Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below Hey fellas, first time running eq what ratio do you normally run it with your test? Ive heard 1:1 but thought I’d see what opinions are out there, cheers.
Community Research Test and eq ratios - a study of equipoise and estrogen
- Thread starter trenman3000
- Start date
Threads marked with the 'Community Research' prefix involve ongoing research, high-quality logs, or in-depth community discussions backed by experience, data, or expert input.
I’m certai
Im certainly no expert and im sure you’ll get better advice but i ran test at 350 eq at 500. Front loaded eq the first 2 weeks at 800. Had good results. Hopefully the brain trust on here can steer you in the right direction
Hey brother,
Just want to preface this by noting that the advice below is fairly broad and is mainly just to highlight that the ratios you often see circulating on forums are not a 'one size fits all' solution - you will likely need to do some fine tuning here. The best way to determine the right ratios for you is by monitoring your blood work and adjusting them based on your individual response/situation.
In saying that, I wouldn't recommend starting off with a ratio of 1:1 if you haven't had any prior experience with EQ and are unsure of the impact that it will have on your e2. Everyone responds differently but you really don't want to risk crashing your e2. High e2 is much easier to manage than crashed e2 which is honestly a pretty grueling thing to endure while you're waiting for those levels to recover.
If you'd prefer to start with a tighter ratio, you can kick things off with a ratio of 1.25:1 (test:EQ ) and then get bloods drawn within the initial 4-6 week window of its use and adjust as necessary once you have more insight into where everything is at. For context, I have to maintain a test to EQ ratio of 2.5:1 to avoid problems but some people can get away with 1:1 while others need to go as high as 3:1 - there's a lot of variability in how people respond so adjustments are often required to get things all dialed in.
It's also worth noting that while EQ doesn't inhibit the same way an AI would, it does start having an effect on the rate that test is converting to estrogen right from the start - it'll just be super subtle. Within the first 2 weeks its impact is usually at a point that it will prevent any of the major spikes that would normally cause issues associated with high estrogen to surface and once you're 4-6 weeks in you should be at a point of full saturation and it'd be effectively managing e2. There may be a period where your e2 is at the higher end early on until full saturation is reached but it is still being controlled to some extent.
It'd still be a good idea to have an AI on hand but unless you are experiencing any negative sides as a result of high estrogen, then you shouldn't need to use it and can just ride it out until you're at peak levels. With everything dialled in correctly, the use of EQ will be an effective form of estrogen control and should eliminate the the requirement of an AI entirely. The less things you need to put into your body to manage sides, the better
AJ
Just want to preface this by noting that the advice below is fairly broad and is mainly just to highlight that the ratios you often see circulating on forums are not a 'one size fits all' solution - you will likely need to do some fine tuning here. The best way to determine the right ratios for you is by monitoring your blood work and adjusting them based on your individual response/situation.
In saying that, I wouldn't recommend starting off with a ratio of 1:1 if you haven't had any prior experience with EQ and are unsure of the impact that it will have on your e2. Everyone responds differently but you really don't want to risk crashing your e2. High e2 is much easier to manage than crashed e2 which is honestly a pretty grueling thing to endure while you're waiting for those levels to recover.
If you'd prefer to start with a tighter ratio, you can kick things off with a ratio of 1.25:1 (test:EQ ) and then get bloods drawn within the initial 4-6 week window of its use and adjust as necessary once you have more insight into where everything is at. For context, I have to maintain a test to EQ ratio of 2.5:1 to avoid problems but some people can get away with 1:1 while others need to go as high as 3:1 - there's a lot of variability in how people respond so adjustments are often required to get things all dialed in.
It's also worth noting that while EQ doesn't inhibit the same way an AI would, it does start having an effect on the rate that test is converting to estrogen right from the start - it'll just be super subtle. Within the first 2 weeks its impact is usually at a point that it will prevent any of the major spikes that would normally cause issues associated with high estrogen to surface and once you're 4-6 weeks in you should be at a point of full saturation and it'd be effectively managing e2. There may be a period where your e2 is at the higher end early on until full saturation is reached but it is still being controlled to some extent.
It'd still be a good idea to have an AI on hand but unless you are experiencing any negative sides as a result of high estrogen, then you shouldn't need to use it and can just ride it out until you're at peak levels. With everything dialled in correctly, the use of EQ will be an effective form of estrogen control and should eliminate the the requirement of an AI entirely. The less things you need to put into your body to manage sides, the better
AJ
Pigsy
Veteran Mod
Vet Moderator
UGL OZ VIP
Chairman VIP
EVO VIP
EVO V.I.P.
Aussie Legend
EVO Logger
BodyBuilder
Well explained. I use 1mg test to 0.6mg EQ for my sweet spotHey brother,
Just want to preface this by noting that the advice below is fairly broad and is mainly just to highlight that the ratios you often see circulating on forums are not a 'one size fits all' solution - you will likely need to do some fine tuning here. The best way to determine the right ratios for you is by monitoring your blood work and adjusting them based on your individual response/situation.
In saying that, I wouldn't recommend starting off with a ratio of 1:1 if you haven't had any prior experience with EQ and are unsure of the impact that it will have on your e2. Everyone responds differently but you really don't want to risk crashing your e2. High e2 is much easier to manage than crashed e2 which is honestly a pretty grueling thing to endure while you're waiting for those levels to recover.
If you'd prefer to start with a tighter ratio, you can kick things off with a ratio of 1.25:1 (test:EQ ) and then get bloods drawn within the initial 4-6 week window of its use and adjust as necessary once you have more insight into where everything is at. For context, I have to maintain a test to EQ ratio of 2.5:1 to avoid problems but some people can get away with 1:1 while others need to go as high as 3:1 - there's a lot of variability in how people respond so adjustments are often required to get things all dialed in.
It's also worth noting that while EQ doesn't inhibit the same way an AI would, it does start having an effect on the rate that test is converting to estrogen right from the start - it'll just be super subtle. Within the first 2 weeks its impact is usually at a point that it will prevent any of the major spikes that would normally cause issues associated with high estrogen to surface and once you're 4-6 weeks in you should be at a point of full saturation and it'd be effectively managing e2. There may be a period where your e2 is at the higher end early on until full saturation is reached but it is still being controlled to some extent.
It'd still be a good idea to have an AI on hand but unless you are experiencing any negative sides as a result of high estrogen, then you shouldn't need to use it and can just ride it out until you're at peak levels. With everything dialled in correctly, the use of EQ will be an effective form of estrogen control and should eliminate the the requirement of an AI entirely. The less things you need to put into your body to manage sides, the better
AJ
Thanks for taking the time to reply brother very helpfulHey brother,
Just want to preface this by noting that the advice below is fairly broad and is mainly just to highlight that the ratios you often see circulating on forums are not a 'one size fits all' solution - you will likely need to do some fine tuning here. The best way to determine the right ratios for you is by monitoring your blood work and adjusting them based on your individual response/situation.
In saying that, I wouldn't recommend starting off with a ratio of 1:1 if you haven't had any prior experience with EQ and are unsure of the impact that it will have on your e2. Everyone responds differently but you really don't want to risk crashing your e2. High e2 is much easier to manage than crashed e2 which is honestly a pretty grueling thing to endure while you're waiting for those levels to recover.
If you'd prefer to start with a tighter ratio, you can kick things off with a ratio of 1.25:1 (test:EQ ) and then get bloods drawn within the initial 4-6 week window of its use and adjust as necessary once you have more insight into where everything is at. For context, I have to maintain a test to EQ ratio of 2.5:1 to avoid problems but some people can get away with 1:1 while others need to go as high as 3:1 - there's a lot of variability in how people respond so adjustments are often required to get things all dialed in.
It's also worth noting that while EQ doesn't inhibit the same way an AI would, it does start having an effect on the rate that test is converting to estrogen right from the start - it'll just be super subtle. Within the first 2 weeks its impact is usually at a point that it will prevent any of the major spikes that would normally cause issues associated with high estrogen to surface and once you're 4-6 weeks in you should be at a point of full saturation and it'd be effectively managing e2. There may be a period where your e2 is at the higher end early on until full saturation is reached but it is still being controlled to some extent.
It'd still be a good idea to have an AI on hand but unless you are experiencing any negative sides as a result of high estrogen, then you shouldn't need to use it and can just ride it out until you're at peak levels. With everything dialled in correctly, the use of EQ will be an effective form of estrogen control and should eliminate the the requirement of an AI entirely. The less things you need to put into your body to manage sides, the better
AJ
LevButlerov
Veteran Mod
Head Moderator
Raptor Labs VIP
UGL OZ VIP
Senior Moderator
EVO V.I.P.
