Same buck more bang?

[Myostatinus]

First a little bit of stats and cycle history:
29 years
6'2"
207lbs
bf~12%

1st cycle test enan-deca-winny.
2nd cycle dbol-test cyp.
3rd cycle homebrew test e-deca.
4th cycle Tbol 8wk 60mg.
5th cycle continuous Tbol 0-10-20-40 0-10-20-40 mg

I'm considering either one of these cycles for my next one:

=========================================
Test-E 400mg/wk--Equipoise 400mg/wk--Tbol 60 mg/d

or

Test-E 750mg/wk--Equipoise 400mg/wk--Tbol 40 mg/d
=========================================

PCT same for both cycles
clen/hcg/nolva (letro on hand)

Not sure yet for how long I would run it, probably somewhere around 6-12 weeks.

The reason I'm comparing these two in particular is that they would cost the same to run (slightly more than the cost of a gym membership for 2 x12 week cycles, time on = time off)

I'm thinking these would yield rather similar gains. I was thinking the first cycle with less test and more tbol with would lead to less bloat, and maybe a bit less sides, though being a bit harsher on the liver?

Alternatively I could replace the Equipoise with Deca, but I believe eq has less chance of causing bloating.

Thanks

[taiboxa]

personally i dont like tbol or EQ but thats just me.
EQ is so weak IMO it doesnt matter wat dose u utilize its going to do the exact same thing.. increase vascularity and blood pressure and thats BOUT IT.
test is pretty much the same imo, as for LBM/str gains its not very potent.. a DHT or Nor group would be far more effective inplace of the EQ and keep the test moderately low to reduce aromitization and ***endency on ancillaries.

so in sum i would choose the first suggestion.

as for your pct.. U REALLY NEED AROMASIN in there nolva+aromasin is a more ideal pct combo

[Myostatinus]

For the same amount I could run:

=========================================
Test-E 400mg/wk--Equipoise 400mg/wk --Tbol 60mg/d

or

Test-E 400mg/wk--Tren Acetate 60mg EOD--Tbol [U]60mg/d

or even

Test-E 400mg/wk--Tren Acetate 60mg EOD--Winny 70mg/d

=========================================

I believe the second option is an improvement in line with your recommendations? The third option being one step closer to your advice?

[skipp]

Test E - 200mg/wk
Tren A - 75mg/day
Masteron - 50mg/day

There ya go..

[Myostatinus]

Test E - 200mg/wk
Tren A - 75mg/day
Masteron - 50mg/day

There ya go..

Interesting...

Running the numbers, though, it comes out 37% more expensive

Some AAS are of course more potent per mg, but what is of real interest is the potency per $. I've taken a reversed approach. I decided how much I want to "invest" and then try to tailor the most effective stack whithin that budget...

Do you think I could get away with
Test E - 200mg/wk
Tren A - 50mg/day
Masteron - 50mg/day

This combination is only 11% more expensive

[taiboxa]

dont talk bout price. and 2ndly the tren/mast or tren/win vs EQ + tbol is like saying

do u wanna go hunting w/ this grenade launcher or this b.b. gun?

[Manpretty]

if you cant affford a proper cycle then DONT

[Myostatinus]

if you cant affford a proper cycle then DONT

I agree that one should not be cheap. The challenge being to design the most effective stack on a given budget.

[Myostatinus]

dont talk bout price. and 2ndly the tren/mast or tren/win vs EQ + tbol is like saying

do u wanna go hunting w/ this grenade launcher or this b.b. gun?

Hence a lower dose of tren and masteron affords more bang for the same buck as EQ or Winny...