Boldenone (EQ) Misconceptions and Comparison with Metenolone (Primo) [Author: Type-IIx]

Type-IIx

Well-known Member
There are an abundance of misconceptions about “EQ”; Equipoise (boldenone, as undecylenate) it seems. Let's address some of the primary misconceptions:

1. Misconception that boldenone is nonaromatizable, or that its use (in sufficiently high doses) permit abstaining from AI/SERM use in users that are not resilient against aromatizing effects (e.g., fluid retention/edema, growth of breast tissue, etc.)

Reality: Boldenone aromatizes (to estrone [E1] & estradiol [E2]) at 58% the rate of testosterone. This is significant. However, since Estrone (E1) is a weak estrogen, because lacks the 17β-OH group, it possesses only 2% of E2's potency to transactivate ERα (associated with aromatizing effects, many of which are negative side effects in men).

Practically, this means that moderate/moderately-high boldenone doses (used solo; or in combination with nonaromatizable drugs, and/or with low doses of exogenous testosterone) would tend to not require AI/SERM use in users that are not resilient against aromatizing effects, but: A) for those who principally aromatize to E2 rather than E1 (inter-individual differences are likely rooted in 17β-HSD1 isozyme expression, under the control of the A1-Q327 gene) particular; and/or B) where E1 blood concentrations start getting into the regions of > 50-fold above that at which E2 causes problems in the individual, then the aromatizing effects would be expected to predominate.

2. Misconception that boldenone is not intended for human use.

Reality: Boldenone has been manufactured by pharmaceutical companies for human therapeutic use (to wit, by Parke Davis) as Anabolicum Vister (Quinbolone; boldenone cyclopentenyl)… and yes, it was patented by Ciba as Parenabol (boldenone undecylenate) as well. Anabolicum Vister was an oral delivery drug that relied upon a 17α ether attachment and suspension in oil in order to increase its lipophilicity and therefore bioavailability. It was nontoxic; but had to be taken frequently (10 - 20 capsules daily were recommended, 100 - 200 mg of boldenone prodrug), and like oral testosterone undecanoate delivery, there was broad inter- (between) & intra- (within) individual and diurnal (between and within days) variability in blood concentrations achieved, affecting its efficacy & adherence (these are the primary reason that its manufacture was discontinued).

Rather than by 17α- alkylation (attachment of an angular methyl or ethyl group to the C-17 position), Anabolicum Vister relied upon attachment of a cyclopentenyl ether, 5 carbons in length to form a prodrug. The rationale for this was that by increased lipophilicity (in combination with suspension of the drug in oil vehicle), this polar oil could be ingested or swallowed and then, from the gut, absorbed by the lymphatic system, bypassing hepatic metabolism. The lymphatic system is a network of veins and arteries that only serve to reabsorb water. When blood is delivered to tissues, only ~85% of the fluid is recovered. The lymphatic system reabsorbes the excess (~85%) water and delivers it to the angulus venosus, where two large veins meet right before they empty out into the heart. In the digestive tract (where the capsules of Anabolicum Vister arrive after ingestion), the lymphatic system serves to transports fats. With a delivery system such as that of Anabolicum Vister, the lipid/fat contents are easily be absorbed into the lymphatic system, avoiding hepatic metabolism (and therefore, strain) and then are delivered via a fairly direct route into the bloodstream (for systemic delivery of active boldenone).

3. Misconception that boldenone is toxic, and particularly kidney & liver toxic.

Reality: Boldenone, when profiled for drug safety using ADME-Tox & GSK 400 standards, outperforms Metenolone enanthate (Rimobolan; “Primo”). Indeed, metenolone enanthate is deemed Rejected under these standards, hhence why it is not available for human medical use in many places that subject their medical drug supply to more scrupulous regulatory regimes and schemes. Conversely, boldenone is Accepted under these standards, and therefore suitable for human use according to industry and governmental regimes that enforce ADME-Tox & GSK 400 standards. Specifically, for those that are interested, metenolone enanthate fails by fully breaking the GSK 4/400 Rule, Pfizer 3/75 Rule (logP), & Lilly Med Chem Rules.

