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”).
This was a great read.

Just started eq @1g/week, so the timing of seeing this thread resurface was great. Haven't used EQ in many years, hoping the anxiety bug doesn't strike me again like it did in the past. I'll have to play with my estrogen and compounds a bit until I get it dialed in
 
This was a great read.

Just started eq @1g/week, so the timing of seeing this thread resurface was great. Haven't used EQ in many years, hoping the anxiety bug doesn't strike me again like it did in the past. I'll have to play with my estrogen and compounds a bit until I get it dialed in
u should be more worried about blood thickening at that dose my friend
 
This was a great read.

Just started eq @1g/week, so the timing of seeing this thread resurface was great. Haven't used EQ in many years, hoping the anxiety bug doesn't strike me again like it did in the past. I'll have to play with my estrogen and compounds a bit until I get it dialed in
How much test with that? Do you run other compounds or just test-eq?
 
This is interesting, I’ve been considering Test, EQ, NPP for my next offseason but have heard 1:1 test:eq can sometimes crash e2 but it looks like that’s not really what’s happening? The anecdotal reports seem to suggest that for a small population they need to run test a good bit higher to not feel like shit. I assume it would be a poor idea to go 400/400/200 (test/eq/npp) for a first time EQ user?
 
This is interesting, I’ve been considering Test, EQ, NPP for my next offseason but have heard 1:1 test:eq can sometimes crash e2 but it looks like that’s not really what’s happening? The anecdotal reports seem to suggest that for a small population they need to run test a good bit higher to not feel like shit. I assume it would be a poor idea to go 400/400/200 (test/eq/npp) for a first time EQ user?
I ran 1200mg of test last year and i only needed 400 EQ as an AI
 
I’ve heard to start at 2:1 test:eq would you say that would’ve crashed your hormones if you tried that?

You've expressed concerns about this before. Do you do better with E2 at the high end? Or is it just you (like me) feel like shit in when it's in the teens.

I've never had gyno and just always seem to feel fine (or don't notice anything negative) when E2 runs on the high side.
 
How much test with that? Do you run other compounds or just test-eq?
Doing 250 test to start
1g eq
600 mast
6iu gh
400-600 tren

The Test and the tren dose is to be determined depending on if I get sides from EQ. Once I finish my cut I'll probably up the test to 750 and drop the tren for the rebound bulk. But it all depends on sides. Haven't used eq in years. Might have to play with the test dose, the tren dose, and my estrogen levels to find what works for me I'd I start getting eq anxiety sides
 
This is interesting, I’ve been considering Test, EQ, NPP for my next offseason but have heard 1:1 test:eq can sometimes crash e2 but it looks like that’s not really what’s happening? The anecdotal reports seem to suggest that for a small population they need to run test a good bit higher to not feel like shit. I assume it would be a poor idea to go 400/400/200 (test/eq/npp) for a first time EQ user?

Since you get e2 inhibition effect from primo, probably the same will happen with eq. But from the time you add npp i assume your e2 will sit in a nice spot. This is what i'm planning also for my bulk, with the difference of not run the npp right from the start. I'd like to wait for eq to kick in for the first 8-10 weeks, see how it affects e2 (because primo hits it hard) and then add the npp.

Doing 250 test to start
1g eq
600 mast
6iu gh
400-600 tren

The Test and the tren dose is to be determined depending on if I get sides from EQ. Once I finish my cut I'll probably up the test to 750 and drop the tren for the rebound bulk. But it all depends on sides. Haven't used eq in years. Might have to play with the test dose, the tren dose, and my estrogen levels to find what works for me I'd I start getting eq anxiety sides

Good luck man. I hope eq doesn't affect your e2 because if it does it will have a big impact running it 1:4. Do you know if primo does it to you?
 
You've expressed concerns about this before. Do you do better with E2 at the high end? Or is it just you (like me) feel like shit in when it's in the teens.

