Printable View
hey guys,
im thinking about starting a cycle soon. i was thinking about trying some primo. i know its a mild/ costly drug and needs to be taken in large dossage. just wanted to know what u guys thought about it compared to something like EQ?
i was thinking something like this?
1-15 test-e 600mg
1-15 Primo or EQ -600mg
5-15 anavar 50mg/day
would primo be a better choice then EQ? what other AS do not cause gybo cuz i have a small amount and i dont want to take the chance and have it get bigger
ive never tried primo its just too costly for me i rather run other gear for the same gains pretty much i have run a test e eq cycle like you plan on and you get great results from that... my friend ran primo last year and he loves it but i just dont understand why its so dam expensive thats probly why i choose not to run it
If you are worried about gyno then do not cycle or use preventative measures. Damn we just went over this yesterday... Ok, Trenbolone does not cause gyno, primobolan does not cause gyno, winny does not cause gyno, anavar does not cause gyno.
tren does that how i got it i think; its prolac. gyno
No tren does not. You would have had to be using an aromatizing steroid with it that aggrevated it.Quote:
Originally Posted by anavar100
No estrogen= No gyno
I thought there was such a thing such as prolactin enduced gyno, but I could be mistaken. Anyhow, if cost is not a factor, I would use primo just to see how it does, but with the EQ I would spend 4 times less and get better results in my opinion.
Two things. Prolactin will cause lactation. Second thing, eq even minutely can still aromitase.Quote:
Originally Posted by thetruth-76
I am not saying you are wrong, but there are posts like this one:
http://forums.anabolicreview.com/sho...prolactin+gyno
That imply prolactin could cause both lactation and gyno. I am just repeating what I have read. But I have also read that there is no real proof that prolatin causes gyno so...
Either way, yes I realize eq can aromitase slightly. I just don't know if 600mg wk of primo would be worth it IMO.
From Meso: Prolactin can contribute… Key word; contribute. I have never in my 16-17 years around roids and bodybuilders have heard of tren causing gyno. Below is an exerpt and the link to the profile right here on this forum.
http://forums.steroid.com/steroid-profiles/199832-anabolic-review-steroid-profile-trenbolone-acetate.html
Trenbolones chemical structure makes it resistant to the aromatize enzyme (conversion to estrogen) thus absolutely no percentage of trenbolone will convert to estrogen. Trenbolone administration would not promote estrogenic side effects such as breast tissue growth in men (gynecomastia, bitch tits) accelerated fat gain, decline in fat break down and water retention trenbolone.
This was in the same thread "Controlling estrogen levels with an AI also helps here, as progestins themsleves haven't been proven to cause gyno."Quote:
Originally Posted by thetruth-76
I would say 600mg of primo is the minimum, I like 800mg more.
I didn't really mean worth the results. I meant worth the money for the primo. As for the prolactin stuff, thanks for straightening that out.
Hey bro- if you want to take tons of primo, go right ahead. It's just not in my budget. Primo is too expensive for me to run at a high dose, and I feel I get more benefits out of other substances. I like primo- don't get me wrong, but I would usually add that into a stack and keep it around 3-400mg wk. Thats just me though.
Yep, doesn't matter about prolactin or progestrone as long as estrogen is low. Enter adex/ldex and letro. No problems bro.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mesomorphyl
yeah i have small lumps under my nipples from a trent and test cycle i did a few years back .they lactate
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderRico
Its so damn expensive because it doesnt aromatize!. Although I have found to get BD primo for a fairly decent price....
Ive done Eq and Primo several times. They are both good drugs but I prefer primo. Why? Because of no-estrogen(no bloating). If you are on a tight budget, eq is more cost-effective.