Boldenone has never been demonstrated to be particularly nephrotoxic in humans. While there is some fairly weak data that suggest that nonaromatizable AAS may pose a nephrotoxicity risk in animals (to wit, rodents; universally exposed to extremely high doses) under a fairly simple model that posits that AR activation per se poses some risk to nephrons that estrogens protect against. Well – boldenone aromatizes, so it’s not even a particularly good instance of a high risk compound under this model (unlike, e.g., metenolone, and certainly trenbolone).

The human data that does exist is totally & completely unreliable. There are two studies in particular that will be highlighted (as these are frequently used to defend the argument that boldenone is particularly hepato- and/or nephro- toxic).

The first study of note is Melick RA, Baird CW. The effect of "Parenabol" on patients with osteoporosis. Med J Aust. 1970 Nov 21;2(21):960-2. doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1970.tb63287.x. Hereafter, Melick.

This study (Melick) compared 2 doses of “EQ”: 50 mg Parenabol (boldenone undecylenate) every 2 weeks versus 25 mg Parenabol every 2 weeks.

Unsurprisingly, no anabolic or appetite-stimulative effects of the drug were noted. This is because both doses trialed are below the minimal effective dose in humans. Extrapolating from animal data and applying a human equivalence of dosing formula tells us that a minimal effective dose of boldenone undecylenate is 1.44 - 2.88 mg/kg e21d/e3w, or ~60 mg weekly for a 90 kg bodybuilder. Use of a human equivalent dose formula is the proper manner in which a trialworthy minimal effective dose should be arrived at.

And yet, despite these doses failing to induce any measurable anabolic or appetite-stimulatory effects, Melick is used to bolster the argument that boldenone is particularly ineffective and toxic.

Besides the doses being below that which could stimulate muscle anabolism, another problem with extrapolating from Melick is that its subjects were comprised of very sick individuals that were suffering from various maladies of long-term drug abuse, including alcohol (alcoholic cirrhosis), tobacco smoking (emphysema), and amphetamine addiction. Then, to draw any inferences about organic tissue damage from these data is totally incongruent to our population, not because bodybuilders never abuse street drugs, but because any instances of organic tissue damage from these subjects is not even fairly traceable to an ineffective drug dose trialed over the course of weeks versus the life-long abuse of toxic addictive substances on kidney and liver tissues in these elderly subjects with osteoporosis.

The second study of note is [2] Kantarci UH, Punduk Z, Senarslan O, Dirik A. Evaluation of anabolic steroid induced renal damage with sonography in bodybuilders. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2018 Nov; 58(11):1681-1687. doi:10.23736/S0022-4707.17.06763-9. This is trotted around the bodybuilding circles as the “Italian Human Use Comparator” study. Hereafter, Kantarci.

Basically, Peter Bond handily eviscerated Kantarci. Hopefully, he does not mind me quoting him (he has not reviewed any of my writings here or elsewhere); but I cannot do a better job with addressing this study than he has already done:

Overall: the English is really poor, makes it a horrendous read and sometimes I'm unsure what's meant. This on its own should already be a red flag: good quality papers are written in proper English. (It's also a low-tier journal in which it's published.)
The authors write: "Data were collected prospectively during medical inspection form the steroid schema, diet lists, blood and spot urine tests and ultrasound results."
I'm not entirely sure what they mean by "during medical inspection form the steroid schema", but regardless, where is this data? I can only find data measured at a single point in time. There is no prospective data. Only measurements at the end of the 12th week are reported.

Either way: this is cross-sectional, not prospective.

There are 2 groups who self-administered AAS, they were not prescribed. How big is the chance that you're gonna find 8 people doing the exact same cycle A and 7 people doing the exact same cycle B to participate in your study? If it's just 500 mg testosterone, sure, with some effort. But:

Group 1 - 12 weeks of:
500 mg testosterone enanthate weekly
400 mg nandrolone decanoate weekly
40 mg methandienone daily

or Group 2 - 16 weeks of:
500 mg testosterone enanthate weekly
300 mg nandrolone decanoate weekly
?