I've never had gyno and just always seem to feel fine (or don't notice anything negative) when E2 runs on the high side.
Yeah I feel better with it on the high end. Ran test at like 600 and primo at 400 and had e2 in the mid 20s. Felt okay, but felt amazing on 500 test, 500 mast with e2 in the high 50s
 
Good luck man. I hope eq doesn't affect your e2 because if it does it will have a big impact running it 1:4. Do you know if primo does it to you?

I'm a high aromatizer, so the idea of less E2 binding due to the presence of E1 clogging up the receptors doesn't sound too bad to me, but there is a very high likelihood that I'll have to adjust things around once I see how the estrogen is affected. Perhaps I'll use less AI, or maybe increase the test dosage. I know my ratio is kind of low, but I like to keep the test lower when on tren because I feel like I get less sides this way. Have maybe 8 more weeks of cutting left. I'm probably like 9-10% bf rn, want to get as lean as possible, then blow up on the rebound with high test and maybe some low dose slin post workout is the plan

so current cutting cycle is:
250 test
1g eq
600 mast
400-600 tren
6iu gh

then for the rebound bulk i'm thinking:
750-1g test
1g eq
600 mast
200-400 tren
6iu gh
10iu slin post workout

Haven't run primo in years so cant really comment on that yet, but ive debated adding lose dose primo (200-400/week) to future cycles just for it's E2 effects.
 
I'm a high aromatizer, so the idea of less E2 binding due to the presence of E1 clogging up the receptors doesn't sound too bad to me, but there is a very high likelihood that I'll have to adjust things around once I see how the estrogen is affected. Perhaps I'll use less AI, or maybe increase the test dosage. I know my ratio is kind of low, but I like to keep the test lower when on tren because I feel like I get less sides this way. Have maybe 8 more weeks of cutting left. I'm probably like 9-10% bf rn, want to get as lean as possible, then blow up on the rebound with high test and maybe some low dose slin post workout is the plan

so current cutting cycle is:
250 test
1g eq
600 mast
400-600 tren
6iu gh

then for the rebound bulk i'm thinking:
750-1g test
1g eq
600 mast
200-400 tren
6iu gh
10iu slin post workout

Haven't run primo in years so cant really comment on that yet, but ive debated adding lose dose primo (200-400/week) to future cycles just for it's E2 effects.

Understood. Anywise it will take some time to get the effects of EQ, so you'll just start feeling it towards the last weeks of your cutting. I imagine the rebound will be epic after getting in that low bf and with that much gear. Have fun dude! :)
 
u should be more worried about blood thickening at that dose my friend
I think this is individual based. My friend and I are both getting scheduled bloodwork every 3 months because we’re on official trt and he rans 800mg eq weekly, his hematology panel looks good while I don’t run eq and mine goes up sometimes even on 100mg a week of test c only. Especially my rbc, it’s always slightly elevated because of genetic predisposition.
 
Understood. Anywise it will take some time to get the effects of EQ, so you'll just start feeling it towards the last weeks of your cutting. I imagine the rebound will be epic after getting in that low bf and with that much gear. Have fun dude! :)
Yeah it is a lot, and I'm definitely not reccomending others follow my path, I'm just being fully transparent with the cycle

The vascularity is already nutty, I have road maps down my forearms, Biceps, and even now in my chest. I think once the EQ kicks in it's really going to get freaky
 
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).

So could EQ be taken in lieu of test?

I was told a long time ago eq acts as a kind of ai and I believed it as for me 300test/300eq cycle was great but 500 test brought back my teenage acne and another round of accutane in my 30s. But it must of been the slightly less aromatising that didn’t trigger the acne..
 
Doing 250 test to start
1g eq
600 mast
6iu gh
400-600 tren

The Test and the tren dose is to be determined depending on if I get sides from EQ. Once I finish my cut I'll probably up the test to 750 and drop the tren for the rebound bulk. But it all depends on sides. Haven't used eq in years. Might have to play with the test dose, the tren dose, and my estrogen levels to find what works for me I'd I start getting eq anxiety sides
Why not Test as the primary anabolic?

