SIMPLY COMPLICATED
Have you ever started a cycle and thought that you had everything in order and then from out of nowhere from the left field something goes wrong and you can't quiet fiqure out? Well, thats where I'm at. Its been a sometime since I've ran my last cycle (not going to bore you) so I thought I would just run a basic cycle. I was reading one of Vikes comments about running EQ for cutting cycle. So I thought, "well I'll just run some Test and EQ for this cycle". Well to make a long story short I got the EQ from a guy who used to be a top source on here, I'll not name him but he burned some of you on HGH and his gear was questionable" So I ran it anyway the EQ 300 EOD "4 shots a week at 1200mgs ew, normal with eq" with 300 to 400mg of test . Everything is going fine I'm cutting up nicely and then all of a sudden nips began to get sore. My first thought was, "is this gyno flares? I'm not gyno prone, I've ran high doses of test in numberous cycles and never got sore nips. So I hit up some arimidex thinking the problem will be over. Week later my nips are burnin and itchin like a bitch. Had some novadex on hand but no change. I got so pissed at my nips that I squeezed the hell out of them and to my surprise brown syrup came out and I didn't have any pancakes. Then finally it came to me, something I was not prepared for PROLACTIN. But where did it come from? Definitely not test, was it from EQ? its not a 19nor hormone and EQ normally takes weeks to kick in. I've only ever get prolactin/progesterone from tren, deca, npp but never EQ. So I didn't have any prami or caber on hand so I dropped the eq weeks ago and it stop but it still puzzles me. Was the EQ I got from the source something else or has anyone ever had prolactin issues with EQ? Got me pulling my hair out to many variables and to beat it all its a simple cycle and I'm not a newbie. Thoughts appreciated
- Bookmark
- 0
- 0
I must of made a typo in that link guys. This one should work. I'll repost my previous comment I made down below with the correct link so we can stay on track.
I know where your going with this and unfortunately I can not agree. T3 doesn't increase protein synthesis that well. It's true that T3 increases protein synthesis but It's also true that T3 increases protein breakdown. The latter seems to always win every time. Its like 2 sides of a coin but the coin always lands on the same side.
Look at the graphs in figure 3 in this study:
http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/85/2/697.full#R11
The left graph shows protein breakdown as a function of administered T3. The right graph shows protein synthesis. The slope of the line in the left graph is steeper than the one on the right. That means for a given T3 dose, protein breakdown will always exceed synthesis.
The reason I linked this study is because it shows one compound (that I'm not going to mention because I don't won't somebody reading this to try it and hurt themselves but the pros use it because it counteracts the catabolic effect of the T3 so they can burn fat and gain muscle, and its mention in this study) that lowers the proteolytic effect of T3. There is also a lot of good points requarding this subject if you want to read the whole study. Is by "The Journal of clinical endocrinology & metabolism. The study is called, "Response of Leucine Metabolism to Hyperinsulinemia in Hypothyroid Patients before and after Thyroxine Replacement" google if link doesn't work.
What are the conclusions here? That EQ can somehow elevate prolactin? Also, T3 can be used for building muscle? What? I'm so confused.
The EQ was probably deca and no I don't believe T3 is a muscle builder. Read down a few
There's a lot of different things that can elevate your prolactin levels (renal failure, pituitary tumors, stress etc.). Elevated estrogen levels can trigger an increase in prolactin in men. EQ does convert to estrogen so it can cause elevated prolactin levels (so can test if you're estrogen isn't properly managed).
Were you taking arnidex or any AI before this happened (I know you mentioned that you took one when it happened)?
Major bollock dropped there my man...... get the facts right when giving info, 1000s read these posts and i will not allow eroids to be turned into a laughing stock.
You claim to be the "science" man!...... my "bro science" guys will rip you a new asshole if you dont get it right.......... just sayin
So where did I dropped the ball. Aromatization to estrogen? Or that high estrogen can elevate prolactin? Just asking. Can you help clarify.
WRONG... some forums etc say it aromatises at 50% the rate of test but in my exp (personal and with many others) we have never had EQ convert..... ever.
This is one compound I can't document with studies because I am not aware of any that have been done. But I have worked with the compound extensively and tend to disagree, I don't think it converts anywhere near as much as testosterone, but it does exhibit side effects of conversion, especially in people with elevated body fat. Why do you think some of the other forums mention this (not trying to be argumentative, just asking)? Someone below just quoted another forum saying that it does.
Do we at least agree that elevated estrogen can cause elevated prolactin levels? lol
Here are a few case studies on EQ
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20980358
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21878449
Although a rule of thumb; most study and findings generally cater to who provided the funding to do the tests. No human testing has been done since 1968. You can find the study by searching for Parenabol or 29'038-Ba or check out PubMed.
