EQ Advice/Conclusions/Mistakes

Pharma
1

I started my first cycle of EQ on Feb 10th and I made a lot of mistakes, despite the fact I thought I was well-read and had studied for a year prior to starting the cycle. My conclusions/advice/recommendations are to follow. Take them with a grain of salt, it’s obvious information to some but may not be to others.

1.) Make sure time is on your side
2.) There is such a thing as too much
3.) That’s a LONG ASS ester /“Relative safety”
4.) Side effects? What side effects?
5.) Expectations

1.) Make sure time is on your side before you start EQ, please. Make sure you have at least 5 months to totally dedicate to this cycle. Not only does that mean no traveling (if it’s illegal where you live) but also being ready to take on sickness, events that may arise, or any other hindrance that will undoubtedly occur along the way. I was prepared to do a very long cycle of this drug, then things changed and I have to cut it relatively short. Many claim for EQ that one needs to use it for at least 14 weeks to elicit full benefit.

2.) My original plan was 400mg a week. STICK TO YOUR PLAN. That is another reason I am cutting my cycle off at 10 weeks. It was originally 10 weeks, so I’m not changing it. As e-man said before, DONT change your plans, stick to them… that’s how the never-ending cycle starts.

After a good “friend” assured me he would “pay me back” if I doubled my order, I ended up getting stuck with 50ml of EQ. Despite being super pissed, I just said forget it, I’ll look at the drug profile and see if I can use more. Well, it says on the profile that 400-600mg is the recommended dose. Because I was using EQ as a standalone, I figured I would up my dosage to 600mg as I had experienced no side effects and was responding very well.

3.) That is a LONG LONG LONG ester. If anyone has looked at the charts, you will realize EQ has a VERY FRIGGIN LONG half life and stays with you for a long while, thus the effects are CUMULATIVE. If you don’t understand, go to bulk muscle’s PCT calculator and look at the typical EQ cycle at 600mg/week. http://bulkmuscle.com/pct/index.php

That is correct. Now my body has over a gram and a half of EQ in it, and thus the SIDE EFFECTS are developing. I heard so many people harp about “oh EQ is safe, there are no sides on eq, eq doesn’t aromatise, eq is soooo mild.” I might agree with them if we’re talking about adding 300mg of EQ onto some test or something… but as my level of EQ has risen, in the last two weeks the acne has started to get much worse and all of a sudden my nipples got tender and poofy.

EQ aromatises at half the rate of test, and I’ve never heard of anyone having tender nips off 300mg of test, but then I got to thinking. Those guys using test prop, the shit is in and out of their system because the half life is so short. Plug that into the profile again on bulk nutrition. I could have been shooting 200mg of prop EVERY OTHER DAY and still my levels would have never exceeded 400mg. Here I am, thinking I’m being “much safer” and on a better “tester cycle” while I’ve got 1.5 GRAMS in my system. Wow… do I feel sheepish.

Nolva killed any and all probs I had with the tits in about 24 hours.

Finally, expectations. Guys, I started this cycle because I heard EQ was the lightest, and one of the best steroids out there. While this is true to an extent, it’s all dose-dependent. Don’t be an idiot like me and shoot 600mg, I bet I would have had the same results from 400mg.

For the new guys PMing me for advice, I wouldn’t do EQ for a first cycle, I would do test prop and just watch myself. If you DO get a bad reaction from the juice, guess what… that eq is gonna take a hellova long time to clear, along with the side effects.

Overall my side effects have been acne, oily skin, massively increased appetite, tender nips for a day, an increase of 22 lbs of bodyweight, and 45 lbs on my bench press.

2

Thanks for posting your experiences H.

Some very good learning experiences.

4

were you running an AI during or did you just have the Nolva on hand just in case? I ask because I ran test E and EQ 600/600 for my first cycle and didn’t have any of the negative sides you did. I guess it all boils down to everyone reacts differently.

5

Nicely done H-Train. Real world Testimony. Although I don’t recommend and would never personally use EQ as a stand-alone, this was a great illustration of what EQ can do.

6

[quote]stumpy wrote:
were you running an AI during or did you just have the Nolva on hand just in case? I ask because I ran test E and EQ 600/600 for my first cycle and didn’t have any of the negative sides you did. I guess it all boils down to everyone reacts differently.[/quote]

No, I had no AI running because just like Bushy said, I didn’t even think gyno was a possibility. As far as gyno goes… I have a little extra breast tissue from being a fat kid and I would much rather pop the nolva upon ANY suspicion arising rather than wait.

They were itching and poofy, so that was good enough for me. I could have been over-reacting but I’m part of the better-safe-than-sorry camp. Yes I had nolva and clomid on hand, in case I didn’t respond to the nolva.