Moreover, they did not test the compounds of the participants. The black market AAS is full of crap. They only tested serum testosterone and gonadotropin values. The first was increased and the latter was suppressed. So all we know is that both groups took AAS, including testosterone. But other than that..? God knows.

And how were the participants recruited? This is not reported (sigh). For all we know the subjects in the boldenone group were a group of friends who had something else in common that gave them big kidneys...

The authors also write:
"Twenty two healthy, resistance-trained male volunteers who were using anabolic steroids and feeding with high-protein diets were included in the study."
There were 8 subjects in group 1, 7 in group 2, and another 7 in group 3 ('control'). Does this mean the control gorup also used anabolic steroids? But just not when the measurements were taken or something?

And:
"Testosterone levels were over 15ng/ml and FSH and LH levels were both below 0.100 mIU/ml in all subjects supporting depression of pituitary-gonadal axis."

So the subjects in the control group DID take testosterone?

General signs of sloppiness; kidney volume was calculated by "length x width x depth / 2". Why not multiply by pi / 6 instead of dividing by 2? Like the rest of the world does and how it should be done. It doesn't make that much difference in the end result, but why on earth would you make your calculations less accurate by simplifying a simplified formula even further?

The provided reference range for BUN is "0-38 mg/dL", it's not

The provided reference range for creatinine is "0-0.9 mg/dL", it's not

The parenchymal thickness measurements were either done wrong or the subjects in group 1 and 3 have an issue. Parenchymal thickness is usually between 15 and 20 mm (where the boldenone group fit in). The other groups had a parenchymal thickness of 12 mm.
The renal volumes of the other 2 groups are on the low end as well, although obviously not abnormal. (Group 2 kidney volume is indeed abnormal.)

Finally, if this study made you believe boldenone causes kidney damage, then you should also be inclined to think it causes a lot of weight gain. The boldenone group was 11 kg heavier than the other AAS group while sharing the same height (albeit that this large difference was not statistically significantly different from the other 2 groups).
“BuT BaSeLiNe MeAsUrEmEnTs WeRe NoT rEpOrTeD", exactly, neither were they for all kidney measurements.
You cannot possibly attribute an effect to a certain steroid in a cross-sectional study in which the participants self-adminstered AAS without testing the substances they administer. Let alone in a poorly done study like this one. (I have more comments about this paper, but jesus.)
(Peter Bond, Sep 28 2021)

Conclusion: The undecylenate ester and its parenteral (intramuscular; I.M.) administration in a prodrug complex with boldenone cannot be more toxic than an oral delivery drug of the same in therapeutic doses of 200 mg daily (1.4 g/week). I.M. administration of boldenone and androgens generally form a depot in the applied tissues, where the rate of dissolution of the prodrug depends on the length of the esterified fatty acid attachment – its logP being inversely related to the rate of absorption. The direction of absorption is into the blood circulation, where active hydrolysis by esterase occurs only in human whole blood (and not the liver; despite some expression of PDE7B in liver). As an aromatizable AAS, boldenone contributed to both local muscle anabolic and total-body growth (by increasing systemic-circulating-liver-secreted IGF-I; unlike metenolone). It is less toxic than metenolone enanthate (Rimobolan; “Primo”).
 
Last edited:
HA! So we go back to: EQ is great if it doesn't give you anxiety.
Right. done. thank you!

By the way is there any info regarding the Cypionate variant? anecdotally it seems to give people less side effects... like all shorter esters of AAS it seems...
 
HA! So we go back to: EQ is great if it doesn't give you anxiety.
Right. done. thank you!

