Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
The real deal with EQ and anxiety?
- Thread starter Slyder190
- Start date
Slyder190 said:
I naturally have a history of anxiety and slight depression problems that where the result of a relationship a few years back. I caught the girl I was with for 4 years and was going to propose to in bed with another guy. LOL Anyway, I ran EQ 400 up to 1000mg/week last cycle and had no signs of any issues what so ever. I would be surprised if you had any issues. I have not done any research to see if there is any scientific proof but I am begining to think that it is a midth. Hearing that EQ is related anxiety is a new theroy I have just started hearing about so I think it is just in peoples heads. One person came up with it and others think they experienced it to. But I would think of all people if there was a relationship between the two I would have experienced it and I have never had an issue.
instant.muscle
New member
naa it just depends on the person, by the way, how do u like EQ cycles?
Slyder190
New member
instant.muscle said:
EQ for cutting SUCKS. Can't hold a candle to Winny as far as hardness, definition and vascularity. It's way over-rated as far as that goes IMO. and it makes you CRAZY HUNGRY. Not good while cutting. Just took my first shot yesterday for my bulker, so I'll get back to ya.
hyp1
New member
I've been running 600mgs of Eq a week with 750mgs of test e,and test p eod.
Haven't had any anxiety issues at all,just crazy fucking hungry all the time....and I agree with slyder190 that because of this it would seriously suck if you were trying to use it as a cutting agent.the vascularity that it causes is incredible though,and my ability to do cardio has went through the roof.
Personally I love Eq,when stacked with test
Haven't had any anxiety issues at all,just crazy fucking hungry all the time....and I agree with slyder190 that because of this it would seriously suck if you were trying to use it as a cutting agent.the vascularity that it causes is incredible though,and my ability to do cardio has went through the roof.
Personally I love Eq,when stacked with test
instant.muscle
New member
buncha of my friends which know nothing about steroids take EQ cycles where they do 2 cc's a week for 5 weeks. one friend put on 13 pounds explain that
solidspine
New member
No, if you get it, it goes away,
Don’t worry about it,
Also anafit has something like Xanax take care of it,
I take Xanax and don’t really need for EQ
Don’t worry about it,
Also anafit has something like Xanax take care of it,
I take Xanax and don’t really need for EQ
hyp1
New member
instant.muscle said:
when you say 2cc's are you talking about your friends doing 400 mgs (i.e. 200mgs per cc x 2?) a week for 5 weeks?if so I would say that it's possible that stimulated their appetite substantially...what's odd is that didn't happen to me until about the 4th week(and I'm using 600mgs a week) so that's a short time frame for that too occur in 5 weeks,but maybe possible.
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
Eq is just testosterone modified to convert to estrogen less quickly/efficiently. Results will be the same as test + an Ai for the most part; less bloat, more lean tissue, strength, etc...
It's not a mystery....people just want you to think it is. This shit is simple.
It's not a mystery....people just want you to think it is. This shit is simple.
krishna
New member
gttnbig82 said:
Once it's modified it becomes a different compound, which obviously has different effects. In some sense, you're right; all steroids are directly or indirectly related to testosterone via test or dihydrotestosterone (which comes from test). Nandrolone is a derivative of test; and therefore, trenbolone can be traced back to test because it is a derivative of nandrolone. So you're right, there's not much umphh behind what he is saying.
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
gttnbig82 said:
Ummm....sort of. Test converts to estrogen more than EQ, but Eq seems to convert to a stronger form of DHT (DHB).
ALL steroids are made by modifying test, but all steroids are made from modified cholestero too (as can be estrogen)...so the analogy isn't really as accurate as we'd like it to be.
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
krishna said:
NO...but there's 3 families of steroids...19-nor, DHT, Test, and that's it. The families are related to the end compound much moreso than just test. EQ is very similar to test, chemically...deca isn't...
That's where it makes sense.
krishna
New member
Anthony Roberts said:
It's chemical structure resembles test more that 19-nor (which also comes from test), but that doesn't mean that it has the same effects in the body. Some would say that deca acts more like test in the body than eq does. It is apparent that even the slightest alteration can create a totally different compound with different effects, so the closeness of the chemical structure seems irrelevant. I wish eq felt like test with an AI, but to me it doesn't.
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
krishna said:
I don't really agree with much of this, to be honest. Slight alterations can cause major changes, but the analogy between Eq and test do not represent that paradigm very well. Eq is test, made to metabolize to estrogen more quickly. The bullshit about it increasing RBC more than other steroids, and other myths are just that. Structurally, they have one different bond, and the only known property of that bond is to slow aromatization.
They are very similar, and one of Eq's metabolites is testosterone, believe it or not. I can't imagine someone saying deca acts more like test than eq or any of the other stuff you're talking about.
Just my research/experience though. People like to give steroids esoteric and magical properties...but really most of what they do is very similar with slight differences for the most part.