Domestic-Supply.com
This is going to depend heavily on your goals and your experience. I checked your back posts -
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums...anyone-thinking-of-trying.102034/post-1677352
@trenman3000 you've ran high doses before. In your case, you can go 1.25:1 or even better 1.5:1. But even in this situation we are guessing here, we don't know much about you besides what I see above. You understand that guessing with steroids is not smart for us or you?
It's much safer and better for you if you start a training nutrition log with your history there, so we can properly guide you as an EVO family and not just practice guessing with steroids.
well said, very clean with 1.25:1. @UGL OZHey brother,
Just want to preface this by noting that the advice below is fairly broad and is mainly just to highlight that the ratios you often see circulating on forums are not a 'one size fits all' solution - you will likely need to do some fine tuning here. The best way to determine the right ratios for you is by monitoring your blood work and adjusting them based on your individual response/situation.
In saying that, I wouldn't recommend starting off with a ratio of 1:1 if you haven't had any prior experience with EQ and are unsure of the impact that it will have on your e2. Everyone responds differently but you really don't want to risk crashing your e2. High e2 is much easier to manage than crashed e2 which is honestly a pretty grueling thing to endure while you're waiting for those levels to recover.
If you'd prefer to start with a tighter ratio, you can kick things off with a ratio of 1.25:1 (test:EQ ) and then get bloods drawn within the initial 4-6 week window of its use and adjust as necessary once you have more insight into where everything is at. For context, I have to maintain a test to EQ ratio of 2.5:1 to avoid problems but some people can get away with 1:1 while others need to go as high as 3:1 - there's a lot of variability in how people respond so adjustments are often required to get things all dialed in.
It's also worth noting that while EQ doesn't inhibit the same way an AI would, it does start having an effect on the rate that test is converting to estrogen right from the start - it'll just be super subtle. Within the first 2 weeks its impact is usually at a point that it will prevent any of the major spikes that would normally cause issues associated with high estrogen to surface and once you're 4-6 weeks in you should be at a point of full saturation and it'd be effectively managing e2. There may be a period where your e2 is at the higher end early on until full saturation is reached but it is still being controlled to some extent.
It'd still be a good idea to have an AI on hand but unless you are experiencing any negative sides as a result of high estrogen, then you shouldn't need to use it and can just ride it out until you're at peak levels. With everything dialled in correctly, the use of EQ will be an effective form of estrogen control and should eliminate the the requirement of an AI entirely. The less things you need to put into your body to manage sides, the better
AJ
I’d start with 1.25 guide as mentioned and adjust accordingly based on bloods.
If you run it for a while you’ll get to know what you feel like with high e2 vs low e2 and probably be able to adjust prior to bloods.
If it does go super low I’d add in dbol just to try and level yourself out but that’s only if you made a mistake prior to getting bloods pulled.
Good luck!
If you run it for a while you’ll get to know what you feel like with high e2 vs low e2 and probably be able to adjust prior to bloods.
If it does go super low I’d add in dbol just to try and level yourself out but that’s only if you made a mistake prior to getting bloods pulled.
Good luck!
Wolfenstein
Suspended February 2026
I run 1:1 with both primo and eq and for me that works well with estrogen control. Maybe start at 1:1 or 1.25:1 get bloods and adjust from there, everyone is slightly different.
juddy
72 hour timeout.
AJ, mate.... You've nailed this. Thanks for providing a well thought out reply!Hey brother,
Just want to preface this by noting that the advice below is fairly broad and is mainly just to highlight that the ratios you often see circulating on forums are not a 'one size fits all' solution - you will likely need to do some fine tuning here. The best way to determine the right ratios for you is by monitoring your blood work and adjusting them based on your individual response/situation.
In saying that, I wouldn't recommend starting off with a ratio of 1:1 if you haven't had any prior experience with EQ and are unsure of the impact that it will have on your e2. Everyone responds differently but you really don't want to risk crashing your e2. High e2 is much easier to manage than crashed e2 which is honestly a pretty grueling thing to endure while you're waiting for those levels to recover.
If you'd prefer to start with a tighter ratio, you can kick things off with a ratio of 1.25:1 (test:EQ ) and then get bloods drawn within the initial 4-6 week window of its use and adjust as necessary once you have more insight into where everything is at. For context, I have to maintain a test to EQ ratio of 2.5:1 to avoid problems but some people can get away with 1:1 while others need to go as high as 3:1 - there's a lot of variability in how people respond so adjustments are often required to get things all dialed in.
It's also worth noting that while EQ doesn't inhibit the same way an AI would, it does start having an effect on the rate that test is converting to estrogen right from the start - it'll just be super subtle. Within the first 2 weeks its impact is usually at a point that it will prevent any of the major spikes that would normally cause issues associated with high estrogen to surface and once you're 4-6 weeks in you should be at a point of full saturation and it'd be effectively managing e2. There may be a period where your e2 is at the higher end early on until full saturation is reached but it is still being controlled to some extent.
It'd still be a good idea to have an AI on hand but unless you are experiencing any negative sides as a result of high estrogen, then you shouldn't need to use it and can just ride it out until you're at peak levels. With everything dialled in correctly, the use of EQ will be an effective form of estrogen control and should eliminate the the requirement of an AI entirely. The less things you need to put into your body to manage sides, the better
AJ
The impact of EQ on e2 was being discussed earlier today between @LevButlerov and @hypogaeum in @Zachus Backus Maximus's log (https://www.evolutionary.org/forums...-deca-hgh-cycle-by-ugl-oz.105313/post-1779448) - reposting what I posted there as it is relevant to this discussion and others may find it helpful having it all in the one thread
(Full disclosure that these guys were using various labs (not ours) - just sharing as the results demonstrate the impact EQ can have on e2. No AIs were used at any point and bloods were done six weeks or more into their cycle).
- 300mg sus / 150mg EQ per week (2:1):
- 400mg test / 250mg EQ per week (1.6:1)
- 500mg test / 200mg EQ per week (2.5:1)
All three were using different ratios with the third having the highest test to EQ ratio but still managed to nuke their e2. This is a good example of the response variability between different people.
AJ
(Full disclosure that these guys were using various labs (not ours) - just sharing as the results demonstrate the impact EQ can have on e2. No AIs were used at any point and bloods were done six weeks or more into their cycle).
- 300mg sus / 150mg EQ per week (2:1):
- 400mg test / 250mg EQ per week (1.6:1)
- 500mg test / 200mg EQ per week (2.5:1)
All three were using different ratios with the third having the highest test to EQ ratio but still managed to nuke their e2. This is a good example of the response variability between different people.
AJ
Thanks for sharing all of this brother. Timely reminder to get my bloods done as I have a feeling my estrogen might be in the gutterThe impact of EQ on e2 was being discussed earlier today between @LevButlerov and @hypogaeum in @Zachus Backus Maximus's log (https://www.evolutionary.org/forums...-deca-hgh-cycle-by-ugl-oz.105313/post-1779448) - reposting what I posted there as it is relevant to this discussion and others may find it helpful having it all in the one thread
(Full disclosure that these guys were using various labs (not ours) - just sharing as the results demonstrate the impact EQ can have on e2. No AIs were used at any point and bloods were done six weeks or more into their cycle).
- 300mg sus / 150mg EQ per week (2:1):
View attachment 101653
- 400mg test / 250mg EQ per week (1.6:1)
View attachment 101654
- 500mg test / 200mg EQ per week (2.5:1)
View attachment 101655
All three were using different ratios with the third having the highest test to EQ ratio but still managed to nuke their e2. This is a good example of the response variability between different people.
AJ
LevButlerov
Veteran Mod
Head Moderator
Raptor Labs VIP
UGL OZ VIP
Senior Moderator
EVO V.I.P.
Domestic-Supply.com
@UGL OZ thanks for this referenceThe impact of EQ on e2 was being discussed earlier today between @LevButlerov and @hypogaeum in @Zachus Backus Maximus's log (https://www.evolutionary.org/forums...-deca-hgh-cycle-by-ugl-oz.105313/post-1779448) - reposting what I posted there as it is relevant to this discussion and others may find it helpful having it all in the one thread
(Full disclosure that these guys were using various labs (not ours) - just sharing as the results demonstrate the impact EQ can have on e2. No AIs were used at any point and bloods were done six weeks or more into their cycle).
