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

[revono]

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.

I always thought that aas prevent people from perceiving reality adequately, they feel like a god and all that)))

 

[eery]

I always thought that aas prevent people from perceiving reality adequately, they feel like a god and all that)))

No, those are just delusional people that have personality issues in most cases.

 

[ar7353]

@Type-IIx The last post on the previous page has a link to a Peter Bond article in which he briefly discusses the “quality of AAS” findings of the HAARLEM trial. In short, they found that the actual contents (AAS) of products were most often not what was claimed on the label or they contained other AAS not listed on the label. Do you believe the HPLC testing (ie. Janoshik) we see on this forum in particular (compared to the AAS community as a whole) prevents some of those same issues/limitations found in the HAARLEM trial?

I guess what I’m asking is if HPLC is as accurate/precise as the method used in the HAARLEM trial (UPLC-QTOF-MS/MS), and if we can use UGL products that have been “vetted” by HPLC testing with confidence. Another claim made very often in the discussion of primobolan or primo vs other AAS is about it being “faked often” or “not real primo”, so I figured this is actually relevant to the discussion. Thanks in advance!

 

[Type-IIx]

@Type-IIx The last post on the previous page has a link to a Peter Bond article in which he briefly discusses the “quality of AAS” findings of the HAARLEM trial. In short, they found that the actual contents (AAS) of products were most often not what was claimed on the label or they contained other AAS not listed on the label. Do you believe the HPLC testing (ie. Janoshik) we see on this forum in particular (compared to the AAS community as a whole) prevents some of those same issues/limitations found in the HAARLEM trial?

Yes. These HAARLEM subjects mostly acquired their AAS on local (i.e., Dutch) black markets, so from a gym bro, basically.

I guess what I’m asking is if HPLC is as accurate/precise as the method used in the HAARLEM trial (UPLC-QTOF-MS/MS), and if we can use UGL products that have been “vetted” by HPLC testing with confidence. Another claim made very often in the discussion of primobolan or primo vs other AAS is about it being “faked often” or “not real primo”, so I figured this is actually relevant to the discussion. Thanks in advance!

 

[Zmn71]

Would you say that bold is a better muscle builder than primo? Despite the “all steroids build muscle at the same rate” bullshit

 

[Rido]

Glad to see you are back and posting!

 

[Type-IIx]

Would you say that bold is a better muscle builder than primo? Despite the “all steroids build muscle at the same rate” bullshit

This requires too many leaps of faith to state a claim either way (with respect to muscle anabolism).

What I can say is that I can make a case for Primo but not EQ use on the basis of anything tangible. Of course, this doesn't mean that if you like EQ, don't use it; and I do not address EQ's use for women, for whom it is particularly outstanding (perhaps indicating some intangible qualities that it possesses). So feel free to handwave, "meh, maybe on paper" away; but I will just defend this post by pointing out that it's not only typed out ("on paper") but also reasoned out.

Removing any influence of relative parent hormone content between the undecylenate & enanthate esters (where enanthate > undecylenate, i.e., Primo > EQ), we can say that boldenone is a surprisingly weak anabolic agent, with a low potency to activate the AR (10.72% relative potency vs. DHT). Metenolone is considerably more potent as an AR ligand (28.75% relative potency vs. DHT).

However, metenolone is principally metabolized by 3α-HSD (like DHT), ubiquitious in human skeletal muscle, meaning that it is basically broken down rapidly in muscle (in humans) before it is able to exert substantial muscle anabolism.

I can make a much stronger case for rational metenolone use vs. boldenone, as metenolone does pose somewhat reduced cardiac harm risks and is a commercially available (i.e., pharmaceutical) parenteral (i.m.) 5α-reduced AAS.

Boldenone basically does what nandrolone and testosterone do (augments IGF-I, increasing total-body size), but with risks attendant to veterinary & black market drug supplies, without offering any unique benefit. Unique benefits of testosterone include its 5α-reduction & supporting sexual function, and of nandrolone include its increasing matrix type I collagen deposition & fluid retention in synovial joints, benefiting joints acutely (but also posing unique cardiac harms).

 

[Zmn71]

This requires too many leaps of faith to state a claim either way (with respect to muscle anabolism).

What I can say is that I can make a case for Primo but not EQ use on the basis of anything tangible. Of course, this doesn't mean that if you like EQ, don't use it; and I do not address EQ's use for women, for whom it is particularly outstanding (perhaps indicating some intangible qualities that it possesses). So feel free to handwave, "meh, maybe on paper" away; but I will just defend this post by pointing out that it's not only typed out ("on paper") but also reasoned out.

