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

greetings, can you elaborate a little, were you also on Gh or other peptides? how much weight did you gain in this period?
IMG_9076.jpegIMG_9283.jpeg

August start on L. Till November. I like many ran Eq and didn’t think much of it. I read an article by Mike Arnold claimed he knew guys that would run close to two grams and witnessed the results. He claimed if you want to see what EQ will do run it high enough. Here’s the before and after. Quite remarkable. 1800 EQ, 900 Primo, one gram test, 100mg tren a EOD and probably 4iu hgh daily. Test tren Hgh I ran for years with no break. The only major edition were EQ Primo. The photo on the L I was running Hgh tren test. On the L I just returned home from lengthy travel. I always leap frog my stash from one destination to the next. I was never off. My training discipline and nutrition were off. I trained and cycled as described at my summer home which is were the L pic is taken. I was able to train properly with no interruptions. In October I flew into San Francisco until end of November. My training was disciplined. During that month the effects of this cycle bloomed. I was eating everything in sight. Steaks omelettes deserts. All large high calorie meals with no caution or concern about fat or sugar intake and I was amazed as I stayed in this condition and grew. Sloppy 212 when I started. A smoking 230 for quite some time. It required a lot of pinning, which eventually wore me down. None the less I stuck with it and BOOM! This was 2018 so I just turn 54 as I’m 60 now Sept 61. I train low volume and use different techniques like all compound movements no isolation etc..
 
View attachment 258578View attachment 258579

August start on L. Till November. I like many ran Eq and didn’t think much of it. I read an article by Mike Arnold claimed he knew guys that would run close to two grams and witnessed the results. He claimed if you want to see what EQ will do run it high enough. Here’s the before and after. Quite remarkable. 1800 EQ, 900 Primo, one gram test, 100mg tren a EOD and probably 4iu hgh daily. Test tren Hgh I ran for years with no break. The only major edition were EQ Primo. The photo on the L I was running Hgh tren test. On the L I just returned home from lengthy travel. I always leap frog my stash from one destination to the next. I was never off. My training discipline and nutrition were off. I trained and cycled as described at my summer home which is were the L pic is taken. I was able to train properly with no interruptions. In October I flew into San Francisco until end of November. My training was disciplined. During that month the effects of this cycle bloomed. I was eating everything in sight. Steaks omelettes deserts. All large high calorie meals with no caution or concern about fat or sugar intake and I was amazed as I stayed in this condition and grew. Sloppy 212 when I started. A smoking 230 for quite some time. It required a lot of pinning, which eventually wore me down. None the less I stuck with it and BOOM! This was 2018 so I just turn 54 as I’m 60 now Sept 61. I train low volume and use different techniques like all compound movements no isolation etc..
You did a gram of test and 350 tren for years?
 
Thank you for sharing that, you're a scary 60 year old thats for sure, looking great man!
it really puts it in perspective, an extra 2.7 grams of gear is just that allot more gear idk if it means EQ is any better at building muscle than say test but did you get less sides perhaps?
 
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 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”).
Thanks for sharing bro. Appreciated cleared things up.
 
Something i forgot to ask, any chances of something similar for masteron?
I don't know that Mast has so many misconceptions around it. I've written about it with respect to its place in a TMT cycle (test, mast, tren). You can search my posts for TMT, perhaps.
 
I don't know that Mast has so many misconceptions around it. I've written about it with respect to its place in a TMT cycle (test, mast, tren). You can search my posts for TMT, perhaps.
I am interested in athletic coaching. Could you please DM me? I couldn't figure out how to do it myself.
 
I am interested in athletic coaching. Could you please DM me? I couldn't figure out how to do it myself.
That's because you are a new member so that functionality is not available to you.

I might as well address this here, though. I cannot work with athletes whose federation rules prohibit the use of AAS or peptide hormones, and since you're a combat athlete, there are no such federations.

Sorry brother.
 
