Q&A for PEDs/Training

[stevesmi]

Is there any iron clad evidence that eq causes more problems then any other decent injectable?

From my own bloodwork and from what guys have posted and what I’ve seen from guys it doesn’t fuck with your numbers as bad as people think.

Example. Do 1000 mgs test or tren vs 1000mg eq. I guarantee your numbers will be worse on tren or test. Eq is far more mild but not as mild as primo. I like it a lot and it has gotten a a bad rap by guys because they always believed it to be a horse steroid and because people have parroted the whole anxiety thing as well. Any steroid can give you anxiety if you are prone. It’s one of those things that have been blown out of proportion.


I think it’s a great option for many and very flexible for many situations, there is a reason its one of the favorite steroids of competitors who like to really jack up the dose. it does what a lot of other steroids do while also being mild and flexible. and you can also cruise on it going into a competition unlike testosterone or even tren without ending up with unforseen surprises. great for cutting, recomp or bulking, really a jack of all trades if you ask me and its CHEAP too. i completely think its one people need to try for themselves

 

[owenanator]

@AE1079 Appreciate the respectful reply; you can tell me to fuck off at the end of the day and I’ll still respect the convo. You're absolutely right, individual response matters, and context is everything. We’re all walking petri dishes for these compounds. The nuance you brought up around individualisation is spot on, and I completely agree, that’s what makes coaching more than just data and dosages.

But when we’re discussing compound selection and PED design in public spaces like this where people are observing and applying what they read it’s crucial to ground our discussions in biological plausibility, best practice, and risk-to-reward ratios, not just anecdotal feedback or personal tolerability.

On the DHB vs Anadrol. I get your reasoning behind Anadrol, it’s familiar, it has clinical history, and you’re using it intentionally for fullness and progressive overload. But saying Anadrol is safer than DHB purely because it's studied is a false equivalence.

• Anadrol has documented hepatotoxicity, increases in BP, and fluid retention even at low doses.
• Injectable DHB is not 17aa methylated, doesn’t follow the same liver metabolism, and lacks those risks mechanistically.
• Absence of human RCTs ≠ high risk. And "well-studied" doesn't automatically equal “better,” especially if the known effects are undesirable.

Nobody's saying DHB is risk-free. But we do know enough about its structure, pharmacokinetics, and real-world response to say: it’s not inherently more dangerous than Anadrol. If anything, it often sits between Primo and NPP in terms of side effect profile.

On the Tren @ 70mg I actually really like your logic behind using low-dose Tren for non-genomic effects, glucocorticoid inhibition, nutrient partitioning, aggression, etc. That’s a refreshingly educated take, and it shows deeper understanding than just "Tren = mass." But here’s where I have to ask, does 70mg/week actually produce those effects meaningfully? That’s 10mg/day of Tren Ace, a compound with a short half-life and dose-dependent action. You’re right to say it doesn’t take high doses to see aggression or impact cortisol, but at 70mg/week, you're likely sitting just above HRT-level suppression with limited downstream effect. And I get the arguement on individual responses. It’s not that the logic is bad, it’s that the dose likely isn’t high enough to meaningfully leverage those effects vs. the risks it comes with at that dose.

"Reducing injection volume by using stronger drugs." Also a valid concern, pin volume adds up, especially with Primo or DHB. That’s a practical problem many of us face, and I like that you’re weighing “compound density per mL.” But I would argue here that:

• Stronger ≠ smarter. A small dose of a strong compound like Tren carries disproportionately higher side effects per mg, especially long-term (CNS fatigue, neurosteroid imbalance, etc.).
• Swapping 600mg of Primo for 0.1mL of Tren might reduce oil. But the systemic burden increases significantly for marginal return if you're not pushing it into an effective range.

So yes, oil volume matters, but not more than pharmacological burden or long-term health risk. I find in most cases with larger doses, it is far better to have your syringe preloaded for the weekly dose, then splitting into daily injections using Slin pins.

The Primo + E2 Crash, you mentioned that increasing Primo could “crash your estrogen” while keeping Test steady. That would only happen if your Test dose is already on the low end, or if you're stacking multiple DHT-based compounds.

• Primo is non-aromatizing, but it doesn’t inhibit aromatase directly.
• Adding more Primo doesn’t suppress E2, it just doesn’t contribute to it.
• So unless Test is at a sub-optimal dose, or you’re running Primo + Mast + Tren together, your E2 shouldn't crash from just bumping Primo.