I wasn’t using the EQ completely as a standalone until week 5, when I decided I couldn’t take the winny anymore after it was giving me such bad cramping probs.

7

i was scared of running test until i did…i had no issues with it at all.

i barely even get acne on cycle now (just some tiny bumps on my back and shoulders which I think is from the Nolva).

i do get a lot of issues from estrogen though so make sure if you are running test and you have gyno issues that you plan for it but taking adex.

8

I will say this. The site you referenced seems like a real good way to design a good cycle without ending up with a a high system amount like you ended up with. I ran what I could find of your cycle and it’s amazing how that stuff builds up, almost makes me question the logic to the long cycles. Seems like it would make more sense to devise an EQ cycle thats front loaded and tapers off with the goal to keep a consistent amount in one’s system.

I only say this because I punched in the numbers for a test E cycle and it that cycles profile seems to keep fairly consistent counts in the system week to week.

9

[quote]razor1208 wrote:
I will say this. The site you referenced seems like a real good way to design a good cycle without ending up with a a high system amount like you ended up with. I ran what I could find of your cycle and it’s amazing how that stuff builds up, almost makes me question the logic to the long cycles. Seems like it would make more sense to devise an EQ cycle thats front loaded and tapers off with the goal to keep a consistent amount in one’s system.

I only say this because I punched in the numbers for a test E cycle and it that cycles profile seems to keep fairly consistent counts in the system week to week. [/quote]

Exactly! It blew my mind when I plugged that in. I felt like a complete dumbass because I couldn’t believe I’d overlooked something so obvious with the undeca.

I stopped it 7 days ago and I’d say I’m at about 75% of my former blood level and ALL side effects have stopped. My back and chest are almost completely clear of acne and the nips are not even slightly aggravated. So I have also learned that I have an agitation point of around 1.5 grams. If the half life is 14 days I’d estimate my current level to be somewhere close to a gram and I feel great again.

I am of the same mentality with the tapering. I am really going to think hard before I put another cycle together. That chart generator is a very useful tool.

Furious: As I said before, I had gyno issues as a kid too from being a lardass. I’m not sure if I’m susceptible to it, or if my body was just getting pissed cause I had so much juice floating through my blood and it was my first cycle. I am definitely gonna be careful on the next one and see what it looks like.

I may be far off the mark here, but I’m guessing if EQ aromatizes at 50% the rate of test, and I was getting issues when my blood levels hit 1.5 grams, it would probably be a similar result if I were running a constant flow of 750mg of test at any given time without adex. Does anyone have any idea on this theory? Bushy?

11

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
Something’s not right with that PCT calculator.

I can’t quite put my finger on it exactly, but it’s something along the lines of ‘it should be the total area under the graph, not the peaks’.

There’s also the fact that the calc shows peaks and valleys, when in fact it should be a series of smooth humps. [/quote]

Not sure why you say this. The juice is sitting in your muscle, being released into your blood. Given the amount, it is going in at a higher rate than can be removed from your system. At some point, the rate of removal equals the rate it is going from muscle to blood. This is the peak. After that, the rate of removal exceeds the rate it’s going in, so blood levels go down.

Now, obviously, if you inject again before clearance you will get juice going into your blood from that injection as well. However, this is just adding another climb and peak before blood levels return to normal. Or are you saying that the shape of the peaks should be curved?[quote]

PLUS, tell me why, if I put in 100 days of test enan shot E7D, initial dose 600mg, I get a highest peak of 1200 mg, yet when I change NOTHING but the drug, ie I replace test enan with EQ, I get a peak of 1800mg. Why? I’m still shooting the same total mg of gear with the same frequency, yet somehow, my blood levels are 50% higher.[/quote]

Because the longer half life of EQ means that blood levels from the first shot are still rising when you take the second one (and possibly even the third one). Thus you have two (or more) shots contributing to rising blood levels. With test E at that frequency, the shorter half life means that the first shot starts to lessen its contribution sooner.[quote]

This just doesn’t make sense to me. Especially since the longer ester of EQ means you actually get LESS hormone per ‘mg’ (or ml) than with enan. Where has all this extra hormone come from?[/quote]

The first point you make here is obviously valid. However, the “extra” hormone is not extra at all. Because the EQ has a longer half life, it takes longer to ramp your blood level up. The “extra” comes from the lower (relative to test E) levels of hormone earlier in the cycle.[quote]

Let me try to explain further…

Let us imagine I shoot 1 shot of 400mg of test enan. Just 1 shot. Starting from ‘zero’, I would get a slow buildup of the drug over the course of days, then a slow dissipation/metabolism out of my system. At no time will my blood actually have a peak of 400mg, because that is the TOTAL amount that I have shot which enters and leaves the body over time, not in a surge.