Hey, I appreciate those links. Thank you for the time that you spent researching them.
The 1st link talks about misdiagnosed renal failure based on serum creatinine levels. The particular subject happened to have used EQ. So this study really doesn’t tell us anything about EQ.
The 2nd link tries to compare the effects of EQ on renal function in rabbits. The dose that they gave the rabbits was actually severely under dosed compared to what is actually used in the AAS community. “These findings suggest that misuse of the boldenone undecylenate MAY contribute to the occurrence of a chronic renal injury that may lead to a progressive renal failure.” It’s basically a poorly designed study and doesn’t translate well to human consumption.
Unfortunately, both those studies really don’t provide any relative information to the AAS community. Nor does it shed any insight into the Pharmacokinetics of boldenone undecylenate.
PubMed has more studies but they discontinued them in 1968. The studies they did were irrelevant; botched; and misguided. Since it was produced as a vet steroid they think it has no relation to human consumption. I believe a new study will be out in the next 2 years that include human use as doctor's are starting to see a higher trend in the body building world of people using it.
I hope you're right but I really don't see it happening. I don't think you will see any studies anytime soon until they find a use for EQ in medicine.
They have found a use, appetite gain. According to the journal of medicine they have plans to run a few tests on some "subjects" in the near future but the FDA is frowning on it and will not provide funding and approval. Thank Obama for that but I won't make this post political.
Thank you for the information. I would love to read the Journal if you can find it for me that would be awesome.
I'll see if my Professor will let me photocopy the article; although he has been an ass about it lately
BigBmajNo need to photocopy just find the journal article and get the info from there. We can take it from there.
That would be awesome. Thank you.
That yellow bar is a quote of what you wrote bro lol..... my answer was below it, and we agree greatly on the use of any steroid with a person that exhibits high BF%... thats the reason you see us screaming for stats in the cycles section ... many times the answer comes back and the OP is carrying 20 or 30% sometimes, to me thats a one way street to estro suicide lol
High estro can cause prolactin problems yes i agree
Let's work with what we agree on.
High body fat is definitely problematic but here's where the dilemma lies (and yes, I know a lot of people are lazy and want a shortcut, and don't want to diet or put in the work). Some of those guys may have naturally lower testosterone and if that's the case, it's almost impossible for them to lose the body fat. The androgen receptor needs to be stimulated for body fat loss to occur.
So what do you do in that case? That's why I think starting off with bloodwork is the most important thing. If there hormone levels are normal, then I think dieting is the way to go. You see the dilemma? What are your thoughts on this?
Totally agree... bloodwork should be mandatory before during and after any cycle if the person knows they have a long standing problem.
I must have advised over a 1000 times that people that know they have a bf figure that is out of context with cycling should diet and hit plenty of cardio for 60 days then come back and re-discuss their original plan.... we have had success with this method.... all these steps we have to take without seeing a picture to get the real deal view of a person.
I think the dilemma is what you do with someone who has elevated body fat and is androgen deficient. If that androgen receptor is not activated It will be almost impossible for them to lose weight and that is where I think the exception for high body fat should be.
I think the move in that case is to go on a TRT dose and lose the weight.
Spot on!.... with a slight calorie deficiency like when on a cutter..... and/or cardio or weight training... i would go with weights due to cardio only burning fat for the length of the session and maybe a couple of hours after, whereas the moderate/heavy weight session would burn fat for 3/4 days after... i would never advise T3 or clen at this stage i think that is just the lazy mans option and potentially create even more problems.... for me!.. i think if a person spent the same time reading about nutrition as they do paruosing source "menus" that would be far more productive to the desired result.
Slight calorie deficiency is the way to go. I usually recommend 500 cal below TDEE. I am also against T3 unless they have a deficiency in their metabolic panel substantiated by bloodwork.
I also agree that people really don't study nutrition enough. That is really the key component to anything. But I guess to most people it's not as alluring as AAS.
Not to change the subject, but in my opinion T3 is a lot better suited for putting on size (on AAS) than it is for losing weight.
"Not to change the subject, but in my opinion T3 is a lot better suited for putting on size (on AAS) than it is for losing weight."
I have never known anybody ever use T3 for putting on size. Infact its completely opposite. People with naturally low t3 levels have a harder time losing weight because they have a low metabolism...T3 speeds up that metabolism, amps up the thyroid increasing weight loss. T3 can be very catabolic even while on AAS and a lot of users run Clen with it cause its so catabolic.