What can happen is that your E2:Androgen ratio shifts, which can cause some "dryness" symptoms that feel like low estrogen, but biochemically, that’s not the same as “crashed.” The reason we use Primo in advanced cycles is because it does not aromatize into estrogen. It does not act as an aromatase inhibitor, nor does it actively suppress the aromatase enzyme expression. In the case (your case if you've experienced this personally), it's likely your test does is too low, so you aren't producing enough aromatizable substrate (test) to generate adequate estrogen. Or it could be from stacking multiple non-aromatzing compounds that a certain someone could be doing by running Primo + Mast + Tren, so the overall androgen load increases significantly, BUT the aromatizable component that is Test stays the same, resulting in an imbalanced E2:Androgen ratio. Or someone's just gone and used an excessive amount of AI.

E2:Androgen Ratio matters more than absolute E2 alone. DHT-based compounds (like Primo, Mast) compete with E2 at the receptor level, or offset the balance of opposing pathways. This creates a perceived drop in estrogenic tone (dry joints, less water retention, mood shifts), but when you check bloodwork? (Estradoil may still be in-range or slightly reduced). So users feel "crashed", but estrogen isn’t technically "crashed"—it’s just outcompeted or imbalanced relative to androgen load.

Unfortunately, we don't have peer-reviewed RCTs on "Primo + Test" stacks in enhanced males. But we do have a mechanistic understanding of non-aromatizing DHT derivatives. Long-term anecdotal data from top-tier coaches (e.g., Joe Jeffery & Matt Strong, Paul Barnett, Team EvilGenius, Physique Collective, Christian Chapman). Thousands of blood panels showing Primo does not suppress E2 directly.

Is it correct to say “adding more Primo doesn’t suppress E2—it just doesn’t contribute to it”? Yes.
Will it crash E2 if Test dose is decent and Primo is added in isolation? Unlikely. You may feel like E2 is lower, but unless Test is very low or other DHTs are involved, true biochemical E2 crash is rare.
Can high androgen load shift the E2:androgen ratio enough to feel like E2 is low? Absolutely. That’s the nuance.

You are absolutely right about the need to individualize PED selection based on genetics, risk tolerance, and personal feedback, fkin spot on. Glucocorticoid inhibition and recomp effects of Tren, yep, well-documented in both anecdote and preclinical data. Avoiding pushing clients onto things they’re uncomfortable with, 100% agree, that’s ethical coaching and any twat that pushes shit onto clients is a deadbeat. And the importance of context in design, stacking, prep phase, goal specificity, all valid my man.

If the principles we both work off are;

• “Use the least risky compound to achieve the maximum outcome”
• “Respect individual variability without abandoning biological rules”
• “Only include what offers a clear benefit in context”

Then we should apply that framework across the board and not just to familiar compounds, but also to ones we’re less comfortable with. No compound is magic. But no compound is immune from scrutiny, either. DHB isn’t exotic anymore, it’s just unfamiliar. And unfamiliar doesn't mean unsafe.

Really appreciate the discussion, man. These are the kinds of conversations that actually progress PED education, rather than just regurgitating locker room gospel.

 

[owenanator]

@stevesmi Sorry mate, I completely missed your post.

"Is there any ironclad evidence EQ causes more problems than any other injectabel?". No, there’s no "ironclad" evidence EQ is more harmful than, say, Tren or Superdrol. But that’s a strawman. The concern around EQ isn’t about being more toxic than everything else, it’s that its specific side effect profile is underappreciated, and in some cases, unpredictable:

• Hematocrit increases are dose-dependent, and EQ is one of the most erythropoietic AAS available.
• That doesn’t make it more toxic, but it does require tighter monitoring, especially at high doses or over long durations.
• Most TRT clinics would pull you off immediately if they saw the kind of HCT rise EQ produces in some users.

So the question isn't, "Is EQ more toxic than Tren?" (obviously not). It’s "Is EQ's side effect profile being ignored because it feels mild at first?". Yes, often.

"1000mg EQ vs 1000mg Tren/Test - Tren/Test will look worse on bloodwork." No argument there my man, Tren wrecks HDL, increases inflammatory markers, and nukes sleep and mood. But again, that doesn’t automatically make EQ "mild." You're comparing apples to napalm.

• EQ doesn’t hammer cholesterol like Tren, sure.
• But it does raise RBCs, hemoglobin, hematocrit, and possibly platelet aggregation, depending on the user.
• Also, EQ’s half-life is ~14 days meaning cumulative build-up happens slowly, and bloods can look okay until they don't.

It's a long-game compound. The problems usually appear weeks 8–12+ into a blast.