- 300mg sus / 150mg EQ per week (2:1):
View attachment 101653
- 400mg test / 250mg EQ per week (1.6:1)
View attachment 101654
- 500mg test / 200mg EQ per week (2.5:1)
View attachment 101655
All three were using different ratios with the third having the highest test to EQ ratio but still managed to nuke their e2. This is a good example of the response variability between different people.
AJ
I am saving this post. I'll be opening a research thread soon, so we can compile the data on EQ and estrogen-lowering effects. Going to make it a priority this summer.
Sounds like a great idea, look forward to seeing it@UGL OZ thanks for this reference
LevButlerov
Veteran Mod
Head Moderator
Raptor Labs VIP
UGL OZ VIP
Senior Moderator
EVO V.I.P.
Domestic-Supply.com
Currently trying to work on the basics of it.
Without going through the history, did the Logger feel better at 1.6:1 or 2:1? Correct me if I'm wrong but don't a lot of coaches recommend a 18-20:1 ratio of T-E2 (American scale).The impact of EQ on e2 was being discussed earlier today between @LevButlerov and @hypogaeum in @Zachus Backus Maximus's log (https://www.evolutionary.org/forums...-deca-hgh-cycle-by-ugl-oz.105313/post-1779448) - reposting what I posted there as it is relevant to this discussion and others may find it helpful having it all in the one thread
(Full disclosure that these guys were using various labs (not ours) - just sharing as the results demonstrate the impact EQ can have on e2. No AIs were used at any point and bloods were done six weeks or more into their cycle).
- 300mg sus / 150mg EQ per week (2:1):
View attachment 101653
- 400mg test / 250mg EQ per week (1.6:1)
View attachment 101654
- 500mg test / 200mg EQ per week (2.5:1)
View attachment 101655
All three were using different ratios with the third having the highest test to EQ ratio but still managed to nuke their e2. This is a good example of the response variability between different people.
AJ
LevButlerov
Veteran Mod
Head Moderator
Raptor Labs VIP
UGL OZ VIP
Senior Moderator
EVO V.I.P.
Domestic-Supply.com
That's a good question @Boris Stroganoff and here we come to a cross-road. Every person is different and the ratios different. That's why we are working on a mega research thread on eq vs e2. I actually found equipoise doesn't always lower E2, and can spike it in some users, keep this in mind. @UGL OZ @hypogaeum can comment here as well.
Pigsy
Veteran Mod
Vet Moderator
UGL OZ VIP
Chairman VIP
EVO VIP
EVO V.I.P.
Aussie Legend
EVO Logger
BodyBuilder
We have a few running EQ, whom will be doing blood over the coming weeks including myself. We can post on your thread when you start@UGL OZ thanks for this reference
LevButlerov
Veteran Mod
Head Moderator
Raptor Labs VIP
UGL OZ VIP
Senior Moderator
EVO V.I.P.
Domestic-Supply.com
Yep also getting bloods next week and happy to contribute @LevButlerov
Pigsy
Veteran Mod
Vet Moderator
UGL OZ VIP
Chairman VIP
EVO VIP
EVO V.I.P.
Aussie Legend
EVO Logger
BodyBuilder
That be great brother
LevButlerov
Veteran Mod
Head Moderator
Raptor Labs VIP
UGL OZ VIP
Senior Moderator
EVO V.I.P.
Domestic-Supply.com
One thing people neglect is the EQ build up in serum. As weeks go by you will find that you will have more then your weekly dose in serum blood. It may ( or may not) crush e2 and becomes somewhat unpredictable in that sense and e2 control can become a nightmare.
I’m my 2c is why use a drug that is dependent on genetic factors when it comes to enzyme production to break these drugs down to the metabolite needed. The one two combo of EQ is great on paper but is unpredictable.
Current climate is showing less availability of primo and masteron. Which has the same potential as EQ due to primo breakdown into adamastane, masteron being the initial drug for mast cell control. In this case I would be looking into something like HGH, some Carnitine and possibly an AI such as aromasin if needed. Your bloodwork will be cleaner, more predictable and easier to intervene with needed.
I’m my 2c is why use a drug that is dependent on genetic factors when it comes to enzyme production to break these drugs down to the metabolite needed. The one two combo of EQ is great on paper but is unpredictable.
Current climate is showing less availability of primo and masteron. Which has the same potential as EQ due to primo breakdown into adamastane, masteron being the initial drug for mast cell control. In this case I would be looking into something like HGH, some Carnitine and possibly an AI such as aromasin if needed. Your bloodwork will be cleaner, more predictable and easier to intervene with needed.
HGH and Carnitine block the aromatase enzyme?
No, it’s more for aesthetics, you will be fuller and leaner without the issues EQ carry.
It’s the long chain fatty acid. The chemical structure is similar to dbol but has a change at a certain carbon position, can’t remember off the top of my head, little changes make the big differences especially with a long ester attached. NPP and Deca is a good example of this. Both the same drugs but react differently in the body.
I've got my bloods from 3 weeks ago and going again in about 2 weeks, E2 normal test 132pmol , E2 LCMS 40pmol. If I see your thread I'll post them in.Please do
Definitely a solid point worth raising - EQ does accumulate in the serum over time which can lead to issues with e2 further down the line but many people also choose EQ for its longer half life since the sustained effects play an important part in achieving the increase in muscle mass and strength they're chasing. If anything, this highlights how necessary it is to monitor blood work regularly which is overlooked way too often.
Even though there's differences in how EQ is metabolised vs. primo, the same arguments about genetic factors could still apply to primo too. If people approach it without any understanding of its impact on e2 and there being a wide range of individual responses, then they also risk nuking their e2 from the start. The advantage of primo over EQ being that once their dose has been dialled in they don’t have to worry about accumulation so things should remain fairly consistent once steady state levels are reached from that point on.
From a lab standpoint, EQ has certainly gained popularity as a result of the shortage of primo and I agree that it shouldn't be treated as a drop-in replacement for it but this should also apply when dealing with any compound. Ultimately, it should come down to what works best for the person and best aligns with their goals.
So for alternatives, it really just comes down to what works for them. If people are looking to maintain clean blood work while minimising sides and taking a conservative approach to conditioning and building mass, HGH and L-Carnitine is a solid option for sure. If the goal is to gain mass similar to the gradual increases associated with primo while also leveraging EQ's ability to manage E2 (with the understanding that ongoing monitoring and adjustments will be necessary), then EQ would still be the better choice. An even better choice would be running the HGH and L-Carnitine alongside the test and EQ to fully leverage their anabolic synergy
At the end of the day, too many people have a tendancy of overcomplicating things. What works for one person may not work for another and more emphasis should be placed on finding what yields the desired results within a management approach that they feel comfortable with, and then just sticking with that. It shouldn't be X is better over Y - it should be "for *me*, X works better than Y".
AJ
LevButlerov
Veteran Mod
Head Moderator
Raptor Labs VIP
UGL OZ VIP
Senior Moderator
EVO V.I.P.
Domestic-Supply.com
Definitely a solid point worth raising - EQ does accumulate in the serum over time which can lead to issues with e2 further down the line but many people also choose EQ for its longer half life since the sustained effects play an important part in achieving the increase in muscle mass and strength they're chasing. If anything, this highlights how necessary it is to monitor blood work regularly which is overlooked way too often.
Even though there's differences in how EQ is metabolised vs. primo, the same arguments about genetic factors could still apply to primo too. If people approach it without any understanding of its impact on e2 and there being a wide range of individual responses, then they also risk nuking their e2 from the start. The advantage of primo over EQ being that once their dose has been dialled in they don’t have to worry about accumulation so things should remain fairly consistent once steady state levels are reached from that point on.
From a lab standpoint, EQ has certainly gained popularity as a result of the shortage of primo and I agree that it shouldn't be treated as a drop-in replacement for it but this should also apply when dealing with any compound. Ultimately, it should come down to what works best for the person and best aligns with their goals.
So for alternatives, it really just comes down to what works for them. If people are looking to maintain clean blood work while minimising sides and taking a conservative approach to conditioning and building mass, HGH and L-Carnitine is a solid option for sure. If the goal is to gain mass similar to the gradual increases associated with primo while also leveraging EQ's ability to manage E2 (with the understanding that ongoing monitoring and adjustments will be necessary), then EQ would still be the better choice. An even better choice would be running the HGH and L-Carnitine alongside the test and EQ to fully leverage their anabolic synergy
At the end of the day, too many people have a tendancy of overcomplicating things. What works for one person may not work for another and more emphasis should be placed on finding what yields the desired results within a management approach that they feel comfortable with, and then just sticking with that. It shouldn't be X is better over Y - it should be "for *me*, X works better than Y".