By the way is there any info regarding the Cypionate variant? anecdotally it seems to give people less side effects... like all shorter esters of AAS it seems...
TBH, writing this was truly an exercise in objectivity. If I had given undue weight to my subjective experiences here like so many that cannot seem to be able to dissociate their n=1 from their understanding of reality, I'd believe and write that boldenone is total shit (because of anxiety & acnea that I get from EQ)... and to bolster my anecdote and ego, I might even start getting "sciency" and using shit data to say that not only is it shit, but it's tOxIc. That'd make me a guru.

Boldenone cypionate can be painful as hell. I'm uncertain of the prevalence, but it would seem that more often than not users find it to be intolerable due to painful effects. Of course, exceptions exist and (will fill up threads defending it).
 
Last edited:
There are an abundance of misconceptions about “EQ”; Equipoise (boldenone, as undecylenate) it seems. Let's address some of the primary misconceptions:

1. Misconception that boldenone is nonaromatizable, or that its use (in sufficiently high doses) permit abstaining from AI/SERM use in users that are not resilient against aromatizing effects (e.g., fluid retention/edema, growth of breast tissue, etc.)

Reality: Boldenone aromatizes (to estrone [E1] & estradiol [E2]) at 58% the rate of testosterone. This is significant. However, since Estrone (E1) is a weak estrogen, because lacks the 17β-OH group, it possesses only 2% of E2's potency to transactivate ERα (associated with aromatizing effects, many of which are negative side effects in men).

Practically, this means that moderate/moderately-high boldenone doses (used solo; or in combination with nonaromatizable drugs, and/or with low doses of exogenous testosterone) would tend to not require AI/SERM use in users that are not resilient against aromatizing effects, but: A) for those who principally aromatize to E2 rather than E1 (inter-individual differences are likely rooted in 17β-HSD1 isozyme expression, under the control of the A1-Q327 gene) particular; and/or B) where E1 blood concentrations start getting into the regions of > 50-fold above that at which E2 causes problems in the individual, then the aromatizing effects would be expected to predominate.

2. Misconception that boldenone is not intended for human use.

Reality: Boldenone has been manufactured by pharmaceutical companies for human therapeutic use (to wit, by Parke Davis) as Anabolicum Vister (Quinbolone; boldenone cyclopentenyl)… and yes, it was patented by Ciba as Parenabol (boldenone undecylenate) as well. Anabolicum Vister was an oral delivery drug that relied upon a 17α ether attachment and suspension in oil in order to increase its lipophilicity and therefore bioavailability. It was nontoxic; but had to be taken frequently (10 - 20 capsules daily were recommended, 100 - 200 mg of boldenone prodrug), and like oral testosterone undecanoate delivery, there was broad inter- (between) & intra- (within) individual and diurnal (between and within days) variability in blood concentrations achieved, affecting its efficacy & adherence (these are the primary reason that its manufacture was discontinued).

Rather than by 17α- alkylation (attachment of an angular methyl or ethyl group to the C-17 position), Anabolicum Vister relied upon attachment of a cyclopentenyl ether, 5 carbons in length to form a prodrug. The rationale for this was that by increased lipophilicity (in combination with suspension of the drug in oil vehicle), this polar oil could be ingested or swallowed and then, from the gut, absorbed by the lymphatic system, bypassing hepatic metabolism. The lymphatic system is a network of veins and arteries that only serve to reabsorb water. When blood is delivered to tissues, only ~85% of the fluid is recovered. The lymphatic system reabsorbes the excess (~85%) water and delivers it to the angulus venosus, where two large veins meet right before they empty out into the heart. In the digestive tract (where the capsules of Anabolicum Vister arrive after ingestion), the lymphatic system serves to transports fats. With a delivery system such as that of Anabolicum Vister, the lipid/fat contents are easily be absorbed into the lymphatic system, avoiding hepatic metabolism (and therefore, strain) and then are delivered via a fairly direct route into the bloodstream (for systemic delivery of active boldenone).