"EQ has gotten a bad rap from the 'horse steroid' meme and anxiety bro-science." Partially true I'd say. The "EQ gives you anxiety" thing is anecdotal. No human studies confirm this. But it’s also not baseless:

• EQ is a modification of testosterone with a double bond at carbon 1, much like DHB which can influence neurotransmitters.
• Some users feel calm on it. Others feel paranoia, intrusive thoughts, restlessness, especially at higher doses (600–800mg+).
• But that’s not unique to EQ. Testosterone, Tren, and even Mast can induce anxiety in predisposed individuals.

So yeah, anxiety is possible, but not guaranteed. Calling it “overblown” is fair. Saying it doesn’t exist? Not accurate.

"EQ is flexible: bulk, cut, cruise." EQ is flexible on paper.

• Mild anabolic, low aromatization, and slow action make it suitable for extended use.
• But for cutting, the slow half-life is a drawback. It takes weeks to build, and weeks to clear, making peak timing hard to manage during prep.
• Cruising on EQ instead of Test? Questionable. EQ is not testosterone. Suppresses LH/FSH. Won’t support libido, mood, or neuroendocrine stability like Test does. You will feel worse cruising on EQ-only or EQ+Test.

So yes, technically flexible, but impractical for many of those roles unless managed perfectly.

"It's Cheap and jacks up doses well." This is true. It’s cheap. And people can tolerate gram+ doses with fewer immediate sides than Tren.
But the question then becomes:

• Why are you needing to run 800–1200mg of something to get results?
• If that’s the case, maybe there’s a more efficient compound choice depending on the goal.

EQ at high doses becomes a low-efficiency bulk compound, you’re pinning lots of oil for modest returns, with a potential side of HCT spikes that sneak up later.

Let me be clear on EQ. I'm not saying its the devil. It's definitely not as harsh as Tren and doesn't destroy bloods immediately. The Anxiety claim is often overstated. It's cheap, tolerable and multi-purpose.

But the argument I say for against EQ, because remember, when we do a cycle we look at Risk/Reward/Purpose. EQ isn't as Mild as you think, the erythropoietic impact is real and not always manageble with blood donations, comparing it to Tren/Test misses the point - different tools for different jobs, and cruising on EQ is not physiologically sound.

It's not that its toxic, or that its completely useless. Its just not EFFICIENT for the risks it brings. Simple as that. We are in the game of staying alive, and looking jacked. For that you need high doses to get meaningful results, which at that point you're introducing the cumulative risks of the hematocrit, BP elevation and blood viscosity. Those are the last things you want to be having while taking PEDS. And it's simply not that anabolic, so you end up running 600-1000mg a week for just moderate outcomes, while again, compounds such as Primo, NPP, or DHB offer similar/Better results with way better control AND lower long-term stress.

Like if you need to run 800mg+ for decent results, why not pick a cleaner compound that works at a lower dose and doesn't compound risks?

My argument is that other compounds just do EQ's job better. Want lean mass no bloat? Primo. Want Muscle fullness + appetite? NPP. Nutrient partitioning & Density? DHB. Visual dryness & E2 control? Mast. Contest flexibility? Shorter esters for precise prep management.

I'm not hating on it. It's not that it's bad, it's that it's mediocre at best, and great at absolutely none, all while being harder to control than literally any other alternative. Nothing to do with horses.

 

[stevesmi]

^^^ good write up man, i can tell that you are really really interested in this shit and you have a bright future down the line. just don't be so ironclad in your beliefs and don't dig your heels in. seen too many bright minds do that and end up flaming out in the industry. i've personaly changed my mind over the years on a lot of things from nutrition, training and PED's just through experience so be flexible with stuff.

i think one of the things that EQ does better then any other injectable is the endurance benefits thanks to just the structure. i do not believe it was intentional when they created it obviously, more of an accident.

it is the one injectable that you can run say 300mgs a week and actually IMPROVE your long carido on. i'm talking running a 5K or 10K. you will actually knock your time down.

several reasons why:

*it doesn't cause water retention (test)
*it doesn't cause explosive and crippling pumps (dbol, winny, etc.)
*it isn't very inflammatory (tren, other harsh steroids)
*and it boosts RBC's (like other steroids too but WITHOUT those negatives associated with them)

EQ + tbol is a great endurance stack along with GW/SR and HGH at low doses for those reasons.

