No more DECA or EQ ???

[Elvia1023]

There are very few extensive studies done on all AAS yet certain people take every study done (often on rats or a tiny demographic) and they take them all as gospel. Yes they are a great reference point and some are extremely valuable but most are extremely limited. Then they form all their opinions on those select studies and urge people to prove them wrong as long as you can back your opinion up with a study which is impossible because they simply don't exist. We do the best we can do with what scientific info with have at our disposal. A lot of the time it's just common sense and picking the lesser of 2 evils and sometimes those evils can be different compounds depending upon someone's genetic make up and current blood markers. If you look at studies on other subjects which have been investigated thoroughly you can pretty much prove different things for every subject as their outcomes vary massively so whilst some are very valuable and correct some are the complete opposite.

 

[b-boy]

Please stop.
No one knows about creatinine, bun, gfr etc... On this board not even the almighty victor black than me lol

I have a transplanted kidney and do blood work religiously and I experiment and experimented with all these drugs that are supposedly "Toxic" and I'll tell you something the only damn difference were the effects on HCT, Estrogen and prolactin.

So Victor Black can take his pathetic studies and shove em.

You seem to like Victor Black, and that's fine but please don't post as if his shot is gospel.

So your saying "fuck what the scientist say because BigNJ an unknown entity on professionalmuscle has figured it all out"

Ok sound logical

 

[b-boy]

There are very few extensive studies done on all AAS yet certain people take every study done (often on rats or a tiny demographic) and they take them all as gospel. Yes they are a great reference point and some are extremely valuable but most are extremely limited. Then they form all their opinions on those select studies and urge people to prove them wrong as long as you can back your opinion up with a study which is impossible because they simply don't exist. We do the best we can do with what scientific info with have at our disposal. A lot of the time it's just common sense and picking the lesser of 2 evils and sometimes those evils can be different compounds depending upon someone's genetic make up and current blood markers. If you look at studies on other subjects which have been investigated thoroughly you can pretty much prove different things for every subject as their outcomes vary massively so whilst some are very valuable and correct some are the complete opposite.

So if a new blood pressure medicine came out and your doctor prescribed it to you and a study comes out 6 months later that is causes colon cancer in mice, your going to just keep on taking it because FUCK it's just mice and I'm human? You wouldn't be concerned?

 

[headtrainer]

Bro, Victor has zero formal education to even make conclusions based on studies. He just doesn't.

Would you let Victor perform a mini surgery on you because he decided to spend X amount of time researching? He's simply not qualified to make any conclusions on such matters at all.

It's the same as a person that has never competed, trying to tell us all how to peak for a show, based on data he has complied after reading various studies. It's just not going to work out. That's literally the equivilent of what John and Victor are doing.

John and Victor claim that Mast, Deca and Test are just as Anabolic as one another one a mg to mg basis. I'll challenge anyone to take 750mg Test e/week + 250mg Deca/week versus 850mg Mast E per week with 150mg Test E per week to cover their test base and see if they grow just as well on the Mast/Test cycle versus the Test/Deca. Anyone with experience in this field will even laugh at the thought the Test/Mast cycle will produce as much gains as the Test/Deca. Yet, Victor has 1 random study that suggests Test,Deca,Mast are all as anabolic as one another and he takes it at face value.

I'll also point out that John, for example, does not offer to coach on his site. According to him he's "full" and he refers to this other guy. Which guy does John exactly coach that has accomplished anything noteworthy? No one. You wanna know why he doesn't take on many coaching clients? Because he'll shit the bed a few times with well known names and his entire credibility for his courses/university or whatever he likes to call it will go to shit. By avoiding to coach individuals, he protects his course/university which is based on zero credibility to begin with lol. Who would wanna pay someone to learn about coaching, when the person's athletes are not accomplishing anything noteworthy. Though by not actually coaching people, he avoids that aspect altogether. If someone is going to make such courses and charge a premium for it they better be qualified for it to some extent. Him being a Pro does not qualify him for shit. Hany Rambod for example has proven himself to produce exceptional athletes time and time again. That's credibility. Dr George T on MD is a medical doctor + competitor, so he has a combination of formal medical education and bodybuilding which gives him credibility. John and Victor? Zero credibility. So what exactly qualifies them to be a "teacher" when they lack both the track record and formal education.

