Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

EQ vs. DECA

crazyeyekilla

New member
I know this has probably been covered on here but I can't use the search function since I'm not a platinum member. I'm going to start my bulking cycle in the next couple months and was wondering what your thoughts were.

I read this from that dude on bodybuilding.com

For those of you looking to use nandrolone as your only steroid, be aware that the gains on nandrolone are not only mild, but also quite hard to maintain. Nandrolone, in the first place due to its combined estrogenic/progestagenic properties, is quite suppressive of the natural testosterone production. Since it actively participates at three receptors its very quick and merciless when it comes to giving negative feedback to the release of gonadotropin releasing hormone from the hypothalamus. But then one also has to take into account its affinity for esterases, making it stay active in the body significantly longer than most hormones. Because that means upon cessation of nandrolone-use you'll still be under quite suppressive conditions, there simply isn't enough intrinsic anabolism available to support the mass you gained, resulting in a rather quick and inglorious reduction of weight.

Personally, for all intents and purposes I prefer boldenone (equipoise) over nandrolone. Its also a relatively mild androgen that has no conversion at the 5AR enzyme, so its not that much more of an androgenic risk, but in all other aspects it's a much safer steroid. Doesn't have strong estrogenic effects, nor progestagenic activity. That means it doesn't cause bloat or fat gain and is much less likely to cause gyno. On the contrary, the gains from boldenone are much leaner. Its also stronger, mg for mg. It doesn't readily re-esterify and due to its lower estrogenic effects, it is not nearly as suppressive of natural testosterone either. That makes the gains not only better, qualitatively speaking, but also much easier to maintain.

You guys agree?
 
I've ran both, and I prefer Deca over EQ especially for a bulker. You can run low doses and still pack on some good pounds in a brief amount of time... whereas EQ you have to run a lil higher doses, for a longer duration and the gains aren't even comparable.

There are ways to combat bloating so the "puffer fish" syndrome isn't much of an issue imo. Its not like youre on Dbol... :jenscat


I ran EQ during a cutting with Test and Winny, and I got shutdown harder from that cycle than any other previously, and I also broke out on my shoulders which is something that has never happened to me before.

I ran Deca with Test and packed on some serious pounds and felt like a lubed up god. My next bulker will consist of Test with a low dose of Deca. Probably 550Test/250-300Deca or so.
 
You rally can't go wrong with either. They're both mild anabolics. Deca gets a bad rep for sexual side effects and excessive bloating. I can tell you for sure that the bloating from deca is blown out of propotion (to a certain extent). If you aren't eating total garbage you wont bloat too much. Also, you dont need crazy amounts. I never go above 600 mg per week even when bulking (with a gram of test), and I'm 280ish in the offseason. YES, your face will swell up a bit, but a good aromatase inhib (to control test bloat) and some light cardio with a clean diet will take care of much of it.

Peronally I dont rate EQ that much...tried it once and all i got were panic attacks.
 
I am on EQ for the first time now, and I got to say I like it. Way more vascularity than I ever had on deca. But I do not have the strength and mass gains that I do on deca, so it is really all about what you want to accomplish. But I would not run either of them without test.
 
Top Bottom