- Joined
- Apr 14, 2010
- Messages
- 526
I've read in many places that EQ was the result of attempts to make an injectable form of the original Dianabol. I've used both compounds, and while I certainly wouldn't say they are the 'same' in behavior, I also wouldn't say they are tremendously different either.
Both deliver:
- amazing pumps
- great strength gains
- improvements in vascularity
- significant increase in appetite
- less water retention than testosterone (i'm not a guy who typically gets bad water retention anyway...so...this is subjective)
- very 'full' feeling and look to the muscles
My question is this: Aside from the slight structural alterations between them, do you think the differences between these compounds is due to the long (undecylenate, longer than decoanate) ester that is attached to the boldenone rather than the c17 modification? Would you expect to see VERY similar gains if you could find a boldenone suspension or a methandrostenolone undecylenate?
I'm just throwing this out there for discussion.
Both deliver:
- amazing pumps
- great strength gains
- improvements in vascularity
- significant increase in appetite
- less water retention than testosterone (i'm not a guy who typically gets bad water retention anyway...so...this is subjective)
- very 'full' feeling and look to the muscles
My question is this: Aside from the slight structural alterations between them, do you think the differences between these compounds is due to the long (undecylenate, longer than decoanate) ester that is attached to the boldenone rather than the c17 modification? Would you expect to see VERY similar gains if you could find a boldenone suspension or a methandrostenolone undecylenate?
I'm just throwing this out there for discussion.