EQ vascularity?

**LeafsFan** · 03-20-2004, 01:57 PM

Everyone mentions that one benefit of using EQ over Deca is the hardness/vascularity experienced with EQ...

but do those go away once off EQ? What causes muscle hardness? I would guess that once off cycle, it "goes away"?

**white hatter** · 03-20-2004, 03:19 PM

bump

**Dude-Man** · 03-20-2004, 04:09 PM

The vascularity is caused by increased red blood cell count. The hardness is due to the fact that it is a low water retention drug. Diet, as well as many other factors determine how long these effects stay after the cycle is over. They do eventually fade, regardless.

**LeafsFan** · 03-20-2004, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by chrisAdams

The vascularity is caused by increased red blood cell count. The hardness is due to the fact that it is a low water retention drug. Diet, as well as many other factors determine how long these effects stay after the cycle is over. They do eventually fade, regardless.

That's what I suspected. So when people say Deca gives more mass but EQ leaner/more defined gains, I guess they only refer to "during the cycle"?

Once you come off, water comes off, red blood cells count drops, which leaves the most lean muscle behind? Deca of EQ?

**TheSevnthWarrior** · 03-20-2004, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by LeafsFan

That's what I suspected. So when people say Deca gives more mass but EQ leaner/more defined gains, I guess they only refer to "during the cycle"?

Once you come off, water comes off, red blood cells count drops, which leaves the most lean muscle behind? Deca of EQ?

Chris pretty much has it in a nut shell.
I have a good friend of many years who has whenever possible, ran Deca AND EQ, either together, or within the same cycle, stating that the Mass gained by the Deca, is easier to keep if ran with EQ. The reason he stated was that EQ, with it's lack of Water Retention, creates Muscle density, more dense tissue growth, thus making the Mass easier to keep.
Starting today I'm will be running them together.
The person who first said Deca and EQ were to much alike to run together, saw a Black Bull Mastif, and a Black Pug and said "Look, they're the Same!"
TSW

***JohnnyB*** · 03-20-2004, 05:19 PM

I think you end up with the same amount of mass when it's all said and done. You may gain more with deca but once the waters gone did you really gain more muscle the if you had used eq? I don't know I'm asking, I've run eq but not deca maybe someday I'll try deca.

JohnnyB

**TheSevnthWarrior** · 03-20-2004, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I think you end up with the same amount of mass when it's all said and done. You may gain more with deca but once the waters gone did you really gain more muscle the if you had used eq? I don't know I'm asking, I've run eq but not deca maybe someday I'll try deca.

JohnnyB

Well, I have ran them separately several times in my "younger" years, but never longer than 10 weeks on the EQ. This last time I took it 16 and had the best "EQ" experience so far.
However, even after the water disipates, there is still no denying Deca's dominance in the Mass Dept.
As of today I'm running them to gether, now that Pheedno helped me dispell some of the myths surrounding doing that.
TSW

**johnsomebody** · 03-20-2004, 05:42 PM

Another point that may be worth making is that, as I understand it, Deca is estrogenic while EQ is not, which not only means water retention with Deca but consequently a greater likelihood of putting on fat than with EQ.

I have no idea myself if one actually puts on more lean mass than the other. My own experience with EQ is that I lost weight after the cycle was over as the veins disappeared, which leads me to believe it was from the lowered blood volume.

***JohnnyB*** · 03-20-2004, 05:44 PM

Thanks Bro I've always wondered if there would be a differance after the water was gone. I hear ya on the myth of deca and eq being the same or somehow competing for the same receptor like there are more then one type of AR receptor. We are learning though

JohnnyB

***JohnnyB*** · 03-20-2004, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by johnsomebody

Another point that may be worth making is that, as I understand it, Deca is estrogenic while EQ is not, which not only means water retention with Deca but consequently a greater likelihood of putting on fat than with EQ.

I have no idea myself if one actually puts on more lean mass than the other. My own experience with EQ is that I lost weight after the cycle was over as the veins disappeared, which leads me to believe it was from the lowered blood volume.

Deca causes progesteron rather the estrogen. Here's something interesting, I don't know if it's myth or fact because I haven't used deca. Deca was belived to help with burning fat, the interesting part is tren does help with fat burning and both of them are 19-nor hormones.

Anyone have any input on deca and fat burning?

JohnnyB

**johnsomebody** · 03-20-2004, 09:12 PM

Oh, thanks JohnnyB, I had that wrong.

Good question cuz I'm confused about that myself. I hear people say opposite things in that respect, but it seems like I'm mostly hearing people talk about putting on fat with deca .

***JohnnyB*** · 03-21-2004, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by johnsomebody

Good question cuz I'm confused about that myself. I hear people say opposite things in that respect, but it seems like I'm mostly hearing people talk about putting on fat with deca.

I hear the samething but before I started juice or reading these boards I was told the deca help with fat loss, this could just be a myth that was going around from the early days, but I'd still like to know.

JohnnyB