mg EQ vs. tren?

**chunky monkey** · 09-24-2005, 03:57 PM

2 part-question:

1) For those who have run both, what would you say is the mg equivalent of EQ as compared to 400mg tren enth? ie. 400mg tren enth = 600mg EQ? 800mg EQ?

2) Cost aside, at an equivalent potency, which would you rather run (from a gains vs. sides perspective)?

I could be wrong, but it seems that running EQ makes more sense: less sides + no need for extra ancillaries like bromo or B6, and if you're running enough the gains should be similar.

Just in the planning stages for my winter bulker that will probably start in late November. Test will be the base; the side I'm most concerned with is hair loss, nothing else really matters much.

Thanks for the help guys.

**TheMudMan** · 09-24-2005, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by chunky monkey

2 part-question:

1) For those who have run both, what would you say is the mg equivalent of EQ as compared to 400mg tren enth? ie. 400mg tren enth = 600mg EQ? 800mg EQ?

2) Cost aside, at an equivalent potency, which would you rather run (from a gains vs. sides perspective)?

I could be wrong, but it seems that running EQ makes more sense: less sides + no need for extra ancillaries like bromo or B6, and if you're running enough the gains should be similar.

Just in the planning stages for my winter bulker that will probably start in late November. Test will be the base; the side I'm most concerned with is hair loss, nothing else really matters much.

Thanks for the help guys.

it's around 600 to 800mg of EQ when I see nice vascularity........

I would run tren over eq any day because of the ability to help lean me out or bulk me up depending on goals, good vascularity, strength increase.

**Smak** · 09-24-2005, 04:03 PM

They are really nothing alike so it's hard to compare. Two totally different compounds.

**Smak** · 09-24-2005, 04:04 PM

I'd run Tren over EQ anyday.

**IBdmfkr** · 09-24-2005, 04:05 PM

I'd run both, Tren at 500mg/wk, Eq at 600mg/wk.. hell why not throw in some Test.

Theres your winter bulker.

**TheMudMan** · 09-24-2005, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Smak

They are really nothing alike so it's hard to compare. Two totally different compounds.

Actually they are a like in away at least for me........... but I know what you're saying.

**chunky monkey** · 09-24-2005, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by TheMudMan

it's around 600 to 800mg of EQ when I see nice vascularity........

I would run tren over eq any day because of the ability to help lean me out or bulk me up depending on goals, good vascularity, strength increase.

I could just be talking out of my ass, but if you're taking enough EQ wouldn't it then be just as potent as tren ? Mg for mg tren is stronger, but there must be a point where a certain amount of EQ is equivalent to a lesser amount of tren. And my thinking is that at this point, sides for the EQ will still be more minimal.

Originally Posted by Smak

I'd run Tren over EQ anyday.

I'm guessing you're not prone to the sides from tren?

Originally Posted by IBdmfkr

I'd run both, Tren at 500mg/wk, Eq at 600mg/wk.. hell why not throw in some Test.

Theres your winter bulker.

That's what I was thinking at first, but if I've never used either I'm not sure it's necessary.

**IBdmfkr** · 09-24-2005, 04:27 PM

For a first cycle, I'd stick to one of the other. Personally I'd drop both and do Test only. Eq isn't much of a bulker.

**chunky monkey** · 09-24-2005, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by IBdmfkr

For a first cycle, I'd stick to one of the other. Personally I'd drop both and do Test only. Eq isn't much of a bulker.

It's not my first cycle. I've done a few, but the only compounds I've ever used are test, d-bol, and var. I've gone as high as 1g/week test, 60mg/day d-bol, and 100mg/day var.

Stats when I start the cycle should be approximately 5'11 220lbs 12-14% bf. Looking to get up to 240ish, including a little fat and water gain.

**TheMudMan** · 09-24-2005, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by chunky monkey

I could just be talking out of my ass, but if you're taking enough EQ wouldn't it then be just as potent as tren ? Mg for mg tren is stronger, but there must be a point where a certain amount of EQ is equivalent to a lesser amount of tren. And my thinking is that at this point, sides for the EQ will still be more minimal.

I'm guessing you're not prone to the sides from tren?

That's what I was thinking at first, but if I've never used either I'm not sure it's necessary.

No EQ isn't as potent................ some of the results I see from EQ I see from Tren as well......... and then there are things from Tren that I don't see from any other compound I have ever ran....... Like the aid in fat loss, strength, pumps...... and then there are the sides from tren that I never see from EQ.