3. Misconception that boldenone is toxic, and particularly kidney & liver toxic.

Reality: Boldenone, when profiled for drug safety using ADME-Tox & GSK 400 standards, outperforms Metenolone enanthate (Rimobolan; “Primo”). Indeed, metenolone enanthate is deemed Rejected under these standards, hhence why it is not available for human medical use in many places that subject their medical drug supply to more scrupulous regulatory regimes and schemes. Conversely, boldenone is Accepted under these standards, and therefore suitable for human use according to industry and governmental regimes that enforce ADME-Tox & GSK 400 standards. Specifically, for those that are interested, metenolone enanthate fails by fully breaking the GSK 4/400 Rule, Pfizer 3/75 Rule (logP), & Lilly Med Chem Rules.

Boldenone has never been demonstrated to be particularly nephrotoxic in humans. While there is some fairly weak data that suggest that nonaromatizable AAS may pose a nephrotoxicity risk in animals (to wit, rodents; universally exposed to extremely high doses) under a fairly simple model that posits that AR activation per se poses some risk to nephrons that estrogens protect against. Well – boldenone aromatizes, so it’s not even a particularly good instance of a high risk compound under this model (unlike, e.g., metenolone, and certainly trenbolone).

The human data that does exist is totally & completely unreliable. There are two studies in particular that will be highlighted (as these are frequently used to defend the argument that boldenone is particularly hepato- and/or nephro- toxic).

The first study of note is Melick RA, Baird CW. The effect of "Parenabol" on patients with osteoporosis. Med J Aust. 1970 Nov 21;2(21):960-2. doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1970.tb63287.x. Hereafter, Melick.

This study (Melick) compared 2 doses of “EQ”: 50 mg Parenabol (boldenone undecylenate) every 2 weeks versus 25 mg Parenabol every 2 weeks.

Unsurprisingly, no anabolic or appetite-stimulative effects of the drug were noted. This is because both doses trialed are below the minimal effective dose in humans. Extrapolating from animal data and applying a human equivalence of dosing formula tells us that a minimal effective dose of boldenone undecylenate is 1.44 - 2.88 mg/kg e21d/e3w, or ~60 mg weekly for a 90 kg bodybuilder. Use of a human equivalent dose formula is the proper manner in which a trialworthy minimal effective dose should be arrived at.

And yet, despite these doses failing to induce any measurable anabolic or appetite-stimulatory effects, Melick is used to bolster the argument that boldenone is particularly ineffective and toxic.

Besides the doses being below that which could stimulate muscle anabolism, another problem with extrapolating from Melick is that its subjects were comprised of very sick individuals that were suffering from various maladies of long-term drug abuse, including alcohol (alcoholic cirrhosis), tobacco smoking (emphysema), and amphetamine addiction. Then, to draw any inferences about organic tissue damage from these data is totally incongruent to our population, not because bodybuilders never abuse street drugs, but because any instances of organic tissue damage from these subjects is not even fairly traceable to an ineffective drug dose trialed over the course of weeks versus the life-long abuse of toxic addictive substances on kidney and liver tissues in these elderly subjects with osteoporosis.

The second study of note is [2] Kantarci UH, Punduk Z, Senarslan O, Dirik A. Evaluation of anabolic steroid induced renal damage with sonography in bodybuilders. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2018 Nov; 58(11):1681-1687. doi:10.23736/S0022-4707.17.06763-9. This is trotted around the bodybuilding circles as the “Italian Human Use Comparator” study. Hereafter, Kantarci.

Basically, Peter Bond handily eviscerated Kantarci. Hopefully, he does not mind me quoting him (he has not reviewed any of my writings here or elsewhere); but I cannot do a better job with addressing this study than he has already done:


(Peter Bond, Sep 28 2021)

Conclusion: The undecylenate ester and its parenteral (intramuscular; I.M.) administration in a prodrug complex with boldenone cannot be more toxic than an oral delivery drug of the same in therapeutic doses of 200 mg daily (1.4 g/week). I.M. administration of boldenone and androgens generally form a depot in the applied tissues, where the rate of dissolution of the prodrug depends on the length of the esterified fatty acid attachment – its logP being inversely related to the rate of absorption. The direction of absorption is into the blood circulation, where active hydrolysis by esterase occurs only in human whole blood (and not the liver; despite some expression of PDE7B in liver). As an aromatizable AAS, boldenone contributed to both local muscle anabolic and total-body growth (by increasing systemic-circulating-liver-secreted IGF-I; unlike metenolone). It is less toxic than metenolone enanthate (Rimobolan; “Primo”).
Really appreciate the write up. Timely as it seemed as though the "boldenone is toxic" talk was becoming more and more prevalent lately but I have no idea why. I know couple influencers beat that drum at some point in the past. Often with plainly garbage data.