I can attest to the fact that masteron is not as anabolic as test and deca.

 

[BigNJ]

So your saying "fuck what the scientist say because BigNJ an unknown entity on professionalmuscle has figured it all out"

Ok sound logical

Exactly. Plus my education makes Victor Black sound like a wannabe someone who he's never going to be.
So many gurus, educators and Molecular Biology experts nowadays. They're popping out like champagne corks at Bezos bday party.

No offense to you or VB, but what he's claiming is utter nonesense.

 

[ripriot]

“If you have cancer and you are a mouse, we can take good care of you. Judah Folkman”

“Despite all of the documented differences between mice and humans, and despite the history of “errors in translation” in the application of research on mice to humans, reports of research on mice are frequently accompanied by unwarranted and misleading claims, such as “Furthering our understanding of mouse X should provide novel insights into human Y.” Such claims raise false hopes and are ultimately self-defeating, in that they waste resources and increase public skepticism concerning the value of biomedical research. Indeed, the problems of translating research on mice and other model organisms to humans have led a number of scientists to question the value of this research.”

Mouse models of human disease: An evolutionary perspective

The use of mice as model organisms to study human biology is predicated on the genetic and physiological similarities between the species. Nonetheless, mice and humans have evolved in and become adapted to different environments and so, despite their ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[b-boy]

For all y

Exactly. Plus my education makes Victor Black sound like a wannabe someone who he's never going to be.
So many gurus, educators and Molecular Biology experts nowadays. They're popping out like champagne corks at Bezos bday party.

No offense to you or VB, but what he's claiming is utter nonesense.

$100.00 is STILL ON THE TABLE

 

[ripriot]

For all y

$100.00 is STILL ON THE TABLE

I get paid $175 per hour and I’m not a doctor. Can you prove what victor is saying from members on this site or other clinical manifestations for $10,000.00. It’s not possible bc 40-60% of rodent research transfers to humans. If it did we would have the cure for cancer, depression, schizophrenia, anxiety, Alzheimer’s, & other disorders. So 5 year old studies are ancient with the new discoveries they made in 2020.

 

[b-boy]

Ripriot I think you posted something quoting me, don't waste your time doing that as you are the only person ever since I have been on this board that I have put on IGNORE. nothing you say interest me.

 

[ripriot]

Ripriot I think you posted something quoting me, don't waste your time doing that as you are the only person ever since I have been on this board that I have put on IGNORE. nothing you say interest me.

Other people can see your ignorance…

 

[ripriot]

Ripriot I think you posted something quoting me, don't waste your time doing that as you are the only person ever since I have been on this board that I have put on IGNORE. nothing you say interest me.

If you don’t want to prove yourself to make $10,000.00 dollars? Sorry that you and victor are wrong. Hopefully you get some sponsors with Victor. Doesn’t look like you have any sponsors right now…

 

[Elvia1023]

So if a new blood pressure medicine came out and your doctor prescribed it to you and a study comes out 6 months later that is causes colon cancer in mice, your going to just keep on taking it because FUCK it's just mice and I'm human? You wouldn't be concerned?

Of course I would be concerned. I may even stop that medication especially if there are viable alternations. All drugs have positives and negatives and we have to weigh them both up and estimate the possible risks before adding/keeping them in. My post didn't state I don't trust any rat/mice studies and I use them myself when gathering information on a particular subject. That's besides the point but people also have to understand they don't always correlate to humans.

