For those who think EQ must be run a minimum of 12 weeks

**stayinstacked** · 06-19-2005, 08:46 AM

Guess what? IT DOESNT. Yes, it takes about 4-5 weeks to really kick in, but when the drug is in you then it's in you, therefore running it for 8 weeks or 10 weeks it's still kicking after week 13 or 14, got me? I'm so sick of all this mainstream hype and all this go with the flow type shit about certain compounds. EQ does not NEED to be run for at least 12 weeks.

**MatrixGuy** · 06-19-2005, 08:49 AM

My first cycle coming up i was going to run EQ for 12 weeks, with Test E. Some members say this is not long enough, others like yourself say it is. Whats the crack with this? I thought EQ kicked in about week 8/9?

**Josey Wales** · 06-19-2005, 08:56 AM

True, it does kick in to some degree around week 5 (more like 6), but it is such a slow progressing compound that running it for 8 to 10 weeks seems like a waste. The compound is just beginning to work its magic and then you are quitting. This is not hype, but rather conventional wisdom based on the experience of many useres.

But you go brother, run it as long or as short as you wish. It's your body.

**stayinstacked** · 06-19-2005, 08:56 AM

I just think its hype, period. I'm friends with alot of top amateurs and national level competitiors and you'd be surprised at the difference between thier cycles and what I refer to as "hype cycles"

BG · 06-19-2005, 09:28 AM

I ran Sust. and EQ for ten weeks, did not feel anything resembling the effects of EQ until week 8 then progressively increased until a week after(week 11). If had had enough test to go four more weeks, I would have probably have almost doubled my gains because I truely didnt start to feel the growth and strength (test and eq) until the last two weeks. JMO from my experience would recommend running a test EQ cycle atleast 12 if not 14 weeks. Actually, I recommend have enough gear so if towards the end of your 10 week cycle

you start to get more out of it you can extend it for a few weeks to get the most from it.

**Iceman911** · 06-19-2005, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by JUSTSTARTINGNY

I ran Sust. and EQ for ten weeks, did not feel anything resembling the effects of EQ until week 8 then progressively increased until a week after(week 11). If had had enough test to go four more weeks, I would have probably have almost doubled my gains because I truely didnt start to feel the growth and strength (test and eq) until the last two weeks. JMO from my experience would recommend running a test EQ cycle atleast 12 if not 14 weeks. Actually, I recommend have enough gear so if towards the end of your 10 week cycle

you start to get more out of it you can extend it for a few weeks to get the most from it.

I completely agree..............

**rangerdudeleads** · 06-19-2005, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by stayinstacked

Guess what? IT DOESNT. Yes, it takes about 4-5 weeks to really kick in, but when the drug is in you then it's in you, therefore running it for 8 weeks or 10 weeks it's still kicking after week 13 or 14, got me? I'm so sick of all this mainstream hype and all this go with the flow type shit about certain compounds. EQ does not NEED to be run for at least 12 weeks.

Hey brother all that mainstream hype about eq needs to be ran at least 12 weeks is a very good advise, Ive ran a lot of eq in my cycles and I can tell you that I have to run it at least 16 weeks to get the results i like. I have run a 8 week cycle with eq in it and noticed a dramatic difference when i ran it at least 12 weeks or more so you shouldnt get sick of that advise cause its not a bad one. Oh yea you ought to know that eq dont really kick in good until about 6th or 7th week in my case.

rdl

**Booz** · 06-19-2005, 02:02 PM

i use eq quite a bit mate and i never see any thing off it till around week 8 so an 8 week course of it would give me nothin,thats why i never run it under 12 weeks!

**stocky121** · 06-19-2005, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by booz

i use eq quite a bit mate and i never see any thing off it till around week 8 so an 8 week course of it would give me nothin,thats why i never run it under 12 weeks!

agreed it took till about 8 to kick in on me then the vascularity really started working about week 10 i only ran it 12 week's wish i run it longer

**MatrixGuy** · 06-19-2005, 02:08 PM

So, would it be ok to run for 12 weeks or not bro's?

**stocky121** · 06-19-2005, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by MatrixGuy

So, would it be ok to run for 12 weeks or not bro's?

i think it worked well for me

**stocky121** · 06-19-2005, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by johan

week 8 to kick in? That doesnt make any sense. Blodlevels should have reached a max(or very close to it) long before then.

Realy with long esters its not like the eq sits dormant for 4-5 weeks and then all of a sudden a button is pushed and voila you are now filled with eq. Its in the body and working from the moment you inject and if you just do a frontload you have max blod levels imidietly.

i'am just going on my own experiance with it bro

**stocky121** · 06-19-2005, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by johan

Yeah not doubting that you didnt feel it before you said. Im just saying that it is indeed active alot sooner then you feelt it.

if you would look at a chart of blood level buildupp you would notice that it reaches a platau pretty quick and offcourse it doesnt need to reach that level to have an effect.

its like with test enth. Most say "it will kick in at week 4" or something along those lines. I notice the effects from day one almost especialy if I front it.

i agree with you bro it dose effect diffren't people diffren't way's

and it will build up in your body before you start seen affect's on the outside

**MatrixGuy** · 06-19-2005, 02:25 PM

From personal experience guys when did you start to see the effects of EQ?

