Forget to jump on in a week, and I get to come back to some solid, nuanced debates from multiple perspectives being shared. Joy. Appreciate everyone jumping in and talking. I'm just going to peel through this bit by bit.
@stevesmi &
@LevButlerov are right about the history of Boldenone and Tren. It was initially for human use but got discontinued. If you look it up most times, it will say "political reasons," but it just never took off clinically. Compared to nandrolone or Test, it kind of offered no real therapeutic advantage + its longer half-life just prolonged treatment. Oral bioavailability was trash. And it was noted to be not as potent enough to be used in wasting conditions unless dosed really high, which from a risk/benefit ratio just wasn't warranted. I guess Tren or Parabolan, when it was being produced, got stopped voluntarily. But even then it wouldn't have survived in medical use because it was just too harsh and we lacked long-term data (still lack).
And again on DHB and my man
@Dozer55 for taking it (and don't take EQ stay scared, haha). You're right in being scared of hemocrit, but its risk profile is just too great vs other compounds; it's not necessary. DHB is not extremely liver toxic, like I said. It just isn't supported when we refer to injectable DHB. The injectable version is not methylated and doesn't carry the hepatotoxicity profile of oral AAS like Anadrol or Winstrol.
Here if you want to read some studies on it
Kicman AT, 2008: Pharmacology of anabolic steroids. British Journal of Pharmacology.
Saartok et al., 1984: receptor binding of anabolic steroids in human tissues.
DHB binds to the AR with literally higher affinity than Test AND Nandrolone. But, caveat, receptor affinity does not equal hypertophy alone. It's one factor. Not the whole picture.
What's more relevant is that DHB has a high anabolic:androgenic ratio. Low Aromatization. AND little to no progestogenic activity. Is it underresearched? Yeah. But it has more data and a stronger anecdotal reputation for lean tissue retention with less bloat and minimal RBC elevation. AND to the comparison against EQ, manageable sides + better trade-off.
So calling DHB "trash" is reductionist at best. Let's call it what it is: a promising compound with some but limited human data.
Now back to EQ for a modern stack. I will never recommend it, and I think anyone in the industry wanting to get big and stay healthy should not be having it in the cocktail. Because its slow acting, which is not ideal at all, RBC elevation again, it has a very strong erythropoietic effect, which will elevate hematocrit, which is a huge problem when stacked with AAS already. The E2 suppression, especially because it's wildly inconsistent. And again, even if we look at it anecdotally. It's mid-tier at best, like, what do we actually get? Slow lean gains, modest hardness, inconsistent appeitite spikes. It's just flat outclassed every single time.
And there is a flaw here in the "Only use studied compounds" argument.
If we apply that logic strictly. Anadrol? Limited long-term human safety data, one of the most used steroids. Tren? Highly effective, but no robust RCTs on bodybuilding use. Mast & Primo? Most of the data comes from FEMALE BREAST CANCER PATIENTS and INFANTS within malnutrition clinics. So not from cycles blasting 300-600+ mg/weekly.
We all use anecdote + physiology + what we see in practice. That isn't wrong, but if we just pretend that only "well-studied" compounds are valid, that is just a fallacy. You can't praise Winstrol and Anadrol but then bash on DHB on the basis of "safety" or "lack of data." That's just selective bias.
The best way to look at AAS guys is Risk/Reward/Context: Like if someone is already using Test + Primo + GH, then is there a real need for EQ or DHB? Probably not. If mast/primo aren't available, then DHB is objectively a better choice than EQ for hypertrophy. If the goal is endurance or appetite drive, maybe (big maybe) EQ makes more sense. If liver health is a concern, DHB (injectable) is safer than Anadrol or Winstrol.
The answer isn't "X is trash." Its "X is more or less useful depending on the context."
@AE1079 I’m going to challenge you on this one—purely for the sake of debate, no bad blood. I saw your current or previous stack listed on your profile, and while it's clearly put together with intention, I think it contradicts a few of the core principles you're arguing here.
Your stack (as noted):
- Test E: 400mg/week – Moderate, reasonable base.
- Mast E: 300mg/week – Solid for mild anabolism and some E2 modulation.
- Primo E: 600mg/week – Excellent inclusion, few would disagree.
- Tren A: 70mg/week – This one is curious. At that dose, it’s arguably below the threshold for significant anabolic benefit, yet you’re still exposed to its suppressive and neuroendocrine risks. Why not just increase Primo and avoid the burden entirely?
- Anadrol: 30mg/day – Here’s the fun one. You’ve criticized EQ for its RBC elevation and DHB for its alleged toxicity, yet Anadrol is objectively one of the most hepatotoxic oral steroids in clinical literature, with well-documented increases in BP, RBCs, liver enzymes, and fluid retention (even at lower doses).
- HGH: 6 IU/day – Great for recovery, sure, but this combined with your high androgen load seems at odds with your stated “GH + less androgens” philosophy.
So when we zoom out:
- You dismiss EQ for health reasons but run Anadrol daily.
- You criticise DHB for toxicity despite no solid evidence of hepatotoxicity in injectable form, but happily take Anadrol, which is well-proven to elevate liver markers.
- You warn against “exotic compounds,” but your cycle uses Primo, Tren, and Anadrol, all advanced, high-level compounds rarely used outside of enhanced bodybuilders.
It starts to feel more like cherry-picking risks based on personal preference rather than applying a consistent risk/reward framework. I’ll throw out some questions in good faith:
- If the focus is maximising hypertrophy while minimising systemic stress, why not swap Anadrol for something like Turinabol or Anavar, both of which offer far better safety profiles and less fluid retention?
- Why run Tren Ace at 70mg/week, when the reward at that dose is negligible, yet the risk profile remains?
- If DHB is “too risky” due to lack of data, how is Anadrol (with its well-known toxicology profile) somehow safer?
You’ve said you’re about promoting “safety and smarter cycles,” which I fully respect—but then we have to apply that lens across the board, not just to the compounds that don’t appeal to us.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
also can't wait to see you go head to head with 
. I did a huge write up on tren explaining where it came from and it’s uses. Well aware of how to discuss and explain. But I think it’s important to discuss relevant information and how to provide a “safer” environment for use. That’s why we debate it, trying to find ways to improve our cycles.