 

[owenanator]

@stevesmi Thanks mate. Just to preface all of this, I don’t want to come across arrogant, cocky, or like I think I know it all. If I’m wrong, I’ll own it 100%. I genuinely enjoy this discussion because it challenges me to think, and rethink. Everything I say comes from my current understanding of mechanisms nothing more, nothing less. This is what we do in science before we even get to human trials. Like you, I’ve changed my mind on tons of things, training, nutrition, PEDs through learning, education, and practical exposure. So anything I bring up is never meant as “don’t do this, do that,” but rather: why this over that? And then offering the strongest explanation I can.

And I agree user response, feedback, and experience matters. What people report does need to be accounted for. But human anatomy hasn’t changed. The core ways these compounds work mechanistically are fairly consistent we just all experience them a little differently based on individual variables. To be clear: I wouldn’t take or tell someone to take any compound that doesn’t have a solid body of human data supporting its use. That’s the gold standard in my view. My comparison of DHB vs EQ wasn’t to sell one over the other it was more a case of laying out the risk/reward profile of each based on what we do know, and asking the question: why this compound, in this situation?

If I’ve framed anything in too black-and-white a way, that’s on me it wasn’t my intention. That’s why I really appreciate this thread. It’s proper, thoughtful debate. On the EQ @ 300mg improving cardio I’m not aware of any human data backing that specifically. Mechanistically, yes RBCs go up, oxygen delivery improves, and many users anecdotally report better stamina in that 200–400mg range. That all tracks logically.

But here’s where I like to zoom out a bit and ask - Are we introducing a drug purely for a cardio benefit? And then having to manage the new risks it creates, while also taking other compounds that already affect similar systems?
Now we’re talking more blood donations, more health supplements, possibly adding an AI, more frequent blood monitoring and all of that just to get a modest improvement in enduranc which could also be achieved by simply doing more cardio. So from a risk-reward and total drug burden standpoint, for a bodybuilder, that tradeoff becomes harder to justify.

“It doesn’t cause water retention (like Test)”
Fair and mostly true. EQ aromatizes very little. But it’s rarely run solo. It’s almost always paired with Test, which does aromatize. Unless Test is kept low or an AI is used (which adds its own risks), some water retention will still happen. So it’s true in isolation, but less true in a typical stack.
“It doesn’t cause explosive or crippling pumps (like Dbol, Winny)”
I mostly agree. Dbol and Winny are notorious for painful pumps due to intracellular fluid shifts, BP, and electrolyte shifts. EQ tends to give “dense” pumps, but not the same acute, crippling ones. Still, EQ raises hematocrit significantly, which can cause sluggish blood flow, tightness, and reduced oxygen delivery. So this is somewhat user-dependent and dose-dependent.
“It isn’t very inflammatory”
This one I agree with in general. EQ is less inflammatory than compounds like Tren or orals. But increased RBCs and blood viscosity is their own form of physiological stress, not classic inflammation, but still a long-term vascular burden. So yes, not inflammatory, but still cardiovascularly taxing in a different way.
“It boosts RBCs like other steroids but without those negatives”
This one I’d disagree with. EQ is actually one of the most potent RBC-elevators in the AAS category. That’s not a neutral effect—it comes with meaningful consequences: Increased BP, Reduced cardiac output, Fatigue, headaches, nosebleeds, Stretching of vessels due to pressure, followed by vascular elasticity loss (leading to long-term CVD risk)

So it’s not that EQ’s effect on RBCs is free of downside, it’s just a different kind of risk than what you get from orals or harsh aromatizers. I don't hate EQ, but I would say I am against it in practice. We rarely use these drugs in isolation. So when we consider the trade-offs, and why it makes sense to ask, is EQ the best tool for the goal, given the trade-offs, context, and stack? I tend to follow a decision map with something like this. What is the actual goal? What are my other compounds doing? What risks are compounding? What do I now need to mitigate this? Are thre other compounds that offer the same benefit more efficiently or with less risk? Am I comfortable using a drug long-term that has no formal human data on its safety profile?

If you follow that chain of reasoning all the way through, especially in a bodybuilding context, I struggle to find a branch where EQ ends up being the best answer or even a necessary one.
If the goal is endurance we can just do cardio
If the goal is fullness, we can manage that through food, sodium and cleaner compounds
If the goal is appetite, even that's more reliably handled with GH or low-dose GHRPs

To me, and when viewed through a full risk-reward, I cannot see a case where EQ is the clear and best choice.

 

[stevesmi]

^^^^nice man. its a very well thought out message

i'm glad you found a home here on evo to grow into things down the line. you certainly are extremely knowledgeable especially for a guy your age. I wish i was even 10% as smart as you are already when i was your age! keep it up!