Parenabol I had read about but Anabolicum Vister was something I'd never read about before.

My personal feelings about EQ are mixed. I don't get anxiety as some feel they do, but I acknowledge there are very often better drugs for bodybuilding.

As for cypionate ester, tried it a couple times and yes painful as hell. So that's a pass for me also. I've read there was even an acetate esterfied version in the past that felt like being kicked by a mule. Yeah I'd pass on that as well.
 
Hmm I've got Bold cyp(from a reliable source here) at 200mg/ml and it's completly pip free, just started a cycle, will see how it goes
Great bro. I just try to direct my writings towards the normal distribution rather than individuals, if that makes sense. PIP and the like is highly individual, I don't often address that class of effects in any of my writings (but might mention it off-hand in a reply, that sorta thing).
 
I just got done running EQ for the first time in years. I wanted to give it another chance to see if perhaps I would like it better or get better results from it running it longer. If I had it to do again I’d have ran something else for the blast.

Eq gives me some vascularity that looks good. No real bad sides otherwise. No real anything otherwise.

I retain my opinion from before. It’s a waste of syringe space.
 
Really appreciate the write up. Timely as it seemed as though the "boldenone is toxic" talk was becoming more and more prevalent lately but I have no idea why. I know couple influencers beat that drum at some point in the past. Often with plainly garbage data.

Parenabol I had read about but Anabolicum Vister was something I'd never read about before.

My personal feelings about EQ are mixed. I don't get anxiety as some feel they do, but I acknowledge there are very often better drugs for bodybuilding.

As for cypionate ester, tried it a couple times and yes painful as hell. So that's a pass for me also. I've read there was even an acetate esterfied version in the past that felt like being kicked by a mule. Yeah I'd pass on that as well.
I believe that the boldenone toxicity claims originated with Victor Black, he's certainly the one that beats that drum the loudest and widest. Duchaine, who I admire greatly, may have planted a seed early on in the USH by claiming that it causes "steroid fever," a pyrogenic reaction, when first using... and flu-like symptoms. We must remember that he would have observed this in relation to veterinary products. Those who have experimented with extracting active trenbolone acetate from pellets, e.g., Finaplix, might be able to offer anecdotes on impurities that are present in veterinary grade drugs. While pellets are not perfectly homologous to oil vehicles, the standards for purity and pharmacopaeia broadly, are.

I agree, my personal feelings are very mixed on EQ, but I strongly dislike guys who because they dislike it decide to reach out to the literature in order to inflate their ego and to double-down on their argument that anxiety, acne, et cetera are due to its being "toxic."
 
Last edited:
I believe that the boldenone toxicity claims originated with Victor Black, he's certainly the one that beats that drum the loudest and widest. Duchaine, who I admire greatly, may have planted a seed early on in the USH by claiming that it causes "steroid fever," a pyrogenic reaction, when first using... and flu-like symptoms. We must remember that he would have observed this in relation to veterinary products. Those who have experimented with extracting active trenbolone acetate from pellets, e.g., Finaplix, might be able to offer anecdotes on impurities that are present in veterinary grade drugs. While pellets are not perfectly homologous to oil vehicles, the standards for purity and pharmacopaeia broadly, are.

I agree, my personal feelings are very mixed on EQ, but I strongly dislike guys who because they dislike it decide to reach out to the literature in order to inflate their ego and to double-down on their argument that anxiety, acne, et cetera are due to its being "toxic."
The YouTube talking heads keep saying there’s a lot of animal studies showing evidence of liver and kidney damage.

