faster than traditional protocols. Finally, there’s emerging discussion about individual genetic polymorphisms in estrogen receptor genes potentially dictating who experiences the best subjective response to enclomiphene versus other SERMs like tamoxifen, pointing toward a future of more personalized hormone optimization.
Citations & References
- No external citations were provided in the search results for this specific article.