Triple J
New member
all sides tend to vary from individual to individual. the word as i know it, is that the molecular structure of Equipoise - boldenone undecylenate - is the same as dianabol minus the 17 alpha-alkylated component. Dianabol - methandrostenolone - is a much different compound than Equipoise - boldenone undecylenate - so the lack of that 17 alpha-alkylated does make a dramatic difference. as far as the effect on rbc's is concerned most anabolic steroids can raise rbc's. men have naturally higher rbc levels than women as a result of their higher testosterone levels. also all anabolic steroids can effect behavior and perceptions and result in anxiety in some people. however Equipoise - boldenone undecylenate - is distinct in its effects in this regard. i have seen the blood results showing a dramatic increase in rbc from an Equipoise - boldenone undecylenate - cycle at moderate dose vs. T cycles at higher doses. that effect can be dangerous for some, one should not minimize its significance. also in regards to anxiety this effect is also more pronounced with EQ vs T, and contrasts even more significantly vs. Dianabol - methandrostenolone - (which is the classic "feel-good" oral). although not everyone experiences this anxiety effect. which should not be taken to mean it is not a real potential side effect. i personally experience Equipoise - boldenone undecylenate - anxiety when i tried to frontload a 600mg/wk dose (i.e. 1200mg first week) - i can tell you the anxiety was distinct in its nature from anything else I have experienced. i no longer recommend front-loading i think its better to let the blood levels rise gradually it reduces the risk of any sudden unwanted sides which cannot be easilly backed off.
krishna
New member
Anthony Roberts said:
Eq has been shown to accelerate collagen formation, and test has been shown to reduce it at high levels. These compounds act differently in more ways than just aromatization. One different bond changes the compound completely. That's why the name and effects are different. Tripple J pointed out the difference in rbc count too.
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
krishna said:
All steroids elevate RBC. There is no evidence that Equipoise - boldenone undecylenate - does it more than any other, and as for collagen formation, let's see a study. In fact, lets see a study on Eq and RBC elevation too, while we're at it.
As for dbol being different than Eq, we're talking about passing a steroid through the liver, and not avoiding the first pass...an oral vs/ injectable. Those are very different, and the methylation vs/ the ester is quite different. I'm not saying alterations don't cause very different properties, in some cases, but honestly Test vs/ Eq is not a good example of that.
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
krishna said:
References please. I wanna see the study (not a post from "AnimalMass" off Meso) where it says any of that.
A
ALIN
Guest
Slyder190 said:
ive done 800-1000mg wk EQ cycles with no anxiety. purely indivdiual.
bicepts101
New member
...
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
krishna said:
Where did the studies come from? Because as far as I've seen, not a single study on Eq and collagen formation has ever been done.
More likely than not you are still believing the tragic post made by Animal Mass on meso, which has been disproven everywhere on the 'net.
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
krishna said:
My theory is that you read a post by a mod from meso (AnimalMass), and it had a lot of impressive looking numbers, and no references, but it was well written, so you believed it was researched and just not referenced.
That, the Clen Handbook, and several other prominent posts on the 'net were written with very little basis in fact, but they were well written, for the most part, and oft repeated...and served as fact (with no references) until disproven, not based on science, but until a more well-written piece came along.
In my case, I'm a better writer than the other steroid authors out there, so unfortunately, knowing more than me will not make someone more successful in this industry, they'll also have to know more and be a better writer, and that's not likely based on the "talent" I've seen in this field.
My thoughts on the topic are on my site, under the title "Deca, Winstrol, and your Joints"...on www.anthony-roberts.com .
krishna
New member
Anthony Roberts said:
Deca and winstrol have been shown to accelerate collagen formation, and that's based on studies I've seen. I wasn't asking for your theory on what I said, I was asking for your theory on test gear and collagen formation. And if you haven't seen any studies to support what I said, how can you say it's been disproven????? You're just as wrong in doing so.
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
krishna said:
The type of collagen winstrol forms seems to be the type associated with injuries, not preventing them.
Check this:
http://www.anthony-roberts.com/deca_winstrol_joints.html
Quoting from the article:
"Collagen is also subject to improvement by addition of estrogen and progesterone (20)."
(References included, and it addresses joint health, collagen formation, etc..so clearly it does address collagen formation)
Really? Where does the burden of proof lie?
instant.muscle
New member
so estrogen and prolactin improve collagen?
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
krishna said:
How can your "opinion" be on Eq and collagen formation? That's not an opinion...
You post something that's not been proven, then say "it's not disproven", etc....then in totally academic dishonesty, you say a claimed fact is now an opinion.
But the burden of proof is on you, making the claim. That's how things work. If I say something, I need to prove it, not say "The onus is on you to disprove me". That's very silly, and not worth refuting.
krishna
New member
Anthony Roberts said:
The fact that I don't have "proof" on hand is why I didn't say it was proven or a fact, and admitted that it was opinionated. You did say that the article which I read (which helped contribute to my opinion) was disproven. And how can you claim it's disproven if you have seen no studies to the contrary?
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
krishna said:
I'll show you. Re-read this:
krishna said:
I've searched every published medical journal/article since 1956, and this has not been shown in any of them. Ergo, it is disroven that this property has not been shown....it doesn't have to be false (not posess that property), it has to not have been shown, and consequently the statement that it has is false.
You read a post....a well written one, with fancy numbers, and took it at face value. I did all of the research to confirm whether it was true or not (verifiable through medical references), and it is not. Several members on steroid.com also tried to search the 'net for any proof of what was said in that post, and not a single person could find a shred of evidence that it had any legitimacy. I think we discharged our obligation, in good faith, to see if that information has any validity.
Remember, this is like someone saying "God Exists", and as proof saying "There's no proof that God doesn't exist"...but the burden is to prove the positive claim, not the negative one.
thebadguy54
New member
Anthony Roberts said:
So do you think it will increase cardio ability (as stated by hyp1 above) or not?
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
thebadguy54 said:
Not to the degree people think it will.