T3 stands for Triiodothyronine (for anyone that wants to look up what it does). T3 acts by binding to cytosolic receptors and is classified as a hydrophobic steroid hormone. It upregulates protein synthesis and also induces a positive nitrogen balance. It affects almost every process in the body , not just metabolism and body temperature.
It is absolutely true that people with low T3 levels have a hard time losing weight. And yes, T3 will speed up the metabolism. However it does not Amp up the thyroid, it actually shuts it down similar to the way testosterone shuts down the HPTA.
It's also true that T3 can be very catabolic (at high doses) if you are not using high levels of testosterone to counteract those effects. But T3 can also be very anabolic when coupled with AAS (provided the levels are high enough). T3 will do both increase the rate of protein synthesis and it will also increase the rate of protein degradation and that is where AAS comes in, to counteract the degradation and even further assist with protein synthesis. T3 also increases lipolysis.
So now let me explain why I state that T3 is better for putting on size while on AAS then for cutting. Its because T3 will enable you to eat a lot more calories and to metabolize them a lot more efficiently. Everyone knows that if you want to get big, you have to eat tremendous amounts of calories. T3 along with AAS will help your body utilize them a lot better towards muscle building and less towards fat accumulation.
T3 is not for everyone. Just like insulin is not for everyone. It's an advanced tool for people that understand the compound and the risks associated with it. T3 just like insulin (insulin can help you gain muscle or it can make you fat, depending on how you use it) is a double-edged sword so you have to know how to use it.
Ok here's where I agree with you. T3 does shut down your thyroid, I probably should have worded that better when I said it amps it up, I was referring to levels but t3 does function the same way synthetically, just like test shuts off your natural testes.. it just replaces it synthetically. I also agree that t3 is a double-edged sword and should not be used unless you understand it and the risks associated with it. And it should be runned with AAS or your body is going to eat your muscle.
Here's where I disagree, using it for a bulking agent for size. The only people that know how T3 really works are the people that have tried it and I will grant you that everybody has different experiences with it and the majority of them, as well as I, will tell you that even while running a high dose of AAS they still lose some muscle. I have never gone over 50mcgs and still find it catabolic. If incorporated correctly with AAS and diet you might hold on too muscle but I don't see any gains happening and certainly not nothing to amount to anything just by adding T3 to a cycle. A person might be able to use it to keep from putting on fat but not muscle. The only way I could conceive of a person gaining size from its use, (other than involving another compound that you mentioned but I'm not going to expound on it cause its very dangerous), is someone that has natural low t3 levels and use's it to bump up there t3 levels to where it should be while running a cycle and if they do put on size its probably from the AAS and not the t3 because of there condition.
I have never seen any studies to validate those claims and I would question any if I did because of my experience with it. I honestly see no muscle building properties in T3 itself.
1st of all, thank you for taking your time in writing such a detailed response. We've established what we agree on. Would you also agree that one of the main roles of T3 is to up regulate protein synthesis as well as inducing positive nitrogen balance? Were you aware of the fact that high doses of androgens will have a suppressive effect on free T4 and on T3 (not complete shutdown, but suppressive) while TSH will be in the high normal range? The reason I bring up this fact is because there are doctors that will diagnose you with hypothyroidism if you're TSH is in the high range of normal.
So before I continue can you at least tell me if we agree on this?
I know where your going with this and unfortunately I can not agree. T3 doesn't increase protein synthesis that well. It's true that T3 increases protein synthesis but It's also true that T3 increases protein breakdown. The latter seems to always win every time. Its like 2 sides of a coin but the coin always lands on the same side.
Look at the graphs in figure 3 in this study:
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/con...l/85/2/697#R11
The left graph shows protein breakdown as a function of administered T3. The right graph shows protein synthesis. The slope of the line in the left graph is steeper than the one on the right. That means for a given T3 dose, protein breakdown will always exceed synthesis.
The reason I linked this study is because it shows there is only one compound (that I'm not going to mention because I don't won't somebody reading this to try it and hurt themselves but the pros use it because it counteracts the catabolic effect of the T3 so they can burn fat and gain muscle, and its mention in this study) that lowers the proteolytic effect of T3. There is also a lot of good points requarding this subject if you want to read the whole study. Is by "The Journal of clinical endocrinology & metabolism"
I'm surprised no one else has jumped in on this.
I would love to comment on this. Unfortunately that link doesn't open for me. I know the Journal that it is in. Could you give me the name of the study and the author or a better link. Will read it and comment. Thank you.
.