I’m curious if that’s true, didn’t a lot of BB’s in the 90’s run EQ in high doses? I’m not knowledgeable at all but when I hear about guy’s checking out early it’s seems to usually be cardiac related. Not due to liver and renal problems.
 
Boldenone fanclub meeting is called, get in boys!

I personally like Equipose because it feels bit milder version of both deca and testosterone, but with none of the side effects. Doesn't put sex drive on overdrive but neither kills it like deca (if you don't help your little boy with stronger androgens). Doesn't aim to kill your hair.

Long ester in the background doesn't care if you miss a shot or two, it keeps on givin'. Cypionate version @200mg/ml is trying to give me pip but my injection spot doesn't give a shit if it has pain or not, you can go 100% at the gym every day any way.
 
@Type-IIx do you know why primo lowers e2 for some people?
Well, there is at first impression the basic fact that androgens (particularly nonaromatizable ones) reduce gonadotropin synthesis/secretion, thereby reducing estrogenic activity at the hypothalamus and/or pituitary level.

I still suspect that part of the explanation of this inter-individual difference is related to 17β-HSD expression.

Twelve 17β-HSDs have been identified in humans... some catalyze reactions of non-steroidal substrates... if these receive a steroid substrate, reaction is either oxidation or reduction, depending on the cofactor & cellular localization.

17β-HSD1, under the control of the A1-Q327 gene catalyzes conversion of E1 (estrone) => E2 (estradiol) & of 16α-hydroxyestrone to E3 (estriol).

17β-HSD2 reverses the reactions of 17β-HSD1 (i.e., E2 => E1 & E3 => 16α-hydroxyestrone) & converts T => AD (androstenedione) [ketone at C-3 & C-17].

17β-HSD3 converts AD => T.
.....

Most of the remaining minor isozymes are generally unelucidated with respect to their function, but there is data that suggests striking inter-population differences in expressions of these isozymes with significant biological relevance (and by extension, this would extend to the inter-individual differences in estrogenic activities of certain AAS).

Inhibition of 17β-HSD1 => ↓E2, though abolition would require inhibition of Aromatase & Sulfatase, also.

I've hypothesized a bit about how this relates to androgens like EQ, Primo, 1-Test ("DHB") and anecdotes of reduced estrogenic activity and side effects. What is often used in shorthand or parlance as "low aromatization" (incorrectly; but even I do this at times).

I'll possibly write an actual article up about this if there's strong interest. I'll probably publish it on my site to be launched, unless Millard finds it particularly interesting, in which case he'll tell me. It'll require somewhat speculative inferences and reliance on thinner than I'd prefer evidence in some parts, but it'll be interesting I think.
 
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of people claiming that it acts as an AI. Some people even claim that they struggle to keep their estrogen from crashing when they take it. This seems to be common enough that people even compare it to primo and masteron in that regard.

WADA has even conducted a study on this and listed one of its metabolites as an AI.

Yes, one of its metabolites. The amount they do not specify but they state it as "traces of ATD". I have always been under the presumption that the amount of ATD metabolized from boldenone is likely too small to be of significant concern. But I'm obviously open to being proven wrong.
 
I'll possibly write an actual article up about this if there's strong interest. I'll probably publish it on my site to be launched, unless Millard finds it particularly interesting, in which case he'll tell me. It'll require somewhat speculative inferences and reliance on thinner than I'd prefer evidence in some parts, but it'll be interesting I think.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge yet again. I would be up for such an article. Where can we find your website?
 
What a great write up @Type-IIx!

Have you done or would consider doing something similar for Dianabol? Of particular interest is the type DHT and E2 that it converts to and the impact of those on the body.

Dbol has always been a 'feel good - until it doesn't' type of compound for me and I speculate that it may be the impact of what it converts into.

Anyhow, great work and keep 'em coming!
 
Great read.

I would appreciate a write-up like this on Primo

:)
He wrote this back in 2021.


And Peter Bond wrote this (definitely worth the read)

 
Back
Top