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 know WIKI is not the best resource for information, but this not politics or history, that is rewritten daily nowadays.
Somehow it is an opposite information. Can somebody explain.

" Due to its double bond between the C1 and C2 positions, metenolone is resistant to metabolism by 3α-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase (3α-HSD). As such, unlike DHT and the closely related DHT derivatives mestanolon (17α-methyl-DHT) and mesterlon (1α-methyl-DHT), metenolone has considerable anabolic effects."
 
I know WIKI is not the best resource for information, but this not politics or history, that is rewritten daily nowadays.
Somehow it is an opposite information. Can somebody explain.

" Due to its double bond between the C1 and C2 positions, metenolone is resistant to metabolism by 3α-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase (3α-HSD). As such, unlike DHT and the closely related DHT derivatives mestanolon (17α-methyl-DHT) and mesterlon (1α-methyl-DHT), metenolone has considerable anabolic effects."
You're right, this illustrates, case in point, why Wikipedia and publicly editable wikis generally are not reliable.

Peter Bond's work is reliable. See:

Besides that, you can look up any metenolone metabolism study to see its extensive metabolism by 3α-HSD.
 
Evidence of Boldenone Increasing E2

If I were to add anything to Primobolan / Equipoise Crashed my E2 – Help! - MESO-Rx

It would be to bolster the (apparently controversial) evidence that EQ tends to increase E2.

Additional Data Demonstrating Increased Estradiol by EQ
From this very thread [post], @fike shared his bloodwork showing increased E2 (114 pg/mL [Very High]), without confounding factors (e.g., trenbolone, exemestane) using the perfectly valid nonsensitive E2 (Roche ECLIA) assay: EQ (600 mg) + Var (350 - 700 mg) + Test (200 mg) :

View attachment 267385

Animal data (same CYP19A1 Aromatase gene) showing dose-dependency to the increase to E2 (and decrease to T) by EQ:
View attachment 267386

Mechanistic data from human placental microsomes demonstrating estrone and estradiol is produced by boldenone aromatization: Gual, C., Morato, T., Hayano, M., Gut, M., & Dorfman, R. I. (1962). Biosynthesis of Estrogens. Endocrinology, 71(6), 920–925. doi:10.1210/endo-71-6-920

Defense of the Validity of the Roche ECLIA (Roche Elecsys Estradiol II Immunoassay)
So, I did some research on the supposed insensitivity of the "nonsensitive" (here, Roche ECLIA) estradiol radioimmunoassay.

From Krasowski MD, Drees D, Morris CS, Maakestad J, Blau JL, Ekins S. Cross-reactivity of steroid hormone immunoassays: clinical significance and two-dimensional molecular similarity prediction. BMC Clin Pathol. 2014 Jul 14;14:33. doi: 10.1186/1472-6890-14-33. PMID: 25071417; PMCID: PMC4112981:

View attachment 267432

Methods
...
Two-dimensional (2D) Similarity analysis
Comparison of similarity of test molecules to the target compounds of the steroid immunoassays used two-dimensional (2D) similarity analysis, which determines the similarity between molecules independent of any in vitro data (52-54)... 2D similarity searching used the "find similar molecules by fingerprints" protocol in Discovery Studio versions 2.5.5 and 3.5 (Accelrys, Inc. San Diego, California, USA). MDL public keys (a specific 2D similarity algorithm) were used with the Tanimoto similarity coefficient (ranging from 0 to 1 with 1 being maximally similar and 0 being maximally dissimilar) as an input query...
...
Estradiol immunoassay
Only estrone (0.54%) produced greater than 0.5% cross-reactivity on the Roche Elecsys Estradiol II immunoasay at a challenge of 1 µg/mL (1,000 ng/mL) (
See Table 3). Estriol, estropipate, ethinyl estradiol, 2-methoxy-estradiol, 17β-estradiol-3, 17-disulfate each produced very weak cross-reactivity between 0.05 and 0.5%. The aromatase inhibitors exemestane (Aromasin), formestane, and letrozole produced no detectable cross-reactivity (supported also by Krasowski, M. D., Drees, D., Morris, C. S., Maakestad, J., Blau, J. L., & Ekins, S. (2014). Cross-reactivity of steroid hormone immunoassays: clinical significance and two-dimensional molecular similarity prediction. BMC Clinical Pathology, 14(1). doi:10.1186/1472-6890-14-33).