I was hoping you would chime in Mad Hoss, considering your the EQ king. I was looking forward to running EQ as a cutting agent as you mentioned in a post a while back but things when to shit with something that was labeled EQ but on the bright side I'm ripping up nicely just on the low dose of test. Test alone is amazing with a strict diet.
yeah i read the thread bro... it sure does look like you was pinning 1200mg of deca,, certainly not EQ...... and you will get some nice shape showing just on test if you keep your total calories sensible and the protein high... people forget about tests fat burning qualities, and tend to rely on it for bulking with the old high cal diets...... basically any steroid can be used for any purpose if the diet is dialled to goal.
Please make sure you are giving correct advice, EQ does not cause ANY prolactin related issues. EQ acts to slow estrogen conversion. I will quote from another site here. http://www.steroid.com/Equipoise.php#
Equipoise was actually created while attempting to make a product which would be be a long acting injectable d-bol (Methandrostenolone). What was actually created was a product which, in the real world acts nothing like D-bol, despite its similarity to it chemically. A simple way to think of Equipoise, chemically at least, is simply as Dianabol without the 17-alpha-methyl group (thats the thing which makes D-bol able to be ingested orally and not be destroyed by your liver). However, having had first hand experience with both Equipoise as well as D-bol, I can tell you that the results from each are vastly different.
To make Equipoise, a double bond was added between carbon atoms 1 and 2 of the Steran Nucleus of Testosterone. What does this mean? Well, first of all, since Equipoise was created by one simple modification in the testosterone molecule, you could rightly suspect that it shares many similarities with it. Equipoise is just as anabolic as testosterone (as you can tell by its anabolic rating above), but only half as androgenic. Those ratings can be quite deceiving though, as I don't know anyone who would claim that you can gain as much weight on Equipoise as you can gain on an equal amount of testosterone (even though strength gains from the two compounds are very similar).
Its not very common to compare Equipoise to testosterone; however a far more common comparison is between Equipoise and Deca. I suspect this is because when Dan Duchaine introduced this compound to the steroid using community, he made an immediate comparison to Deca, speculating that it would act similarly to Deca but like a much stronger version of it. Equipoise doesn't actually act much like deca at all; Deca is actually a progestin and a 19-nor derived steroid whereas Equipoise is more closely related to testosterone (being only one double bond differ rent). Duchaine later rescinded his original statement on Equipoise and said that it was disappointing as a mass builder when compared with deca, but a far better drug than for both strength gains and vascularity. Unfortunately, the myth that Equipoises action is similar to Deca's has persisted for nearly 2 decades after he revised his opinion; this is most evident on internet message boards today, where many will advise against including both of them in a cycle because "they act the same way."
The 1-2 double bond that Equipoise has is responsible for many of its characteristics. First of all, it acts to slow aromatization (conversion into estrogen). The best estimate is that it does so at roughly half the rate of testosterone (1). This is the best number Ive found in studies. Athletes almost never report estrogenic side effects with Equipoise, even when the dose is up to a gram per week. Side effects caused by estrogen include oily skin, acne, and gynocomastia, and as I said, those are usually not found from Equipoise.
No I wasn't taking anything before the cycle and I didn't have any prolactin issues until after I started and it stopped after I stopped running the so called EQ.
Elevated E2 could have caused your problem. The good news is, elevated prolactin levels usually return to normal on their own in men without any lasting effects. Progesterone on the other hand is a different story.
I have never had any prolactin issues that have been estrogen related but I have with progestin and while only ever using nor-19 compounds. While I'm not gyno prone, I'm very progestin sensitive to progestin/prolactin. In this case I believe Viking was right...I was probably pinning 1200mgs of deca and from the side effect I was experiancing it was the same as when I run deca...It just caught me off guard cause I was expecting it to be EQ.
This is a great example of how dangerous this game can get. It only takes 1 irresponsible , fucked up source to mess someone up. Glad it cleared up for you and wasn't something worse.
I glad it cleared up too brother. The rest is going in the trash!
Eq will not cause any thing like that you bound to have had a mislabeled bottle. I'm running roughly a gram of eq a week now with tren and test. That shit is crazy and dangerous.
EQ does not cause prolactin related issues; sounds like you got a bottle of something in the 19-nor family instead of EQ. I would not doubt it coming from the source you won't mention. That source is still up to his old tricks and other forums are calling him out on it even to this day. Selective scamming; labeling compounds that are not what the label says. I did a lot of research on EQ since I have a few bottles of it and nowhere does it say you get the symptoms you described. That source is a real scumbag.
Thats what I was leaning toward "the source and not the EQ". I know I've never had this problem with eq before. I hate running gear when the source turns shady, it plays with the mind. I would have never known unless I was running it and just test. I normally run tren or deca with eq and take caber and if I'd ran tren or deca with the eq this cycle I could have never pen pointed it out cause I would have been popping caber and wouldn't have had any prolactin issues.