@AE1079 @UGL OZ This is a good discussion and definitely one that doesn’t get talked about enough. A lot of people still think EQ lowers estrogen but that’s not exactly true. It doesn’t directly suppress E2 like an AI would. What really happens is EQ builds up in your blood over time, especially after week 6 or so, and that buildup can mess with how estrogen shows up on labs. The problem is most standard estrogen tests cross-react with EQ’s metabolites, making E2 look way lower than it actually is. So people think their E2 is crashed when it’s not, and they start adjusting test or AI doses for no reason. That’s where things spiral and estrogen becomes impossible to manage.Definitely a solid point worth raising - EQ does accumulate in the serum over time which can lead to issues with e2 further down the line but many people also choose EQ for its longer half life since the sustained effects play an important part in achieving the increase in muscle mass and strength they're chasing. If anything, this highlights how necessary it is to monitor blood work regularly which is overlooked way too often.
Even though there's differences in how EQ is metabolised vs. primo, the same arguments about genetic factors could still apply to primo too. If people approach it without any understanding of its impact on e2 and there being a wide range of individual responses, then they also risk nuking their e2 from the start. The advantage of primo over EQ being that once their dose has been dialled in they don’t have to worry about accumulation so things should remain fairly consistent once steady state levels are reached from that point on.
From a lab standpoint, EQ has certainly gained popularity as a result of the shortage of primo and I agree that it shouldn't be treated as a drop-in replacement for it but this should also apply when dealing with any compound. Ultimately, it should come down to what works best for the person and best aligns with their goals.
So for alternatives, it really just comes down to what works for them. If people are looking to maintain clean blood work while minimising sides and taking a conservative approach to conditioning and building mass, HGH and L-Carnitine is a solid option for sure. If the goal is to gain mass similar to the gradual increases associated with primo while also leveraging EQ's ability to manage E2 (with the understanding that ongoing monitoring and adjustments will be necessary), then EQ would still be the better choice. An even better choice would be running the HGH and L-Carnitine alongside the test and EQ to fully leverage their anabolic synergy
At the end of the day, too many people have a tendancy of overcomplicating things. What works for one person may not work for another and more emphasis should be placed on finding what yields the desired results within a management approach that they feel comfortable with, and then just sticking with that. It shouldn't be X is better over Y - it should be "for *me*, X works better than Y".
AJ
As a personal thought of mine on EQ, I find some people look at EQ as a fallback because primobolan and masteron are getting harder to find, but honestly EQ can be the better option depending on the goal. It brings steady strength and lean mass gains without the constant need to chase your E2 like with mast or primo. Primo is cleaner on labs, sure, but it also comes with high cost and needs higher doses to really shine. EQ on the other hand gives you a nice anabolic effect with better appetite, endurance, and fewer DHT-related sides.
So for alternatives, it really just comes down to what works for them. If people are looking to maintain clean blood work while minimising sides and taking a conservative approach to conditioning and building mass, HGH and L-Carnitine is a solid option for sure. If the goal is to gain mass similar to the gradual increases associated with primo while also leveraging EQ's ability to manage E2 (with the understanding that ongoing monitoring and adjustments will be necessary), then EQ would still be the better choice. An even better choice would be running the HGH and L-Carnitine alongside the test and EQ to fully leverage their anabolic synergy
Once you understand the serum buildup and monitor it properly, EQ is actually more predictable long term. You just need to be patient and smart with bloodwork. When paired with HGH and Carnitine, EQ holds its own and arguably beats out primo for guys looking to grow or even cut imo.
Pigsy
Veteran Mod
Vet Moderator
UGL OZ VIP
Chairman VIP
EVO VIP
EVO V.I.P.
Aussie Legend
EVO Logger
BodyBuilder
LevButlerov
Veteran Mod
Head Moderator
Raptor Labs VIP
UGL OZ VIP
Senior Moderator
EVO V.I.P.
Domestic-Supply.com
We agree to disagree lolYou will see it does with blood work
Strongly disagree
LCMS E2 test will sort out any confusion in the bloodworkYou will see it does with blood work
Strongly disagree
Pigsy
Veteran Mod
Vet Moderator
UGL OZ VIP
Chairman VIP
EVO VIP
EVO V.I.P.
Aussie Legend
EVO Logger
BodyBuilder
Very very muchWe agree to disagree lol
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one too
What you've described about certain compounds causing inaccuracies in lab results due to cross-reaction is relevant in the limitations of certain testing methods, for sure - ie: immunoassays have been known to misinterpret certain analytes so more precise testing through LCMS is required to obtain accurate results - but this situation is very different.
EQ isn't causing inaccuracies in labs - it really does have a significant impact on estrogen production.
The exact mechanism by which EQ affects estrogen production is still unkown but from my understanding - based on various publications by people a lot smarter than I am
(I'm certainly no authority on this) - is EQ is competing with testosterone for binding to the aromatase enzyme, and by occupying these binding sites it indirectly inhibits the aromatase enzyme preventing testosterone from binding and converting androgens into estrogens. EQ's metabolites do not convert to estrogen as readily as testosterone which then leads to the impact we see it having on overall e2 production.Until there are more studies we'll just have to accept it as another phenomenon in biochemistry and continue debating it with the bros online, but most people seem to agree that EQ does have an impact on e2 production at least - you're the exception here, @LevButlerov
Always keen to hear other theories, especially regarding the processes that may contribute to EQ exerting this effect!
AJ
Last edited:
Pigsy
Veteran Mod
Vet Moderator
UGL OZ VIP
Chairman VIP
EVO VIP
EVO V.I.P.
Aussie Legend
EVO Logger
BodyBuilder
I always get LCMS bloodwork. Out of habitLCMS E2 test will sort out any confusion in the bloodwork
So if someone has high e2 even on 100mg test would they consider using a higher EQ to test ratio?I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one too
What you've described about certain compounds causing inaccuracies in lab results due to cross-reaction is relevant in the limitations of certain testing methods, for sure - ie: immunoassays have been known to misinterpret certain analytes so more precise testing through LCMS is required to obtain accurate results - but this situation is very different.
EQ isn't causing inaccuracies in labs - it really does have a significant impact on estrogen production.
The exact mechanism by which EQ affects estrogen production is still unkown but from my understanding - based on various publications by people a lot smarter than I am
Until there are more studies we'll just have to accept it as another phenomenon in biochemistry and continue debating it with the bros online, but most people seem to agree that EQ does have an impact on e2 production at least - you're the exception here, @LevButlerov
Always keen to hear other theories, especially regarding the processes that may contribute to EQ exerting this effect!
AJ
Pigsy
Veteran Mod
Vet Moderator
UGL OZ VIP
Chairman VIP
EVO VIP
EVO V.I.P.
Aussie Legend
EVO Logger
BodyBuilder
Then there's another video of DR Todd Lee using EQ to lower E2
juddy
72 hour timeout.
Ill stick with primo.
Ive got bloods from Monday, that are primo, mast and Test.... but haven't posited them. Not sure if this would add to the conversation but I dont think mast is insufficient alone to lower e2, imo. And what would I know right!
juddy
72 hour timeout.
Agree.
Will do this evening, along with dosages too. Sorry just need to crop it and stuff.
Pigsy
Veteran Mod
Vet Moderator
UGL OZ VIP
Chairman VIP
EVO VIP
EVO V.I.P.
Aussie Legend
EVO Logger
BodyBuilder
Where have I mentioned mast, I talking EQ
You one of the lucky few with Primo. Stick to what you know
juddy
72 hour timeout.
Stoner here didnt read shit right, my bad.
Correct brother, I don't disagree with you here - mast does not impact e2 production. It prevents estrogen from binding to certain tissues - particularly in breast tissue - which helps mitigate side effects associated with high e2 such as gyno. This is why people will incorrectly refer to it as being an anti-estrogen, but e2 would still be running rampant even though you're not exhibiting some of the more common sides associated with it.
I assume you may have confused what Vigorous Steve mentioned here - was he referring to mast (not EQ)?
AJ
At TRT doses, they should be dialling in their dose to a level where no form of estrogen control is necessary. They really shouldn't need to use any AIs or any other form of estrogen control here - TRT is a lifelong commitment so they should avoid putting anything else into their body if there is no need to, especially since there are some pretty serious sides associated with long-term use of AIs. It should be avoided.