The faster the ester, the closer my peak blood reading would be to the amount of gear contained in that 1 shot. Conversely, the longer ester would have a lower peak but a much broader ‘base’.

The total area under the graph would represent 400 mg though, as thats all the drug that was in my body over the (lets say) 12 days from injection to clearance.

So yes, there would certainly be summation of the amounts injected, but not an outright total summation of the weekly amounts.

Or maybe I’ve got this wrong and I’m missing something obvious, lol.

bushy[/quote]
JMO. Feel free to shoot me down if what I’ve said is a load of crap.

12

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
Something’s not right with that PCT calculator.

I can’t quite put my finger on it exactly, but it’s something along the lines of ‘it should be the total area under the graph, not the peaks’.

There’s also the fact that the calc shows peaks and valleys, when in fact it should be a series of smooth humps.

PLUS, tell me why, if I put in 100 days of test enan shot E7D, initial dose 600mg, I get a highest peak of 1200 mg, yet when I change NOTHING but the drug, ie I replace test enan with EQ, I get a peak of 1800mg. Why? I’m still shooting the same total mg of gear with the same frequency, yet somehow, my blood levels are 50% higher.

This just doesn’t make sense to me. Especially since the longer ester of EQ means you actually get LESS hormone per ‘mg’ (or ml) than with enan. Where has all this extra hormone come from?

Let me try to explain further…

Let us imagine I shoot 1 shot of 400mg of test enan. Just 1 shot. Starting from ‘zero’, I would get a slow buildup of the drug over the course of days, then a slow dissipation/metabolism out of my system. At no time will my blood actually have a peak of 400mg, because that is the TOTAL amount that I have shot which enters and leaves the body over time, not in a surge.

The faster the ester, the closer my peak blood reading would be to the amount of gear contained in that 1 shot. Conversely, the longer ester would have a lower peak but a much broader ‘base’.

The total area under the graph would represent 400 mg though, as thats all the drug that was in my body over the (lets say) 12 days from injection to clearance.

So yes, there would certainly be summation of the amounts injected, but not an outright total summation of the weekly amounts.

Or maybe I’ve got this wrong and I’m missing something obvious, lol.

bushy[/quote]

I totally agree that there should be no drastic spikes like in these graphs as that is the whole point of the undeca ester, to prevent such happenings and keep the blood levels steady. I guess I just thought of this like filling your bath tub with water and not putting the stopper in the drain.

If you have a steady stream of water coming out, it will still fill, eventually… of course a lot of water will go down the drain (be used) in the process but eventually there will be a saturation point and it will result in overflow. But I definitely agree that the water levels would be a steady, slow increase-the speed of course would be determined by the half-life (how big the drain is.)

13

[quote]H-Train wrote:
bushidobadboy wrote:
Something’s not right with that PCT calculator.

I can’t quite put my finger on it exactly, but it’s something along the lines of ‘it should be the total area under the graph, not the peaks’.

There’s also the fact that the calc shows peaks and valleys, when in fact it should be a series of smooth humps.

PLUS, tell me why, if I put in 100 days of test enan shot E7D, initial dose 600mg, I get a highest peak of 1200 mg, yet when I change NOTHING but the drug, ie I replace test enan with EQ, I get a peak of 1800mg. Why? I’m still shooting the same total mg of gear with the same frequency, yet somehow, my blood levels are 50% higher.

This just doesn’t make sense to me. Especially since the longer ester of EQ means you actually get LESS hormone per ‘mg’ (or ml) than with enan. Where has all this extra hormone come from?

Let me try to explain further…

Let us imagine I shoot 1 shot of 400mg of test enan. Just 1 shot. Starting from ‘zero’, I would get a slow buildup of the drug over the course of days, then a slow dissipation/metabolism out of my system. At no time will my blood actually have a peak of 400mg, because that is the TOTAL amount that I have shot which enters and leaves the body over time, not in a surge.

The faster the ester, the closer my peak blood reading would be to the amount of gear contained in that 1 shot. Conversely, the longer ester would have a lower peak but a much broader ‘base’.

The total area under the graph would represent 400 mg though, as thats all the drug that was in my body over the (lets say) 12 days from injection to clearance.

So yes, there would certainly be summation of the amounts injected, but not an outright total summation of the weekly amounts.

Or maybe I’ve got this wrong and I’m missing something obvious, lol.

bushy

I totally agree that there should be no drastic spikes like in these graphs as that is the whole point of the undeca ester, to prevent such happenings and keep the blood levels steady. I guess I just thought of this like filling your bath tub with water and not putting the stopper in the drain.

