Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
N
nutsnack
Guest
1 what the fuck is a stone compared to lbs and 2 does everyone in GB repeat the question that was just asked and answered just to justify the original answer?
.jpg "Research Chemical Sciences")
.png "Research Chemical Sciences")
Dosage is body weight dependent?
- Thread starter vio
- Start date
Weight is dependent for EQ and likely other steroids as well...
In the case of boldenone (Equipoise), the length of administration resulting in excessive and dangerous red blood cell count was dose dependent. Most have shown only acceptable upregulation at dosages of 200-400mg/w (@ 1-2mg per pound of bodyweight) for up to 12 weeks. However, dosages of 600-800mg/w (3-4mg per pound of body weight) usually resulted in exceeding the upper "safer" levels for red blood cell count after only 4-6 weeks of employment. This is a real concern. Red blood cell count elevation can result in blood clots, strokes and circulatory depreciation.
In the case of boldenone (Equipoise), the length of administration resulting in excessive and dangerous red blood cell count was dose dependent. Most have shown only acceptable upregulation at dosages of 200-400mg/w (@ 1-2mg per pound of bodyweight) for up to 12 weeks. However, dosages of 600-800mg/w (3-4mg per pound of body weight) usually resulted in exceeding the upper "safer" levels for red blood cell count after only 4-6 weeks of employment. This is a real concern. Red blood cell count elevation can result in blood clots, strokes and circulatory depreciation.
martin uk
New member
To clarify 14lbs equals a stone. Believe it or not other countries do things differently to the US.
I was just commenting that this question to a less experienced user is probably one which they too have wondered about.
Perhaps a friendlier less confrontational reponse would be of a benefit to everyone. ( Referring to Nutsack)
Just a thought
I was just commenting that this question to a less experienced user is probably one which they too have wondered about.
Perhaps a friendlier less confrontational reponse would be of a benefit to everyone. ( Referring to Nutsack)
Just a thought
N
nutsnack
Guest
dosteov said:Justify the original answer doesn't make sense. I think you meant CLARIFY.
If you're going to criticize, please do it with correct grammar.
no actually justify has several meanings and i was using in terms of to justify something as in even the lines in a margin!
silverbackn
New member
Once again, I'm in total agreement with Mak. My bodyfat was never over 12% and I could tell a difference in the way I felt versus being around 7-8% running the exact same thing.Makavelli said:I don't think the poster is an NFL linemen...
If you don't think excess BF causes additional sides, then try getting fat and doing a cycle. You'll see that your gains are better and estrogen sides are much less when you are leaner.
silverbackn
New member
Now this thread has turned into a pissing contest, I'm out.
lefler
New member
First of all guys I’m not talking about just NFL lineman...wow. I was using this as an example. My point was to say that just because you are over 16% doesn’t mean you shouldn’t use.
This guy might not be a NFL lineman but he very well might be a collegiate athlete of some kind. Football player, a thrower, ect.
Anyway can any of you guys give any real evidence of why it works better at below 16%?? What is the physiological reason for it? Or are you just stating your opinion?
This guy might not be a NFL lineman but he very well might be a collegiate athlete of some kind. Football player, a thrower, ect.
Anyway can any of you guys give any real evidence of why it works better at below 16%?? What is the physiological reason for it? Or are you just stating your opinion?