It's also important to note that if the elevated estrogen levels are not causing any issues, then there isn't any need to address them. Having e2 levels run outside the reference range does not automatically mean it's a problem - as long as those levels are reasonable. It is actually fairly common for people on TRT to have a preference for this as there can be libido and mood benefits associated with doing so.
In saying that, 100mg/wk is a pretty low dose. If they are having trouble even at this dose, they may respond better to a different ester and/or adjusting their injection frequency. Microdosing daily can help maintain steady test levels and will avoid any major spikes that could be contributing to any sides they are seeing (if any).
Either way, EQ isn't a good application here. Personally, the only oil I'd stack while on a cruise or TRT is mast
AJ
LevButlerov
Veteran Mod
Head Moderator
Raptor Labs VIP
UGL OZ VIP
Senior Moderator
EVO V.I.P.
Domestic-Supply.com
@UGL OZ as with @Pigsy my EVO brothers, we agree to somewhat disagree lolI'm going to have to disagree with you on this one too
What you've described about certain compounds causing inaccuracies in lab results due to cross-reaction is relevant in the limitations of certain testing methods, for sure - ie: immunoassays have been known to misinterpret certain analytes so more precise testing through LCMS is required to obtain accurate results - but this situation is very different.
EQ isn't causing inaccuracies in labs - it really does have a significant impact on estrogen production.
The exact mechanism by which EQ affects estrogen production is still unkown but from my understanding - based on various publications by people a lot smarter than I am
Until there are more studies we'll just have to accept it as another phenomenon in biochemistry and continue debating it with the bros online, but most people seem to agree that EQ does have an impact on e2 production at least - you're the exception here, @LevButlerov
Always keen to hear other theories, especially regarding the processes that may contribute to EQ exerting this effect!
AJ
You made totally fair points and I respect the disagreement. You're right that there's some research showing EQ may have an effect on estrogen levels. The most often cited mechanism is that EQ competes with testosterone for the aromatase enzyme, possibly limiting how much testosterone gets converted to estrogen. A good example is the study by Shono et al in 1987 published in the Journal of Steroid Biochemistry which found that EQ does aromatize, but at a much lower rate than testosterone. That explains why E2 levels might not rise much when EQ is used, especially if someone is running low to moderate test.
But here’s the thing. That doesn’t mean EQ is suppressing aromatase or crushing estrogen on its own. It just means it contributes less to estrogen production compared to test. The other layer is how we test for estrogen. Most guys use standard immunoassay E2 tests, and those are known to be unreliable in the presence of other steroids. A 2004 paper in Clinical Chemistry by Stanczyk et al specifically called out immunoassay limitations, saying that other compounds can interfere and cause falsely low or high readings.
I’ve seen guys crash their E2 on EQ, and I’ve seen guys run high test and EQ with no issues. That kind of variation suggests EQ might affect E2 in some people more than others, which could come down to genetics or metabolism. It’s not consistent enough to say EQ always lowers estrogen, and I think people who assume that risk overcorrecting with AIs or adjusting doses for no reason. I’m not saying EQ has no impact, but I lean toward a middle ground. It’s not an AI or SERM, and it shouldn’t be treated like one.
Until more studies are done, I think the safest move is regular bloodwork using LC-MS/MS testing and watching actual symptoms rather than chasing numbers. Everyone responds differently and EQ just adds another variable into the mix.
Just an after thought on the lab interference side, Stanczyk et al. discussed in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention (2010) that many standard direct immunoassays, especially without purification steps, are prone to cross-reactivity. We had this discussion many times with @dylangemelli about trenbolone as well.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4112981/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20332268/
You guys got me going on this, I really want a new thread, or we should turn this thread into the Eq research thread now? LOL
LevButlerov
Veteran Mod
Head Moderator
Raptor Labs VIP
UGL OZ VIP
Senior Moderator
EVO V.I.P.
Domestic-Supply.com
@AE1079 sorry forgot to tag you.@UGL OZ as with @Pigsy my EVO brothers, we agree to somewhat disagree lol
You made totally fair points and I respect the disagreement. You're right that there's some research showing EQ may have an effect on estrogen levels. The most often cited mechanism is that EQ competes with testosterone for the aromatase enzyme, possibly limiting how much testosterone gets converted to estrogen. A good example is the study by Shono et al in 1987 published in the Journal of Steroid Biochemistry which found that EQ does aromatize, but at a much lower rate than testosterone. That explains why E2 levels might not rise much when EQ is used, especially if someone is running low to moderate test.
But here’s the thing. That doesn’t mean EQ is suppressing aromatase or crushing estrogen on its own. It just means it contributes less to estrogen production compared to test. The other layer is how we test for estrogen. Most guys use standard immunoassay E2 tests, and those are known to be unreliable in the presence of other steroids. A 2004 paper in Clinical Chemistry by Stanczyk et al specifically called out immunoassay limitations, saying that other compounds can interfere and cause falsely low or high readings.
I’ve seen guys crash their E2 on EQ, and I’ve seen guys run high test and EQ with no issues. That kind of variation suggests EQ might affect E2 in some people more than others, which could come down to genetics or metabolism. It’s not consistent enough to say EQ always lowers estrogen, and I think people who assume that risk overcorrecting with AIs or adjusting doses for no reason. I’m not saying EQ has no impact, but I lean toward a middle ground. It’s not an AI or SERM, and it shouldn’t be treated like one.
Until more studies are done, I think the safest move is regular bloodwork using LC-MS/MS testing and watching actual symptoms rather than chasing numbers. Everyone responds differently and EQ just adds another variable into the mix.
Just an after thought on the lab interference side, Stanczyk et al. discussed in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention (2010) that many standard direct immunoassays, especially without purification steps, are prone to cross-reactivity. We had this discussion many times with @dylangemelli about trenbolone as well.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4112981
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20332268/
You guys got me going on this, I really want a new thread, or we should turn this thread into the Eq research thread now? LOL
Pigsy
Veteran Mod
Vet Moderator
UGL OZ VIP
Chairman VIP
EVO VIP
EVO V.I.P.
Aussie Legend
EVO Logger
BodyBuilder
Let's crank this into a thread. I like the back and forth with you. Like a battle royale@UGL OZ as with @Pigsy my EVO brothers, we agree to somewhat disagree lol
You made totally fair points and I respect the disagreement. You're right that there's some research showing EQ may have an effect on estrogen levels. The most often cited mechanism is that EQ competes with testosterone for the aromatase enzyme, possibly limiting how much testosterone gets converted to estrogen. A good example is the study by Shono et al in 1987 published in the Journal of Steroid Biochemistry which found that EQ does aromatize, but at a much lower rate than testosterone. That explains why E2 levels might not rise much when EQ is used, especially if someone is running low to moderate test.
But here’s the thing. That doesn’t mean EQ is suppressing aromatase or crushing estrogen on its own. It just means it contributes less to estrogen production compared to test. The other layer is how we test for estrogen. Most guys use standard immunoassay E2 tests, and those are known to be unreliable in the presence of other steroids. A 2004 paper in Clinical Chemistry by Stanczyk et al specifically called out immunoassay limitations, saying that other compounds can interfere and cause falsely low or high readings.
I’ve seen guys crash their E2 on EQ, and I’ve seen guys run high test and EQ with no issues. That kind of variation suggests EQ might affect E2 in some people more than others, which could come down to genetics or metabolism. It’s not consistent enough to say EQ always lowers estrogen, and I think people who assume that risk overcorrecting with AIs or adjusting doses for no reason. I’m not saying EQ has no impact, but I lean toward a middle ground. It’s not an AI or SERM, and it shouldn’t be treated like one.
Until more studies are done, I think the safest move is regular bloodwork using LC-MS/MS testing and watching actual symptoms rather than chasing numbers. Everyone responds differently and EQ just adds another variable into the mix.
Just an after thought on the lab interference side, Stanczyk et al. discussed in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention (2010) that many standard direct immunoassays, especially without purification steps, are prone to cross-reactivity. We had this discussion many times with @dylangemelli about trenbolone as well.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4112981/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20332268/
You guys got me going on this, I really want a new thread, or we should turn this thread into the Eq research thread now? LOL
LevButlerov
Veteran Mod
Head Moderator
Raptor Labs VIP
UGL OZ VIP
Senior Moderator
EVO V.I.P.