Using the cross-reactivity values, the apparent estradiol concentration that could be produced on the Roche Elecsys immunoassay was estimated for compounds based on published serum/plasma concentrations if available (see Table 3). No compound was predicted to produce estradiol concentrations within the reference range for males or females. Even estriol, which can reach high concentrations in pregnancy, likely produces little or no clinically significant impact on the Roche estradiol immunoassay due to low cross-reactivity. The 2D similarities of estrone (0.882), ethinyl estradiol (0.943), and estriol (0.917) were higher than any of the (103 structurally similar, see 3. Estradiol sheet in Supplementary Materials workbook) compounds that were not cross-reactive on the Roche assay. See:
Supplementary Materials (1472-6890-14-33-S1.xlsx)

My understanding is that Derek from MPMD has done a YouTube video about supposed cross-reactivity of "some unknown estrogen" produced by EQ.

My conclusion is that he's pretty unreliable and his content is nothing more than entertaining.
Worked Example (Application)
To do the math for anyone reading/caring:

The estrone (E1) result associated with the user from the Help! Primo/EQ Crashed my E2... article using EQ (800 mg) + Tren (600 mg) + Test (300 mg) in pg/mL units = 365.6 pg/mL

The degreee of cross-reactivity in @fike's "nonsensitive" E2 assay between E1 & E2 = 0.54%

0.54% * 365.6 pg/mL = 1.925 pg/mL, or 1.6% of fike's 114 pg/mL E2 result.

Further, given fike's experiencing classical estrogenic symptoms, we can rule out E1's contribution, since it is a mere 2% as potent as E2 at activating ERα, requiring 50-fold greater concentrations than that at which E2 causes these symptoms in men.

Conclusion
The argument that boldenone cannot increase estradiol is not tenable. Modern estradiol ("nonsensitive") radioimmunoassays like Roche's possess high selectivity, and can be used by someone skilled for interpretation and decisionmaking.

Since ultrasensitive/sensitive estradiol assays may be inaccessible or impracticable for a user, the Roche ECLIA is a suitable radioimmunoassay that conforms to a high degree of specificity for estradiol.

The argument that only sensitive or ultrasensitive methods can be used to draw conclusions about circulating estrogen concentrations in blood is a form of invalid argument a la the Perfect Solution Fallacy. Subjecting RIA estradiol measures to heightened scrutiny because they show elevated blood estradiol, but accepting that same assay because it shows low/normal blood estradiol, is an invalid technique called cherry-picking.

The primary reasons for divergent between-user effects on estradiol by boldenone (EQ; as undecylenate) are described by the following article: Primobolan / Equipoise Crashed my E2 – Help! - MESO-Rx
 
Does Primobolan and EQ have any anti-aromatase effect on Dianabol converting to Methyl-estrogen? Doesn't Dbol convert to estrogen through the liver and not aromatase?
 
Does Primobolan and EQ have any anti-aromatase effect on Dianabol converting to Methyl-estrogen?
This isn't something that has been answered with particularity for either of these drugs.

With respect to Primo:
There is evidence that 5α-reduced metabolites of testosterone: DHT, 5α-androstanedione, 3α-diol, 3β-diol, & 5β-androstane-3,17-dione are all competitive inhibitors of the aromatase reaction (granulosa cells, in vitro).

There is evidence in Primobolan / Equipoise Crashed my E2 – Help! - MESO-Rx of Primo's high probability binding to aromatase (CYP19A1), and an accounting of its other antiestrogenic effects (e.g., tissue-level estrogen blockade, pituitary antigonadotropic effects).