If you have a steady stream of water coming out, it will still fill, eventually… of course a lot of water will go down the drain (be used) in the process but eventually there will be a saturation point and it will result in overflow. But I definitely agree that the water levels would be a steady, slow increase-the speed of course would be determined by the half-life (how big the drain is.)[/quote]

Following up on the bath tub analogy, if you run the tap for a while with the plug out, then switch off the tap, the water level will rise, MAYBE plateau and then fall. Whether it plateaus or not depends on whether there is a time during which the rate of flow out of the tap is equal to the rate of flow down the drain.

However, this is where the analogy to juice breaks down. The rate at which juice is cleared might be constant (like the drain) or not (probably not, given the range of factors that might affect this). However, unlike water from the tap, the rate at which juice is coming in to your bloodstream is definitely NOT constant.

This is not to say that your and Bushy’s general point that the charts seem to be a simplication might not be correct. In fact, my suspicion is that because so many factors affect absorption and clearance times, the chart for each individual and each cycle, if you could represent it accurately, would be different. However, it is still helpful to have a simplified representation of broadly what is going on.

15

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
Thanks for the contributions guys. You are right Sharetrader; I meant to say that the ‘peaks should be rounded’. However I still think I have a point about the rest of it. For instance the calc. shows peak levels on the day of injection and this just isn’t true to life.

Secondly my point about “Where has all the extra gear come from” still seems valid to me. Look, 10 weeks @ 600 mg/wk is a total of 6000mg, whether that be acetate, enanthate, or undecanoate. I think the algorhythm used to calculate the shape of the graph is wrong.

I will try to use my limited softwars skills to provide a pictorial representation later.[/quote]

Good points. Maybe it is worth hunting around for a better chart generator.

16

I think the calculator is a fair model. I think he author used EXCEL to model. The model does not account for adjustments for the free ester. Also, The peak will be shifted to the right and rounded Overall, the trends will likely be similar to actual. I think it still gives a good general idea.

18

Thanks for sharing your experience H-train. Lately I’ve been thinking that I would go with EQ for my first cycle. I wouldn’t have taken an upper limit dose or anything but being that it sticks around for a while I think you make a very good point for a first timer.

19

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
However I still think I have a point about the rest of it. For instance the calc. shows peak levels on the day of injection and this just isn’t true to life.[/quote]

Bushy, I’m curious: why do you say it isn’t true to life? Do you mean that in your experience, the effects aren’t fully “felt” for a few days after injection?

My understanding (and you have a hell of a lot more experience than I do, so correct me if I’m wrong) is that while androgens can act almost immediately on the nervous system, the effects due to AR-mediated gene transcription take a few days to be felt (Bill Roberts implied three days in a recent post, and this seems in line with my own very limited experience).

Perhaps this could account for the real-life experience: levels do in fact peak on the day of injection, but their effects are not felt for a few days.

20

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
Something’s not right with that PCT calculator. … tell me why, if I put in 100 days of test enan shot E7D, initial dose 600mg, I get a highest peak of 1200 mg, yet when I change NOTHING but the drug, ie I replace test enan with EQ, I get a peak of 1800mg. Why? I’m still shooting the same total mg of gear with the same frequency, yet somehow, my blood levels are 50% higher.[/quote]

I put blood levels in italics because I think that’s the root of the confusion here.

The graph doesn’t show blood levels. It show total quantity of intramuscular esterified steroid, i.e. the amount of inactive steroid sitting in the muscle tissue.

Blood levels are inversely proportional to the slope of the curve (first derivative, for those of us who survived calculus). The shorter the half-life, the higher the blood levels of the parent compound, and the faster the esterified steroid is used up.

Let’s use the same half-life figures that the PCT calculator uses: 7 days for test enanthate, and 12 days for equipoise (boldenone undecylenate).

If Ted injects 600mg of test enanthate, half of it will be gone (released into the bloodstream) in 7 days. If Bob injects 600mg of EQ, only a third or so will be gone in 7 days. During those 7 days, however, Ted will have a greater number of exogenous testosterone molecules in his bloodstream than Bob will have boldenone molecules.

If Ted and Bob keep injecting 600mg of their respective drugs every 7 days, their peak intramuscular levels will continue to rise, but will eventually stabilize at a point where the amount being broken down and released into the bloodstream each week equals the amount being injected each week (or as one of my father’s college professors who had a heavy German accent used to say, “Vat goes herein muss go thereout!”)

At that point, the PCT calculator would correctly show that Bob’s intramuscular levels of esterified EQ hit a peak of about 1800mg on the day of injection, while Ted’s intramuscular levels of esterified testosterone hit a peak of 1200mg on the day of injection. Yet both of them would have similar blood levels during the week of boldenone and testosterone, respectively, since EQ is broken down more slowly (i.e. has a longer half-life) than test enanthate.

I hope that explanation helped to make things clearer, not murkier.