Here’s my next bulk take from it what you wish
This may be controversial but it’s accurate so here goes lol…

I’m cutting now to get to 8% (Dexa scan) body fat.
HGH really only works best when body fat is low. It will make your fat cells bigger as well and increase sides when out of single digits to start so consider that.
Nothing works better than Test/HGH. Everyone is looking for the secret sauce and trying all kinds of random things but it’s TEST/HGh/Diet/training and most importantly Time.
The other anabolics are to support Test
EQ is great for this. I’ll be running it.
Mast/Primo/Deca/Tren all also have their purposes as support.
The goal for maximum growth in a bulk is to run HGH as high as possible without sides.
Test should be run at 250 mg per 2 IU of HGH. Your Test dose will be dependent on the amount of HGH you can run without sides (above 10 IU daily).
Your EQ will be run at a dose that supports Test without sides (low estradiol or other sides).
Mast or Primo can be used in place of EQ if EQ is not tolerated.
If sides appear lower dose. If impact on bloodwork is negative lower dose.
IFBB Pro Roman Fritz explains this protocol in an open and honest way that is very easy to understand
There is no magic amount or ratio it’s what you can handle as an individual.
Low Test and higher support anabolics are used in a contest prep setting by professionals and most average gym rats have no reason to do this for what their goals are. John Jewett has done absolutely amazing with low test and high mast in his contest prep, just an unbelievable physique.
But that’s not what he’s doing in bulk lol

So let’s give an example:

-HGH 14 IU daily
-Test 1,750 mg weekly
-EQ 500 mg weekly

So sector the total AAS mg per week is considerably lower than your plan but the HGH is much higher. If you can run HGH higher than that with out negative impact then your AAS could be higher but it’s all dependent on the HGH.
This is for big guys. If your 205 lbs and trying to put on a little size this is not for you
Start lower
 
Last edited:
Why not Test as the primary anabolic?

Here’s my next bulk take from it what you wish
This may be controversial but it’s accurate so here goes lol…

I’m cutting now to get to 8% (Dexa scan) body fat.
HGH really only works best when body fat is low. It will make your fat cells bigger as well and increase sides when out of single digits to start so consider that.
Nothing works better than Test/HGH. Everyone is looking for the secret sauce and trying all kinds of random things but it’s TEST/HGh/Diet/training and most importantly Time.
The other anabolics are to support Test
EQ is great for this. I’ll be running it.
Mast/Primo/Deca/Tren all also have their purposes as support.
The goal for maximum growth in a bulk is to run HGH as high as possible without sides.
Test should be run at 250 mg per 2 IU of HGH. Your Test dose will be dependent on the amount of HGH you can run without sides (above 10 IU daily).
Your EQ will be run at a dose that supports Test without sides (low estradiol or other sides).
Mast or Primo can be used in place of EQ if EQ is not tolerated.
If sides appear lower dose. If impact on bloodwork is negative lower dose.
IFBB Pro Roman Fritz explains this protocol in an open and honest way that is very easy to understand
There is no magic amount or ratio it’s what you can handle as an individual.
Low Test and higher support anabolics are used in a contest prep setting by professionals and most average gym rats have no reason to do this for what their goals are. John Jewett has done absolutely amazing with low test and high mast in his contest prep, just an unbelievable physique.
But that’s not what he’s doing in bulk lol

So let’s give an example:

-HGH 14 IU daily
-Test 1,750 mg weekly
-EQ 500 mg weekly

So sector the total AAS mg per week is considerably lower than your plan but the HGH is much higher. If you can run HGH higher than that with out negative impact then your AAS could be higher but it’s all dependent on the HGH.
This is for big guys. If your 205 lbs and trying to put on a little size this is not for you
Start lower
I do agree with your statement that testosterone should be the primary driver for the bulk, and I'll end up running 750mg-1g test/week when I do start my bulk.