**Two4the$$** · 06-19-2005, 02:47 PM

Amout released in a week when not frontloading if you were doing 250mg x 2...

Week 1 195 39%
Week 2 336 67%
Week 3 406 81%
Week 4 447 89%
Week 5 458 92%
Week 6 466 93%
Week 7 471 94%
Week 8 473 95%

This is the amount you get per week if you DO frontload, and take double your dosage during the first week.

Week 1 394 79%
Week 2 475 95%
Week 3 475 95%
Week 4 475 95%
Week 5 475 95%
Week 6 475 95%
Week 7 475 95%
Week 8 475 95%

All this does is circumvent the lag time in building your weekly release value up to your target usage. This doesn't accelerate the lag of your body to start responding to it. Since EQ amongst other things increases RBC, maybe that's part of what takes it a while to fully kick in... but who cares about that, why not just get the full intended volume up to a steady level and go from there?

**j martini** · 06-19-2005, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by stayinstacked

Guess what? IT DOESNT. Yes, it takes about 4-5 weeks to really kick in, but when the drug is in you then it's in you, therefore running it for 8 weeks or 10 weeks it's still kicking after week 13 or 14, got me? I'm so sick of all this mainstream hype and all this go with the flow type shit about certain compounds. EQ does not NEED to be run for at least 12 weeks.

The problem is if you run it for 8 weeks it might be still active in your body at weeks12-13 but blood levels will be dropping.

As Johan said its not like you take 600mg on week 1 and on weeks 4-5 all 600mg enters your sysem, as soon as injected it will start to slowly disperse from the injection site. All the ether does is determine how slowly this will happen

If you take 600mg on week 8 and stop the cycle blood levels will be very low by weeks 12-13 it will still be there but not having very much effect.

IMO any long ethers should be run for a long duration as it takes so long for blood lebvels off the drug to peak.

**Two4the$$** · 06-19-2005, 03:02 PM

Anyone know where I can go to get GOOD information about how the depot works? I mean, I get the half life part, thats the time for your body to deactivate half the drug. But how long does the depot actually take to release it? Thats something rarely discussed... and I hope that counts as "on topic."

**stupidhippo** · 06-19-2005, 03:03 PM

Has anyone any concretic evidence what this so called "kick" is. I really felt like my "cycle" started to kick in like the third day (test prop + deca ) but then I stared to notice like good gains at maybe the fifth week just b4 getting sick.. It somehow doesnt make sense to me... why this sudden surge of effect? The increasing levels sound tempting but to me it sounds sketchy, according to those truman calculations there would only be like 3 % difference in week 5 and 8..

**Two4the$$** · 06-19-2005, 03:04 PM

The thing that sucks is that as LITTLE as the initiator of this thread knows, he acts like a know it all... and even the most knowledgeable people here know to be humble, because there's normally a flaw or two in all our conceptions.

**stupidhippo** · 06-19-2005, 03:05 PM

Just to clarify I understand the third day kicking in of prop but dont understand that why it takes so long to see any big results in the gym (and especially the part that when u suddenly get it it is so explosivE)

**stupidhippo** · 06-19-2005, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by TrumanHW

The thing that sucks is that as LITTLE as the initiator of this thread knows, he acts like a know it all... and even the most knowledgeable people here know to be humble, because there's normally a flaw or two in all our conceptions.

Agreed, I think we should all remember that many so called facts are just theories an there is a possibility that in some time some of them prove to be wrong. There is still many unanswered questions on AAS's and their effects.

**Two4the$$** · 06-19-2005, 03:10 PM

This is my FAVORITE explanation of a theory...

Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life's work of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It's a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earth's living creatures. If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.

**stupidhippo** · 06-19-2005, 03:23 PM

but I think its more likely that some of our "theories" of AAS's end up being proven wrong when compared to the atomic theory for examople.. My point was only: (at least all my pharmacology books say this) many AAS's have diffrent effects and most of them cant be explained yet (the mechanisms etc).

**Two4the$$** · 06-19-2005, 04:10 PM

I wasn't implying that any of our theories are as tested and accurate as those others, what I was saying however is that these beliefs we have are the conclussion of regular users... and their agreement that these are the most typical results and pro/con ratios through their observations and experimentation (which is where much left to chance, as they are not using a control or large groups of people with identical variables). And it is the agreement of these people under these circumstances which give us fundamental beliefs... but again, we here are all acustomed to the necessity of accepting it provisionally. The point is, those agreements of the expert/regular user indicate the point where we should start trying and making adjustments from. If you want to operate conservatively, go a little below those points... but realize that the risks may not be avoided by virtue of a more conservative protocol, as all risks have been weighed out over time.

Okay, I sincerely hope someone can make some sense out of that. I guess my point is to say that we generate our views of this subject via some internal rules... I was just trying to point out what mine are and presummably many of ours.

**mark956101957** · 06-19-2005, 05:21 PM

it is a slower progressing compound and the way it works on your musclesl...time wise who knows but it is a slower working compound.

**ChefJ** · 06-19-2005, 05:39 PM

I am a national level amateur and I always run boldenone for at least 15 weeks. usually longer and never at a dose lower than 800mgs per week. It is a very slow acting compound as the gains and hunger and vascularity improve with the length of time that you are on. I say 12 weeks is a minimum but if you don't have enough or don't mind wasting cycle time go less.