They can be very useful but people also need to know their limitations especially when there is just 1 study (or poorly designed/funded studies) on a particular subject. Many often form a solid opinion on a subject solely based of 1 very limited study and it's impossible to argue that point if they only consider studies as evidence on that topic and there are simply no more studies.

In a perfect world these subjects/compounds would have been studied extensively so we could form better opinions. That's not to state there aren't some great studies on AAS and we know a lot more because of them. I just find the logic behind certain subjects as flawed. At the end of the day with what information we do have it's fairly obvious not what to do if health is a concern. There will always be some unknowns but many of these compounds have been used for decades so we have a decent understanding of most of the main AAS and peptides we use.

 

[marssel]

There are very few extensive studies done on all AAS yet certain people take every study done (often on rats or a tiny demographic) and they take them all as gospel. Yes they are a great reference point and some are extremely valuable but most are extremely limited. Then they form all their opinions on those select studies and urge people to prove them wrong as long as you can back your opinion up with a study which is impossible because they simply don't exist. We do the best we can do with what scientific info with have at our disposal. A lot of the time it's just common sense and picking the lesser of 2 evils and sometimes those evils can be different compounds depending upon someone's genetic make up and current blood markers. If you look at studies on other subjects which have been investigated thoroughly you can pretty much prove different things for every subject as their outcomes vary massively so whilst some are very valuable and correct some are the complete opposite.

I agree especially on the genetic front, there are a few drugs that are clearly hard on the body like tren but personally until the last year this fervor over the safety of steroids was mostly mute bc our deaths were obvious ones like Kovacks, or had genetic components unknown til too late like Tom Prince and guys like Dorian, Arnold, Haney, even Draper until recently were alive and this idea that they didn’t take much when it was legal is bullshit, just no GH no slin and lies info about the forks of food and food volume/meal frequency. I mean shit Franco drowned do open ocean swimming and Arnold has had what 3 open heart surgeries for a genetic defect valve but somehow his roid use which like most the 70s Guys was heavy on the orals, survived fall these surgeries which would kill most marathon runners.

 

[Mute]

This was a very interesting debate..

 

[hawkmoon]

I opened this thread because I have my own opinions on Deca and EQ over a long period of time. My opinions are my own and purely anecdotal.
I'm not going to get into a debate about any gurus as I haven't paid enough time to speak properly on the issue, and do not anticipate doing so.

Test and Deca were the bread and butter of bodybuilding for a long time. There was good reason for this - they work. EQ gained favor somewhere around the late 80s and early 90s. I think it was in part due to the amount of fake Deca on the market while we could buy Equibold in a 50cc bottle we knew (?) was real. Also Dan Duchaine has some feelings on it which may have given it some notoriety, and in the late 80s people were chasing what was new (even though Parabolan was plentiful then - imagine that!)

I also never, ever heard of "Deca Dick" before the internet, nor EQ induced anxiety.
Not saying it isn't real - just never heard of it from either my friends or peers in the gym, nor from my dealer who was a primary in the region at the time. He named his dog Deca, so it can't be all bad anyway.
Again, all anecdotal, but I think sometimes these things are self-fulfilling prophecies, seeing as message board are flooded with these notions. I cannot say for sure.

In my experience, Deca performs the best with the least sides, mg for mg. EQ is a non-optimal alternate for Deca when I just want to change things up for a while.
Deca will always be in my toolbox, EQ often on the second shelf as I feel it is inferior for bodybuilding compared to Deca - in my experience.

There are other hormones out there, each with its own strengths and weaknesses that will likely vary per individual.
Each of us can take the "popular" information, do their own "testing" and come to their own conclusions.

 

[Lilleo187]

I opened this thread because I have my own opinions on Deca and EQ over a long period of time. My opinions are my own and purely anecdotal.
I'm not going to get into a debate about any gurus as I haven't paid enough time to speak properly on the issue, and do not anticipate doing so.