When cutting with tren in the mix I like to keep my test (and aromatizing compounds) lower as I feel this helps reduce the tren sides significantly, and I also have to worry less about controlling E2 and potential prolactin side effects.

I think with regards to the cutting cycle I layed out, many could say this is overkill, and unnecessary, and they wouldn't be wrong. I think a logical argument could be made that you could get away with 350-375mg test/week on a cut and preserve muscle, and this would be valid assumption. I use tren as the primary anti-catabolic driver to preserve muscle on a cut. This allows me to get aggressive with the cardio and calorie deficit, and in combination with GH and tren shuttling IGF into the muscle, it completely just melts the fat off my body while preserving what I assume to be all muscle (as I keep my protein intake very high). The reason I have masteron and EQ in on my cut is mainly for cosmetic reasons (although the eq wont saturate in my system until the cut is basically over so it's essentially just test/tren/masteron for the cut). I'm kind of in prime "dating" mode right now, and it's also summer so I want to be able to go out and look freak-ish and pull as many girls as possible. Some might consider this a stupid reason, but it makes me happy, so i'm not really looking for validation in that regard. I like masteron in on the cuts for the feel-good effects, the added dryness, vascularity, as well as the properties it has that help prevent estrogen from binding to the receptor.


The logic for the bulk:
I agree with you that test should be the primary anabolic driver for the bulk. I'll be bumping the test to 750mg-1g for the rebound bulk. By this time the EQ will be saturated in my system, so I think the combination of that dose of test, with 1g of EQ will do VERY well in regards to building lean tissue, in combination with 6iu of gh, and as i mentioned i'll probably even throw in some low dose insulin post workout to shuttle the nutrients into the muscle. I keep the masteron in as well, at the same dose (because again, I love masteron. It's honestly one of my favorite compounds. I get no negatives from it, only positives, and it helps with reducing water retention and moon face from higher test dosages). The only thing I still need to figure out for the bulk is what to do with the tren. I could drop it if I start getting negative interactions between tren and EQ, but part of me wants to keep it in at maybe 200-400mg/week (because of the effects of shuttling IGF-1 into the muscle). Additionally, I think it would be beneficial with the GH and low dose slin in preventing fat gain. It will probably make my base metabolic rate higher, and the scale probably won't move up as rapidly with tren in the mix (which i'm perfectly OK with-- i prefer the slow and steady approach over rapid weight fluctuations up and down). I'm not too worried about fat gain though, the diet will be "clean", the surplus will be large (but not too large) and I won't be eating junk saturated fat foods or a lot of sugar. As for the GH dose, I kind of like 6iu, just seems to be the sweet spot for me. I do 3iu fasted upon waking, and 3iu 2 hours before bed. I could technically go higher, but then there's added complexitities with blood sugar control, water retention, and insulin resistance. I wouldn't rule out a higher dose in the future, but I'm trying to keep the amount of new variables relatively low. I haven't run EQ in years so thats kind of my new variable that I need to monitor and figure out how my estrogen levels respond, and how it will interact with tren and low/high test dosages. I don't want to change too much by also increasing my GH dose as well.

I think the cycle you layed out for that bulk also looks very solid as well, and will definitely put on a lot of mass, but 500mg eq/week seems rather low (i guess with that test dosage it should be fine though). There's multiple ways to approach it--but really it just comes down to: train hard, eat in a surplus, keep the protein high, and let the anabolics do the work
 
I do agree with your statement that testosterone should be the primary driver for the bulk, and I'll end up running 750mg-1g test/week when I do start my bulk.

When cutting with tren in the mix I like to keep my test (and aromatizing compounds) lower as I feel this helps reduce the tren sides significantly, and I also have to worry less about controlling E2 and potential prolactin side effects.