With respect to EQ:
The evidence strongly supports its inter-individual (between user) divergence in effects on tissue-level estrogenic effects.

It does aromatize to E2 & E1 at 58% the rate of testosterone.

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

Doesn't Dbol convert to estrogen through the liver and not aromatase?
I don't understand the call of the question, as your prior question indicates correctly that Dbol aromatizes to a methylestrogen.

Due in part to its 17α-methyl attachment, it is sterically hindered like methyltestosterone in its aromatization in vivo, and due in part to its androsta-1,4-diene-3-one structure, its bulky conformational shape makes it a poor substrate for aromatase. Still, the likely identity of its aromatic product, or a close analogue to it, 17α-methyl-E is a known potent estrogen.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand the call of the question, as your prior question indicates correctly that Dbol aromatizes to a methylestrogen.

Due in part to its 17α-methyl attachment, it is sterically hindered like methyltestosterone in its aromatization in vivo, and due in part to its androsta-1,4-diene-3-one structure, its bulky conformational shape makes it a poor substrate for aromatase. Still, the likely identity of its aromatic product, or a close analogue to it, 17α-methyl-E is a known potent estrogen.

I know Dbol aromatizes, but does it aromatize the same way testosterone does? We know nandrolone aromatizes through a different pathway than testosterone. My thoughts are that 17a-methylestradiol is not the same thing as estradiol that is created from the process of converting testosterone. It is not the result of the aromatization process, rather it is a metabolite. It is created as a result of the breaking down of metandienone (and also methyltestosterone). It is also more metabolically stable and resistant due to the C17b group that has been added, so that has to play a role somewhere in there. When someone crashes their e2 by using too much primo or more often EQ, what do we tell them to do? Take some dbol. Now if the aromatase enzymes were all occupied converting androstenedione into estrone and not turning testosterone into estradiol then how in the world would dbol help? If the substrate is being maximally used then how would even the tiniest amount of dbol create methyl estradiol and bring e2 levels back up?
 
I know Dbol aromatizes, but does it aromatize the same way testosterone does? We know nandrolone aromatizes through a different pathway than testosterone. My thoughts are that 17a-methylestradiol is not the same thing as estradiol that is created from the process of converting testosterone. It is not the result of the aromatization process, rather it is a metabolite. It is created as a result of the breaking down of metandienone (and also methyltestosterone). It is also more metabolically stable and resistant due to the C17b group that has been added, so that has to play a role somewhere in there. When someone crashes their e2 by using too much primo or more often EQ, what do we tell them to do? Take some dbol. Now if the aromatase enzymes were all occupied converting androstenedione into estrone and not turning testosterone into estradiol then how in the world would dbol help? If the substrate is being maximally used then how would even the tiniest amount of dbol create methyl estradiol and bring e2 levels back up?
Aromatase reaction (aromatization) of C19 androgens, including Dbol & Test:

1. hydroxylation of the C19-methyl group
2. a second hydroxylation of the C19-methyl group to form a 19-oxo-compound
3. cleavage of the bond between C10 and C19 to yield formic acid and the aromatized A-ring product with loss of the hydrogen atoms at the 1β and 2β positions
 
Aromatase reaction (aromatization) of C19 androgens, including Dbol & Test:

1. hydroxylation of the C19-methyl group
2. a second hydroxylation of the C19-methyl group to form a 19-oxo-compound
3. cleavage of the bond between C10 and C19 to yield formic acid and the aromatized A-ring product with loss of the hydrogen atoms at the 1β and 2β positions

Thank you bro!

My problem is my estrogen is proven to be tanked from EQ via ultra-sensitive estradiol bloodwork. I take Anadrol and i think its helps because it does not aromatize but can activate estrogen receptors via the 2-hydroxymethylene group, and it can exert estrogenic effects. I was thinking of also adding dianabol for estrogen, but based on what you said i am sure EQ will hinder its aromatization as well. I know not everyone gets an AI effect from EQ, but personally I do.
 
Back
Top