Domestic-Supply.com
We should retitle it, I'll check if I can get permission for it.Let's crank this into a thread. I like the back and forth with you. Like a battle royale
We should retitle it, I'll check if I can get permission for it.
@Pigsy we have moved the thread.
I actually agree with @UGL OZ and @AE1079 here. I think Equipoise has consistently shown a lowering of e2 in users. Blood work has shown this even with EQ only cycles; this is where we don’t agree @LevButlerov
If the test:eq receptor competition was real, then there would be no low estrogen with EQ only cycles.
In fact, my view is that equipose is one of the best replacement for primobolan. Cleaner and less DHT issues.
@LevButlerov that’s a super long readJust an after thought on the lab interference side, Stanczyk et al. discussed in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention (2010) that many standard direct immunoassays, especially without purification steps, are prone to cross-reactivity. We had this discussion many times with @dylangemelli about trenbolone as well.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4112981/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20332268/
You guys got me going on this, I really want a new thread, or we should turn this thread into the Eq research thread now? LOL
, I checked the top part. But if you look towards the bottom, they say most blood work has purification enough for testing. They are probably referring to PEG clearing when testing for prolactin.
keen to share mine when available
My knees hurt looking at those bloods from the blast
You’re obviously younger and less beat up than my busted body to survive E2 that low 
I just wanted to highlight that this post is EXTREMELY well written and gives a ton of really strong insight that most never get in to... well done@UGL OZ as with @Pigsy my EVO brothers, we agree to somewhat disagree lol
You made totally fair points and I respect the disagreement. You're right that there's some research showing EQ may have an effect on estrogen levels. The most often cited mechanism is that EQ competes with testosterone for the aromatase enzyme, possibly limiting how much testosterone gets converted to estrogen. A good example is the study by Shono et al in 1987 published in the Journal of Steroid Biochemistry which found that EQ does aromatize, but at a much lower rate than testosterone. That explains why E2 levels might not rise much when EQ is used, especially if someone is running low to moderate test.
But here’s the thing. That doesn’t mean EQ is suppressing aromatase or crushing estrogen on its own. It just means it contributes less to estrogen production compared to test. The other layer is how we test for estrogen. Most guys use standard immunoassay E2 tests, and those are known to be unreliable in the presence of other steroids. A 2004 paper in Clinical Chemistry by Stanczyk et al specifically called out immunoassay limitations, saying that other compounds can interfere and cause falsely low or high readings.
I’ve seen guys crash their E2 on EQ, and I’ve seen guys run high test and EQ with no issues. That kind of variation suggests EQ might affect E2 in some people more than others, which could come down to genetics or metabolism. It’s not consistent enough to say EQ always lowers estrogen, and I think people who assume that risk overcorrecting with AIs or adjusting doses for no reason. I’m not saying EQ has no impact, but I lean toward a middle ground. It’s not an AI or SERM, and it shouldn’t be treated like one.
Until more studies are done, I think the safest move is regular bloodwork using LC-MS/MS testing and watching actual symptoms rather than chasing numbers. Everyone responds differently and EQ just adds another variable into the mix.
Just an after thought on the lab interference side, Stanczyk et al. discussed in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention (2010) that many standard direct immunoassays, especially without purification steps, are prone to cross-reactivity. We had this discussion many times with @dylangemelli about trenbolone as well.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4112981/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20332268/
You guys got me going on this, I really want a new thread, or we should turn this thread into the Eq research thread now? LOL
LevButlerov
Veteran Mod
Head Moderator
Raptor Labs VIP
UGL OZ VIP
Senior Moderator
EVO V.I.P.
Domestic-Supply.com
This was a throwback to our conversation about trenbolone. @dylangemelli and I had a long back and forth on trenbolone and E2 readings. I think it's applicable to this equipoise conversation.
@LevButlerov Would love to see more community research threads like this, especially on steroids like tren, gh etc. Awesome read and a lot of educating.
I'm probably wrong...I'm new
I thought I remember hearing no clinical human research has been done on EQ because it was developed as an equestrian steroid and and had no medical use in humans.
If that's true than wouldn't all this information be anecdotal and no one really knows for sure
Then there really is no "right" answer if there's no studies to back it up
That would make this research thread even more valuable than most.
I thought I remember hearing no clinical human research has been done on EQ because it was developed as an equestrian steroid and and had no medical use in humans.
If that's true than wouldn't all this information be anecdotal and no one really knows for sure
Then there really is no "right" answer if there's no studies to back it up
That would make this research thread even more valuable than most.
LevButlerov
Veteran Mod
Head Moderator
Raptor Labs VIP
UGL OZ VIP
Senior Moderator
EVO V.I.P.
Domestic-Supply.com
@Eddie Haskell and I spoke in private, and I was shown more links I wasn't seeing before, logs and bloods. I’m starting to come around on this one. The more I look at logs and actual bloodwork, especially from guys running EQ solo or at high doses, the trend of lower E2 does show up pretty consistently. It’s hard to ignore when enough users report similar results across different cycles. Maybe it's not full-on suppression like an AI, but there’s clearly something going on beyond just lab interference. Whether it’s through partial aromatase competition or some indirect mechanism, EQ seems to lower estrogen in a real way for a lot of people. I still think LC-MS/MS testing clears things up better than standard labs, but even with that, the drop is there in some cases. So yeah I’m not fully off my original point, but I do think the “EQ doesn’t lower E2” stance might be too rigid. I was wrong on being so hard on this one.@Pigsy we have moved the thread.
I actually agree with @UGL OZ and @AE1079 here. I think Equipoise has consistently shown a lowering of e2 in users. Blood work has shown this even with EQ only cycles; this is where we don’t agree @LevButlerov
If the test:eq receptor competition was real, then there would be no low estrogen with EQ only cycles.
In fact, my view is that equipose is one of the best replacement for primobolan. Cleaner and less DHT issues.
@LevButlerov that’s a super long read
They are probably referring to PEG clearing when testing for prolactin.
@UGL OZ @AE1079 @Pigsy @Eddie Haskell @hypogaeum @playfields @Freki @rizzlekdizzle @juddy @Gains Man @R. AP @BeMe @toddthelineman @Noah Wixx @stevesmi @dylangemelli @Mobster @ceo @Ulter @ROIDDERS @Npcclassicphysique champ
As for it being a primo replacement, I’m starting to agree there too. Both have that clean, dry look and low water retention which is great for cutting or lean bulks or even recomps. EQ actually beats primo in terms of appetite boost and endurance. And the lower DHT activity makes it easier on hair and skin for a lot of guys. For the price and availability, EQ is definitely more practical and a very underrated alternative.
I did further research on this too. I couldn’t find any direct human trials comparing Equipoise vs Primobolan on estrogen levels, but there is a strong animal study that gives us some facts. In a peer-reviewed study, male Wistar rats were given 5 mg per kg of boldenone undecylenate weekly for eight weeks. 5mgs/kg for humans is around 500mgs for a 100kg male.
By the end of the study, their serum estradiol dropped from an average of 59.8 pg per mL in the control group to 28.2 pg per mL in the EQ group, showing more than a 50 percent decrease. This was a statistically significant change with a p value under 0.001.
That kind of drop suggests real estrogen suppression from boldenone itself, not just a false reading from interference in blood tests I mentioned in my earlier post. The study is available here
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7694087/
If you check the study Table 2, serum estradiol levels in control rats were ~60 pg/mL, while the EQ‑treated group averaged ~28 pg/mL (p < 0.001), indicating real estrogen suppression!
Pigsy
Veteran Mod
Vet Moderator
UGL OZ VIP
Chairman VIP
EVO VIP
EVO V.I.P.
Aussie Legend
EVO Logger
BodyBuilder
We never stop learning brother. We just need be open minded. Just like Pigsy's Placebo Tabs. Gives you the power to build muscle, by mind power alone
LevButlerov
Veteran Mod
Head Moderator
Raptor Labs VIP
UGL OZ VIP
Senior Moderator
EVO V.I.P.
Domestic-Supply.com
LOL
AJ
best meme. @UGL OZ @Pigsy good placebo tabs, I hope they work as well as BibBoyLabs gear lolWe never stop learning brother. We just need be open minded. Just like Pigsy's Placebo Tabs. Gives you the power to build muscle, by mind power alone
sorry I'm so bad.
Pigsy
Veteran Mod
Vet Moderator
UGL OZ VIP
Chairman VIP
EVO VIP
EVO V.I.P.