Test and Deca were the bread and butter of bodybuilding for a long time. There was good reason for this - they work. EQ gained favor somewhere around the late 80s and early 90s. I think it was in part due to the amount of fake Deca on the market while we could buy Equibold in a 50cc bottle we knew (?) was real. Also Dan Duchaine has some feelings on it which may have given it some notoriety, and in the late 80s people were chasing what was new (even though Parabolan was plentiful then - imagine that!)

I also never, ever heard of "Deca Dick" before the internet, nor EQ induced anxiety.
Not saying it isn't real - just never heard of it from either my friends or peers in the gym, nor from my dealer who was a primary in the region at the time. He named his dog Deca, so it can't be all bad anyway.
Again, all anecdotal, but I think sometimes these things are self-fulfilling prophecies, seeing as message board are flooded with these notions. I cannot say for sure.

In my experience, Deca performs the best with the least sides, mg for mg. EQ is a non-optimal alternate for Deca when I just want to change things up for a while.
Deca will always be in my toolbox, EQ often on the second shelf as I feel it is inferior for bodybuilding compared to Deca - in my experience.

There are other hormones out there, each with its own strengths and weaknesses that will likely vary per individual.
Each of us can take the "popular" information, do their own "testing" and come to their own conclusions.

A lot of those pro wrestlers from the 90s-00 abused deca and most of them lived long lives.

 

[jeroendebleser]

I opened this thread because I have my own opinions on Deca and EQ over a long period of time. My opinions are my own and purely anecdotal.
I'm not going to get into a debate about any gurus as I haven't paid enough time to speak properly on the issue, and do not anticipate doing so.

Test and Deca were the bread and butter of bodybuilding for a long time. There was good reason for this - they work. EQ gained favor somewhere around the late 80s and early 90s. I think it was in part due to the amount of fake Deca on the market while we could buy Equibold in a 50cc bottle we knew (?) was real. Also Dan Duchaine has some feelings on it which may have given it some notoriety, and in the late 80s people were chasing what was new (even though Parabolan was plentiful then - imagine that!)

I also never, ever heard of "Deca Dick" before the internet, nor EQ induced anxiety.
Not saying it isn't real - just never heard of it from either my friends or peers in the gym, nor from my dealer who was a primary in the region at the time. He named his dog Deca, so it can't be all bad anyway.
Again, all anecdotal, but I think sometimes these things are self-fulfilling prophecies, seeing as message board are flooded with these notions. I cannot say for sure.

In my experience, Deca performs the best with the least sides, mg for mg. EQ is a non-optimal alternate for Deca when I just want to change things up for a while.
Deca will always be in my toolbox, EQ often on the second shelf as I feel it is inferior for bodybuilding compared to Deca - in my experience.

There are other hormones out there, each with its own strengths and weaknesses that will likely vary per individual.
Each of us can take the "popular" information, do their own "testing" and come to their own conclusions.

Deca blows EQ out of the water imo.

It's like with Anadrol vs Dianabol, there's simply no contest which one is superior.

Oh and he named his dog Deca, that's some funny shit

 

[hawkmoon]

Deca blows EQ out of the water imo.

It's like with Anadrol vs Dianabol, there's simply no contest which one is superior.

Oh and he named his dog Deca, that's some funny shit

The same dog supposedly got into some halo this guy left in his car and then ate his leather interior.

 

[Muay Thai]

One of the benefits of EQ is that it significantly increases red blood cell count—enlarging the size of the veins. I think EQ needs to be ran for longer periods of time to get bigger veins. The downside is lethargicness and high hematocrit levels.

i get better RBC induced vascularity from anadrol everytime even at high dose eq go figure ,,according to the MD anabolic doc nearly all AAS increase RBC to an extent

 

[jeroendebleser]

i get better RBC induced vascularity from anadrol everytime even at high dose eq go figure ,,according to the MD anabolic doc nearly all AAS increase RBC to an extent

He knows what he's talking about