I think with regards to the cutting cycle I layed out, many could say this is overkill, and unnecessary, and they wouldn't be wrong. I think a logical argument could be made that you could get away with 350-375mg test/week on a cut and preserve muscle, and this would be valid assumption. I use tren as the primary anti-catabolic driver to preserve muscle on a cut. This allows me to get aggressive with the cardio and calorie deficit, and in combination with GH and tren shuttling IGF into the muscle, it completely just melts the fat off my body while preserving what I assume to be all muscle (as I keep my protein intake very high). The reason I have masteron and EQ in on my cut is mainly for cosmetic reasons (although the eq wont saturate in my system until the cut is basically over so it's essentially just test/tren/masteron for the cut). I'm kind of in prime "dating" mode right now, and it's also summer so I want to be able to go out and look freak-ish and pull as many girls as possible. Some might consider this a stupid reason, but it makes me happy, so i'm not really looking for validation in that regard. I like masteron in on the cuts for the feel-good effects, the added dryness, vascularity, as well as the properties it has that help prevent estrogen from binding to the receptor.


The logic for the bulk:
I agree with you that test should be the primary anabolic driver for the bulk. I'll be bumping the test to 750mg-1g for the rebound bulk. By this time the EQ will be saturated in my system, so I think the combination of that dose of test, with 1g of EQ will do VERY well in regards to building lean tissue, in combination with 6iu of gh, and as i mentioned i'll probably even throw in some low dose insulin post workout to shuttle the nutrients into the muscle. I keep the masteron in as well, at the same dose (because again, I love masteron. It's honestly one of my favorite compounds. I get no negatives from it, only positives, and it helps with reducing water retention and moon face from higher test dosages). The only thing I still need to figure out for the bulk is what to do with the tren. I could drop it if I start getting negative interactions between tren and EQ, but part of me wants to keep it in at maybe 200-400mg/week (because of the effects of shuttling IGF-1 into the muscle). Additionally, I think it would be beneficial with the GH and low dose slin in preventing fat gain. It will probably make my base metabolic rate higher, and the scale probably won't move up as rapidly with tren in the mix (which i'm perfectly OK with-- i prefer the slow and steady approach over rapid weight fluctuations up and down). I'm not too worried about fat gain though, the diet will be "clean", the surplus will be large (but not too large) and I won't be eating junk saturated fat foods or a lot of sugar. As for the GH dose, I kind of like 6iu, just seems to be the sweet spot for me. I do 3iu fasted upon waking, and 3iu 2 hours before bed. I could technically go higher, but then there's added complexitities with blood sugar control, water retention, and insulin resistance. I wouldn't rule out a higher dose in the future, but I'm trying to keep the amount of new variables relatively low. I haven't run EQ in years so thats kind of my new variable that I need to monitor and figure out how my estrogen levels respond, and how it will interact with tren and low/high test dosages. I don't want to change too much by also increasing my GH dose as well.

I think the cycle you layed out for that bulk also looks very solid as well, and will definitely put on a lot of mass, but 500mg eq/week seems rather low (i guess with that test dosage it should be fine though). There's multiple ways to approach it--but really it just comes down to: train hard, eat in a surplus, keep the protein high, and let the anabolics do the work
I really like all the thought you put into your plan and how it’s layed out. Very good approach.
I would drop the Tren for the bulk if you’re on the fence. Yes maximum anabolics is important and the role Tren plays is significant. But also consider the impact on health. Dropping the Tren in the bulk reduces the impact on your health and a healthy body is very important for growth and can outweigh the advantages Tren offers.
Im using Test/Tren in this cut. Have Deca in my system still, it’s working its way out, not injecting any. and it will be long out before this cut is over.
My Tren dose is low compared to my Test dose, will be tapering Test down also
Also using inj. Albuterol pre cardio
Really relying on my diet and training as the primacy drivers in this cut.

I like your plan with insulin post workout meal in your bulk, considering the same.
I’m relying on my low bodyfat and strict diet to maintain insulin sensitivity on high HGH won’t be using any insulin for this purpose. If my HGH is having an impact in this regard I’ll lower the dose, hopefully I won’t have to.
I like your detailed plan and will be looking forward to following your results and findings.
Good luck
 
Back
Top