Aussie Legend
EVO Logger
BodyBuilder
Straight and to the point, with Pigsy Placebo Tabs. The only side effects maybe a little raise in BG.
.And a 30day Money back guarantee if Mrs Pigsy allows
Interestingly that shows Testosterone increase in rats on boldenone where this study on Rabbits shows Testosterone decrease. "BOL caused significant reduction in serum testosterone level, "
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3385914/
LevButlerov
Veteran Mod
Head Moderator
Raptor Labs VIP
UGL OZ VIP
Senior Moderator
EVO V.I.P.
Domestic-Supply.com
@Freki I read that study a bit, it's one of the ones I reviewed for my response on EQ vs Primo here.
That study shows suppression of natural testosterone in rabbits (side note I prefer rats, way cleaner study animal imo), but that’s expected with any exogenous anabolic use right? think about it. It just means the rabbit’s own test production shut down due to EQ, not that boldenone lowers overall androgen levels. Big difference between suppressing the HPTA and actually reducing circulating androgens. In fact, other studies in rats show EQ increases serum testosterone because it adds exogenous hormone to the total pool. The rabbit study never measured LH or FSH either, so we don’t know if the suppression was central or peripheral. It’s normal HPTA suppression, not some unique anti-androgen effect in my view.
Only caveat to this for EQ (and it is anecdotal), is that it seems to cause problems with blood pressure for a lot of people. I find comparing compounds isn't cut and dry like "X is better than Y", but given each have their own nuances and individual response, it's more appropriate to say that "X may be better for this individual based on their existing predispositions/ past response (if any).
A great example is Mast. vs. DHB: one isn't better than the other, but does someone struggle to keep their cholesterol in check? Do they struggle to keep their liver in check? Would play a strong role in what you program that individual.
Pigsy
Veteran Mod
Vet Moderator
UGL OZ VIP
Chairman VIP
EVO VIP
EVO V.I.P.
Aussie Legend
EVO Logger
BodyBuilder
Well put brother, this is what the EVO family is about. Difference of opinion, being discussed in a friendly and banter manner.
It'll be good see this thread continuing with others input on any sides and bloodwork
Yeah I'll be keeping an eye on this thread for sure! How awesome
@R. AP lets open a new thread for this topic, HGH and carpel tunnel syndrome. So the eq and e2 convo is pure.
Pigsy
Veteran Mod
Vet Moderator
UGL OZ VIP
Chairman VIP
EVO VIP
EVO V.I.P.
Aussie Legend
EVO Logger
BodyBuilder
I use half a modueritic, and some taurine
LevButlerov
Veteran Mod
Head Moderator
Raptor Labs VIP
UGL OZ VIP
Senior Moderator
EVO V.I.P.
Domestic-Supply.com
@R. AP I’ve seen this come up a lot but honestly Equipoise alone isn’t usually the cause of high blood pressure. Most of the time it’s diet related especially with sodium intake and water retention from other compounds or lifestyle (drugs!). EQ actually increases red blood cell count which can thicken the blood but that doesn’t automatically mean high blood pressure unless someone is already unhealthy. If you're eating clean staying hydrated and doing cardio you’ll likely be fine. People often blame the compound without looking at what else they’re doing wrong. Blood pressure issues are usually from bad cycles, bad diet and bad lifestyle IMO.
I found a study published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation, it says increasing hematocrit levels can lower peripheral vascular resistance. This means that a moderate rise in red blood cell count may actually reduce blood pressure and improve blood flow rather than increase it.
@R. AP the researchers showed that better oxygen delivery with higher hematocrit led to vasodilation and improved tissue perfusion. (from the study guys) So the idea that more red blood cells automatically raise blood pressure is not always accurate. In a healthy bodybuilder with good hydration and no heart issues, the effect can actually be neutral or even beneficial. This supports the idea that EQ raising RBC does not inherently cause high blood pressure.
This is the study link
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2214674/
Lowering of Blood Pressure by Increasing Hematocrit with Non–Nitric Oxide–Scavenging Red Blood Cells
My doctor actually gave me a pretty similar explanation when I asked about automatically having to donate blood because I'm on TRT. He said it was a common misnomer and said it's mainly lifestyle related, not the compound. You explained it much more detailed and eloquently @LevButlerov lol. To be fair my doctor was explaining it to a simpleton, ie me haha
Only GH issue I’ve ever had is massive water retention in my lower legs - sodium and everything else fine guess it’s just one of those things that happens to people
Have a look at the potassium in your diet bro! Add some potato, banana, and use heart saltOnly GH issue I’ve ever had is massive water retention in my lower legs - sodium and everything else fine guess it’s just one of those things that happens to people
More potato and banana? I can manage that.Have a look at the potassium in your diet bro! Add some potato, banana, and use heart salt
Been sussing out your log and I’m looking for a coach so I’ll reach out to you soon
LevButlerov
Veteran Mod
Head Moderator
Raptor Labs VIP
UGL OZ VIP
Senior Moderator
EVO V.I.P.
Domestic-Supply.com
Easier just to get some potassium powder if you want a potassium boost.More potato and banana? I can manage that.
Been sussing out your log and I’m looking for a coach so I’ll reach out to you soon
@CypherOCEAny feedback on running lowish doses of eq? 150mgs or so?
Going to give the trt a nudge again. Last time about 6 months ago did 350 test 100 deca and 200 primo. Worked well.
Was thinking 350 test 100 deca and 150 eq
Have run test at 650 per week years ago with no estro sides so thinking I should keep the EQ low. Looking to increase appetite and overall mg per week without fucking my health.
Going to give the trt a nudge again. Last time about 6 months ago did 350 test 100 deca and 200 primo. Worked well.
Was thinking 350 test 100 deca and 150 eq
Have run test at 650 per week years ago with no estro sides so thinking I should keep the EQ low. Looking to increase appetite and overall mg per week without fucking my health.
LevButlerov
Veteran Mod
Head Moderator
Raptor Labs VIP
UGL OZ VIP
Senior Moderator
EVO V.I.P.
Domestic-Supply.com
@Creter1 I have clients on 100-200 mgs of EQ depends on the person, it works, but really individual based.
You're on sports TRT now? tell us more about you
With such a low dose of deca would you be better going with NPP for the same effect?
as for the EQ, highly dependent on bloods and your own individual response to it. 150 is a fairly low dose so you would assume you’d be fine but monthly bloods would be an absolute must with EQ as it should be for all cycles
Thanks for the answers boys.
Firstly I didn't realise this is an international post. There's basically no primo in Aus at the moment otherwise I'd just do the same thing as last time.
About me. Late 30s been training about 26ish years. Pretty obvious what I do for work.
Body is definitely not feeling as good as it used to. Hence the deca. And I've always got good results and no downsides from deca/ NPP.
In pretty good shape. Always be good to be better but fairly happy. Hence no point doing some crazy cycle. Probably the biggest goal is to be much the same in 10+ years time.
Reason for deca over npp is just it's easier. Less shots less volume. On self prescribed trt anyway so long esters fine.
Firstly I didn't realise this is an international post. There's basically no primo in Aus at the moment otherwise I'd just do the same thing as last time.
About me. Late 30s been training about 26ish years. Pretty obvious what I do for work.
Body is definitely not feeling as good as it used to. Hence the deca. And I've always got good results and no downsides from deca/ NPP.
In pretty good shape. Always be good to be better but fairly happy. Hence no point doing some crazy cycle. Probably the biggest goal is to be much the same in 10+ years time.
Reason for deca over npp is just it's easier. Less shots less volume. On self prescribed trt anyway so long esters fine.
Yeah feel that. The no primo situation is fucked.
I’ve got a stash left and it’s basically like gold now
only thing with EQ I’ve found is it can build up over time so bloods absolutely crucial so you can adjust as needed
LevButlerov
Veteran Mod
Head Moderator
Raptor Labs VIP
UGL OZ VIP
Senior Moderator
EVO V.I.P.
Domestic-Supply.com
@Creter1 whats your full cycle plan now? Test and deca? I think you can do test/eq easy.
Wrote the plan a bit earlier but something like 350-400 test 150 deca 150 eq
LevButlerov
Veteran Mod
Head Moderator
Raptor Labs VIP
UGL OZ VIP
Senior Moderator
EVO V.I.P.
Domestic-Supply.com
Nothing changed? In that case, you should stick to 300mgs testosterone 100mgs deca and 200mgs eq, rework the ratios, but even that's a guess. How many cycles you have under your belt? @Creter1
Good question... Um full time self prescribed trt for the last 4? Years with pushes (nothing crazy) probably every 9 months or so. I think 5 before then with pcts over the previous 4-5 years.