Removing any influence of relative parent hormone content between the undecylenate & enanthate esters (where enanthate > undecylenate, i.e., Primo > EQ), we can say that boldenone is a surprisingly weak anabolic agent, with a low potency to activate the AR (10.72% relative potency vs. DHT). Metenolone is considerably more potent as an AR ligand (28.75% relative potency vs. DHT).

However, metenolone is principally metabolized by 3α-HSD (like DHT), ubiquitious in human skeletal muscle, meaning that it is basically broken down rapidly in muscle (in humans) before it is able to exert substantial muscle anabolism.

I can make a much stronger case for rational metenolone use vs. boldenone, as metenolone does pose somewhat reduced cardiac harm risks and is a commercially available (i.e., pharmaceutical) parenteral (i.m.) 5α-reduced AAS.

Boldenone basically does what nandrolone and testosterone do (augments IGF-I, increasing total-body size), but with risks attendant to veterinary & black market drug supplies, without offering any unique benefit. Unique benefits of testosterone include its 5α-reduction & supporting sexual function, and of nandrolone include its increasing matrix type I collagen deposition & fluid retention in synovial joints, benefiting joints acutely (but also posing unique cardiac harms).

Great post. Thank you for the response.

 

[hallomonde]

Pretty good post, thanks for it my dude.

 

[mass gain]

I need to check out this thread in more detail. Two compounds I could learn a bit more about for sure. Thanks for the discussion all.

 

[Zeus45]

My E1 levels are very high on boldenone. So boldenone does aromatize but to a weaker estrogen. You can't develop estrogen deficiency or bone mineral density loss on eq. EQ was used to treat osteoporosis.

 

[Zmn71]

f

My E1 levels are very high on boldenone. So boldenone does aromatize but to a weaker estrogen. You can't develop estrogen deficiency or bone mineral density loss on eq. EQ was used to treat osteoporosis.

FWIW I had a non detectable e2 but an e1 in the thousands.

 

[Zeus45]

f

FWIW I had a non detectable e2 but an e1 in the thousands.

How did you feel? Were you still making progress?

 

[Zmn71]

How did you feel? Were you still making progress?

Felt fuckin weird honestly. I looked good though lmao.

 

[fike]

Thanks for the write-up, brother. I enjoyed the read. I'm running a lower dose of 300 mg EQ per week with my current cycle. The main reason I decided to add it to my cycle is because I read many anecdotal reports of people having an increase in appetite when using this compound. Being a naturally skinny guy that has had a very hard time eating enough to go through a true bulking cycle, I have found those anecdotal reports to be true for myself as well. It took a good four weeks before I really started seeing this effect, but it has helped me tremendously with being able to eat enough to put on some significant mass this go round. I started out at around 185ish and now I'm at 200 pounds. I haven't noticed any sides yet at 12 weeks and my labs have been good. I have found it to be extremely useful for me for this reason only. I can't speak much on it for too much else, though.

 

[ergo]

Most people I believe do not run a large enough dose to fully experience truly what equipoise can do. One cycle I ran was 1800mg EQ 900mg Primo (I experimented high dosages on these compounds) and a gram of test. This cycle was August through December. I acquired an incredible look. After training I would head back to my hotel, I was in San Francisco at this time, my lunch everyday after training was a filet steak, french fries and a large ceaser salad with shrimp. I was eating everything and just stayed in superb condition. I have full body pics taken in my room during this period. If you care to see.

 

[Zmn71]

Most people I believe do not run a large enough dose to fully experience truly what equipoise can do. One cycle I ran was 1800mg EQ 900mg Primo (I experimented high dosages on these compounds) and a gram of test. This cycle was August through December. I acquired an incredible look. After training I would head back to my hotel, I was in San Francisco at this time, my lunch everyday after training was a filet steak, french fries and a large ceaser salad with shrimp. I was eating everything and just stayed in superb condition. I have full body pics taken in my room during this period. If you care to see.

Ergo from ProMuscle?

What did you run your test at during that? Bold and primo both lower my estrogen significantly.

 

[sketch7]

I've done 2 cycles with EQ and loved both of them. Going to try bold cyp next time. Luckily it doesn't give me anxiety.

 

[ergo]

Ergo from ProMuscle?

What did you run your test at during that? Bold and primo both lower my estrogen significantly.

Yes and a gram.

 

[29trt]

Most people I believe do not run a large enough dose to fully experience truly what equipoise can do. One cycle I ran was 1800mg EQ 900mg Primo (I experimented high dosages on these compounds) and a gram of test. This cycle was August through December. I acquired an incredible look. After training I would head back to my hotel, I was in San Francisco at this time, my lunch everyday after training was a filet steak, french fries and a large ceaser salad with shrimp. I was eating everything and just stayed in superb condition. I have full body pics taken in my room during this period. If you care to see.

greetings, can you elaborate a little, were you also on Gh or other peptides? how much weight did you gain in this period?