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

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”).
I had my scientist read this over. he said you are correct. thank you
 
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).
Any theories on why boldenone apparently causes more anxiety versus the other AAS?
 
Great read, I’m staring my Test/EQ run here shorty, I’ll update here.
 
Any theories on why boldenone apparently causes more anxiety versus the other AAS?
Nah, anything would just be a guess.

I can say that molecular modeling of target predictions for boldenone predicts ~15% probabilities for binding to corticosteroid binding globulin & glucocorticoid receptor, and ~10% probabilities for binding to the sigma, mu, delta, & kappa opioid receptors, dopamine transporter, & serotonin transporter.

Take your pick at random, become a guru, pump out endless creeds about how EQ causes anxiety because of this random selection, count your millions, and leave an inheritance to your children they'll choke on, if you play your cards right.
 
Nah, anything would just be a guess.

I can say that molecular modeling of target predictions for boldenone predicts ~15% probabilities for binding to corticosteroid binding globulin & glucocorticoid receptor, and ~10% probabilities for binding to the sigma, mu, delta, & kappa opioid receptors, dopamine transporter, & serotonin transporter.

Take your pick at random, become a guru, pump out endless creeds about how EQ causes anxiety because of this random selection, count your millions, and leave an inheritance to your children they'll choke on, if you play your cards right.

Hmmm. I *have* always wanted to start my own cult ... All I needed was a sign - and a push. Thank you, Brother Type-IIx. May the mass be with you! Amen.
 
Hmmm. I *have* always wanted to start my own cult ... All I needed was a sign - and a push. Thank you, Brother Type-IIx. May the mass be with you! Amen.
Hahah, I think this came from my "creeds" rather than "screeds" typo. I was going to make an off-color cult joke; but I thought better of it.
 
Nah, anything would just be a guess.

I can say that molecular modeling of target predictions for boldenone predicts ~15% probabilities for binding to corticosteroid binding globulin & glucocorticoid receptor, and ~10% probabilities for binding to the sigma, mu, delta, & kappa opioid receptors, dopamine transporter, & serotonin transporter.

Take your pick at random, become a guru, pump out endless creeds about how EQ causes anxiety because of this random selection, count your millions, and leave an inheritance to your children they'll choke on, if you play your cards right.

Thanks for this, sir

1699236992242.png
 
Nice thread man, are you an endocrinologist or smt? I just hoped on gear after 19 years of natty lifting and i'm doing my research about various ped's and from what i see and hear EQ fits my purpose for running it in the near future. I'm an endomorph, put weigh easily and it's harder to diet down (potential increase in appetite will be the only downside) so i'm looking for dryer compounds, i will avoid 19 nors. Currently i'm only on 210 test and 3-4 months after i will add primo or masteron (i already have them both) plus some Tbol for couple weeks in the end of my diet.

Thing is i read so many comments about EQ skyrocketting HGB and HCT and in my case it would not be a problem as i'm already too low, 42 HCT and 13,9 HGB. I must say all that negative stuff about EQ had me worrying and mostly what came from Vigorous Steve which i deeply respect and trust about his knowledge but man on this topic i believe he's kinda biased. Whenever the discussion ends up to EQ he's like "yeah, no problem..if you don't care about kidney toxicity" while there is no single evidence to the bodybuilding community afaik that someone had kidney issues from EQ. I mean, if you fooling around with a very high blood pressure and not do anything to resolve it, yeah..you may end up with renal issues but how can you blame a single compound for this? He disliked it because if i'm not mistaken he was running around a gram with a gram of T and in addition with eating beef everyday he had very high HCT and HGB..no shit lol.

Anyway, as i said i haven't even tried it yet but it's the compound i'm so hyped to try.
 
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).
Great breakdown as usual, thank you!

Interesting about the anxiety/acnea, BU has always been a favourite of mine over 15+ yrs and extremely well tolerated, great lean growth and good strength while using it.

I never would have thought some people might get anxiety from it. Just goes to show how different the spectrum of users can be!

Thanks for being impartial and not allowing your personal experience to colour the data.

I've certainly had experiences over the years with compounds that don't agree with me, that doesn't then = that compound is bad... Just not suitable for myself.
 
Boldenone aromatizes (to estrone [E1] & estradiol [E2]) at 58% the rate of testosterone.
I have doubts about this number because the study Biosynthesis of Estrogens examined the aromatization of boldione, can we assume that boldione and boldenone have 100% the same aromatization?
 
I have doubts about this number because the study Biosynthesis of Estrogens examined the aromatization of boldione, can we assume that boldione and boldenone have 100% the same aromatization?
It examined the aromatization of boldenone, as well as boldione. This value refers to boldenone's rate of aromatization.
 
Im probably missing something, but I dont see any mention of boldenone in this study
OK, I'll help, I'm taking out my irritation with others on you. I shouldn't do that. Although I am basically aware of your following me around the board trying to prove me wrong; it's just not a worthwhile endeavor from where I sit at the very least because you don't have the education.

Boldenone is 1,4-androstadiene-3,17-dione which aromatizes at an absolute rate of 35%, yielding the aromatic products estrone and estradiol.

Testosterone produced a yield of estrogen ≈ 60%.

So, take .35 / .6 ≈ 58% to say that boldenone aromatizes to estrone & estradiol at 58% rate of T.
 
@Type-IIx

I don't understand this because I really respect you, you are right that I sometimes look at your board because I think you have the most knowledge on this forum and I am not looking for anything to prove that you are stupid just to learn something myself

Boldenone is 1,4-androstadiene-3,17-dione

it's strange, because according to my vision it's boldione not boldenone


isn't boldenone called 1,4-androstadiene-17-beta-ol-3-one?

I fully understand that the number 60% was formed from 35/60 but I don't understand why you took boldione for the calculation

I realize that according to Schanzer boldenone undergoes a reversible conversion to boldione in the body

1708177006503.png
 
@Type-IIx

it surprises me that instead of being happy that there is a person who insightfully reads your articles and comments on them, thus increasing their popularity causes you such resentment

And then you complain that people ask over and over again about the effect of primo/eq/dhb on estrogen, for example, despite the fact that you wrote a lot about it a long time ago
 
@Type-IIx

I don't understand this because I really respect you, you are right that I sometimes look at your board because I think you have the most knowledge on this forum and I am not looking for anything to prove that you are stupid just to learn something myself



it's strange, because according to my vision it's boldione not boldenone


isn't boldenone called 1,4-androstadiene-17-beta-ol-3-one?

I fully understand that the number 60% was formed from 35/60 but I don't understand why you took boldione for the calculation

I realize that according to Schanzer boldenone undergoes a reversible conversion to boldione in the body

View attachment 277440
Bro I'm sorry it is boldenone. I don't really know how to equip you to understand this besides instructing you to take Chem courses at a community college.
 
@Type-IIx

it surprises me that instead of being happy that there is a person who insightfully reads your articles and comments on them, thus increasing their popularity causes you such resentment

And then you complain that people ask over and over again about the effect of primo/eq/dhb on estrogen, for example, despite the fact that you wrote a lot about it a long time ago
It's simply difficult for me to be challenged by you, as here, with a tone of condescension, and doubt, when I literally don't know how else to tell you that this is boldenone. You need some uni level chem bro. I'm not trying to humiliate you I'm trying to explain to you that there's a knowledge barrier that is limited by your education.
 
I think you are manipulating, Prof. Schanzer called 1,4-androstadiene-3,17-dione Boldione not Boldenone. We see the graphic from his work

Give a new argument instead of using claims about your exceptional education
 
Back
Top