Never got any real sides off anything other than more shoulder hair/ back hair. The wife likes that anyway so all good.
Been training about 26 years. Diets always pretty good. Basically eat the same kinda stuff always. These lowish cycles every now and again are just periods where I really dial everything in. Seems to work pretty well
would be good to see you dial in a LOG journal for this @Creter1
going into test eq and deca EVO family can help you get better gains and support you more
did you review logs we have up on EVO?
LevButlerov
Veteran Mod
Head Moderator
Raptor Labs VIP
UGL OZ VIP
Senior Moderator
EVO V.I.P.
Domestic-Supply.com
Feeling old posting I've been training that long haha. Gyms really just something I do. Go through periods of apathy towards it and periods of loving it.
Got way too many tatts to post pics sorry boys.
Unfortunately I've never kept old training logs/ journals. Sorta filled them out. Kept the old book for long enough to reference when writing new ones then they've been lost/ thrown out. Definitely the best periods of training have been where there's been 6 plus months of planned training done.
I've really gone away from it though in the last few years. Bodys getting pretty fucked from work and I've gotta accept the best training is the shit I can do regularly and never miss sessions. Having a log book makes me try and hit numbers when really I need to do the opposite. Eg I'm at the gym and unscrewing the lid (not tight) this morning fucking hurt my wrist. Not an issue yesterday. And won't be tomorrow if I don't overdo it today.
But overall training these days is I have a minimum I have to do every week. Which is basically 3 sets of hori pushing 3 sets of vert pushing one day. 3 sets of vertical pulling 3 sets of horizontal pulling another day. 3 sets of squat movement pattern. One day. 3 sets of deadlift movement pattern one day.
Best gym is the closest one to your house. So I could knock over 4 sessions that are 15 mins each with basically no travel.
Realistically I do minimum 4 sessions per week about an hour long. Often more. But as a strict minimum I could do the above.
I think it's far better to do a whole year consistently shit then 6 months of amazing training and then missed weeks missed sessions etc
Got way too many tatts to post pics sorry boys.
Unfortunately I've never kept old training logs/ journals. Sorta filled them out. Kept the old book for long enough to reference when writing new ones then they've been lost/ thrown out. Definitely the best periods of training have been where there's been 6 plus months of planned training done.
I've really gone away from it though in the last few years. Bodys getting pretty fucked from work and I've gotta accept the best training is the shit I can do regularly and never miss sessions. Having a log book makes me try and hit numbers when really I need to do the opposite. Eg I'm at the gym and unscrewing the lid (not tight) this morning fucking hurt my wrist. Not an issue yesterday. And won't be tomorrow if I don't overdo it today.
But overall training these days is I have a minimum I have to do every week. Which is basically 3 sets of hori pushing 3 sets of vert pushing one day. 3 sets of vertical pulling 3 sets of horizontal pulling another day. 3 sets of squat movement pattern. One day. 3 sets of deadlift movement pattern one day.
Best gym is the closest one to your house. So I could knock over 4 sessions that are 15 mins each with basically no travel.
Realistically I do minimum 4 sessions per week about an hour long. Often more. But as a strict minimum I could do the above.
I think it's far better to do a whole year consistently shit then 6 months of amazing training and then missed weeks missed sessions etc
LevButlerov
Veteran Mod
Head Moderator
Raptor Labs VIP
UGL OZ VIP
Senior Moderator
EVO V.I.P.
Domestic-Supply.com
@Creter1 Good to see you still grinding after all those years man
Even if it’s not perfect training you’re still putting the work in and that counts big time
I get what you mean about the log book pushing you too hard when the body’s not up for it
Sometimes the smarter play is backing off so you can keep showing up week after week
Your split sounds solid for keeping the basics covered without burning out
You should start a log here so we can follow along and keep you accountable, and support you as the big EVO family that we are
you're already pumping, it would take you 15min to post one and 5min to update! I'll give you instructions below, just throw up some training food and history and we got you
HOW-TO LOG?
- To really guide you we need more info from you.
- Please share your diet, training, cardio, sleep, supplements etc log with us in a NEW thread, full log journal so our guidance is based on facts you provide.
- It will take 15-20 minutes max.
- We have 100s of years of experience between us, so you need to post a LOG Journal with your stats (weight,height,age, years training, cycle history) diet, training, cardio, supplement, sleep details. If you don't log what you eat or train now, open NOTES on phone and start recording it there and paste here. Very easy.
Please click the anabolic forum
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums/forums/anabolic-steroids-and-peds.2/
top RIGHT, you see: +POST THREAD
click that
in Title: write your cycle name, like> My _____ Cycle Log
___ = the name of your log
example: My Cycle Training Log
in body: write your planned cycle or cycle you doing now, your diet, training and we will help you along on your cycle
here are examples of LOG Journals
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums/threads/s-gentz-recomp-cut-log-2023-2024.96694/
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums/threads/mobsters-training-diary.84438/
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums/threads/roidrage69-log.90127
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums/threads/domestic-supply-bulking-log-25homes-max.97609/
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums...obolan-equipoise-tbol-contest-prep-log.97138/
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums...osterone-deca-primobolan-hgh-cycle-log.97978/
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums...igas-hgh-and-bpc157-recovery-cycle-log.97594/
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums...enbolone-cycle-log-let-the-gains-begin.98399/
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums/threads/pigsy-new-sponsor-ugl-contest-prep-log.96779/
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums/threads/my-2023-2024-log.95956/
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums...stosterone-cardarine-cutting-cycle-log.97281/
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums/threads/roidragewife-female-training-log.95769/
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums/threads/2024-lean-bulking-cycle-log.97986/
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums/threads/my-trt-with-deca-durabolin-log.97962/
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums...bodybuilding-log-masters-55-competitor.97210/
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums/threads/losiol-primobolan-testosterone-log.96581/
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums/threads/roughy-steroid-cycle-and-training.97944/
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums/threads/fatboy999-2024-cycle-log.97936/
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums/threads/testosterone-equipoise-trenbolone-cycle-log.96963/
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums/threads/my-trt-log.98284/
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums/threads/16-week-testosterone-cardarine-n2guard-cycle-log.98034/
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums/threads/training-log-female.90425
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums...tosterone-masteron-primobolan-blast-log.98328
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums/threads/25homes-revenge-transformation-log-2023.88570/
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums...n-season-sponsored-by-nordic-fusion-log.89817
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums/threads/s-gentz-contest-prep-log.87619/
P.S. are you listening to our podcast? if not, you should; this podcast is about steroids, sarms, peptides, and bodybuilding:
https://www.evolutionary.org/podcasts/
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/evolutionary-bodybuilding-radio/id1798623410
https://open.spotify.com/show/53q1RFTgG4h6TQHsJ4xY6Z
P.P.S. download our eBooks and learn more:
https://irongorillas.com
LevButlerov
Veteran Mod
Head Moderator
Raptor Labs VIP
UGL OZ VIP
Senior Moderator
EVO V.I.P.
Domestic-Supply.com
@Coinslinga is using 300mgs testosterone and 300mgs equipoise, E2 numbers are below range very low estrogen from equipoise
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums/threads/test-eq-deca-hgh-cycle-log.105022/post-1805960
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums/threads/test-eq-deca-hgh-cycle-log.105022/post-1805960
LevButlerov
Veteran Mod
Head Moderator
Raptor Labs VIP
UGL OZ VIP
Senior Moderator
EVO V.I.P.
Domestic-Supply.com
So, this doesn't actually say what ratio Test to Eq is seen as preferable. It says what not to do i.e.1:1 , but nothing else. Is there a safe/optimal ratio?
All depends on the person and bloods.
1:1.5 people usually start off with and adjust accordingly
LevButlerov
Veteran Mod
Head Moderator
Raptor Labs VIP
UGL OZ VIP
Senior Moderator
EVO V.I.P.
Domestic-Supply.com
Most find a sweet spot running about double the test to EQ, so something like 400 test with 200 EQ. That balance usually keeps estrogen in range without needing much AI. If you push EQ higher than test, that’s when the drops in E2 start getting unpredictable. Keeping EQ as the lighter part of the stack makes it way more stable long term. Bloodwork always confirms if you’re in the right spot, but that 2:1 test to EQ setup is a good starting point. @Kopite67
