data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c1086/c1086eb63cabf9928fc4abe746e5dc1658a44af3" alt="Quote"
Originally Posted by
GearHeaded
things on paper do not always equate to real life. is tren 5x more anabolic then EQ, sure. but Halotestin is like 19x more anabolic then Test and 5x more anabolic then Tren .. yet anyone who has used Halo knows, it sucks for bulking. its a way better cutter.
ever ran Tren by itself or with a very low dose of just Test ? Plenty of guys have. They expect to blow up on tren, and after a few weeks they find they are actually losing weight. its not a stand alone bulker at all. its high androgenic rating with zero ability to convert to estrogen keeps it from being able to add on a lot of size (unless properly stacked).
as much as I like Tren . From my own practical experience and what I've seen with other guys, I cannot confidently say that Tren is a bulker and EQ is not. its very context dependent . like I said, run Tren solo and when you start losing weight you may re-consider your opinion on Tren being a bulker.
having said that.. combine Tren with a shit ton of estrogen (example, 500 tren with 50mg of Dbol per day, and 1000mg of test per week with NO AI) and thats when the magic happens and Tren becomes a very good bulking agent. reason why Tren is not given to bulk up cattle WITHOUT ESTROGEN being injected as well.
but as for EQ - its not even in this conversation . its an entirely different compound for entirely different goals and reasons. like I say. apples and oranges here.
and just a side note-- I never knew EQ was used to try and put 100 pounds of mass on a race horse. seems counter productive to me.
always heard of EQ being used to raise the horses aerobic capacity , increase recovery, performance, and even joint health with collagen synthesis and synovial fluid retention.
adding 100 pounds to a race horse in 10 days would just slow that horse down big time.
but hey. I don't know shit about horses