Introducing EQ-Plex by Competitive Edge Labs
- 06-17-2009, 06:52 PM
4-chloro items including H-Drol and P-Mag are also regarded by most people as some of the milder ph's on the liver. As for company recomendations, Gaspari recomended 50 because they were the first, and as with most companies, when you are the first introducing something, you err on the side of caution. Plus, theirs were 50 mg caps, so there wasnt a 75 mg per day option. As for EST, they simply copied gaspari's recomendation.
As for what you are saying about 25 mg being close to results with 50; you can clearly look at user feedback on 50 compared to 75 mg and see that there is a huge difference in the feedback reported.
We originally recomended 50 mg per day, but after everyone starting running higher dosages, we changed our dosage recomendations to reflect what was working for people better, and to keep them from wanting to go even higher than 75 mg.
BTW... you have had some really intelligent posts, so dont take me as being overly negative of you. You are entitled to your opinion, I just dont agree with it.
- 06-17-2009, 11:31 PM
However, if you and others reading this thread do not mind...and if I haven't already overstayed my welcome, haha, please allow me to elaborate and explain in greater detail why I wrote the things I did regarding the 4-Chloro hormones.
If we were to actually conduct a research project and create a poll to see how many individuals TRULY do their blood work, I garantee you that the percentages would be rather troublesome...likely only 1 % or less of all prohormone users. This leaves 99% of all the other "guinea pigs" going hog wild and popping pills like madmen, and not really having a concise picture of what their bodies are doing on a typical cycle. This also leaves 99 % of prohormone users with undocumented and unforseen medical consequences.
ISSUE #2: We have to also take I look at the fact that posts themselves have a great deal of bias on the side of "good news" over bad news. What are the percentages of posters who go on here to say "I am dying from testicular cancer" versus "dude, this sh-t got me big!" The dilema is that nobody likes talking about their problems, only their good luck. So what we usally hear is the GOOD side of prohormone use, not the bad side. Those who react badly to prohormones..wether short-term or long-term...we never really hear from them very often. Hence the bias that PH's are mild, only because of the ratio of "good news" posters over the "I'm screwed" posters.
And you also have to admit that the dead and gravely ill surely are in no position to post. There's a bias that can't be easily changed.
ISSUE #3: I certainly never said that an individual could NOT run more than 50 mg. I simply stated that 50 mg / day is what I term the "safety" cap. This is not to say that those who bump up to 75 mg / day are going to drop like flies.
But the main reason I am a big pusher of "LESS IS MORE", is another sobering reality that MOST PROHORMONE USERS are very sloppy with with other areas of their lives. They also consume alcohol, or partake in other activities / compounds that have already placed a great deal of stress on their livers LONG BEFORE they ever started doing Alkalated ("Methylated") prohormones such as the 4-Chloro group.
Can you safely use more than 50 mg / day over a short period? Of course you can....but ONLY if you are STRICT and CLEAN with other areas of your life. This means minimizing or avoiding other compounds that stress the liver, and not using them until your prohormone cycle is complete.
Problem is...most folks WILL NOT GIVE UP THEIR WEEKEND BEER, just to name a few popular pastimes.
And so, the 50 mg / day "safety" cap is based on REALITY, not BEST-CASE SCENARIO.
We can certainly go on and on about this, but I believe both of our points hold some validity. My main philosophy has always been to "err" on the safe side, because there is no substitute for clean living / nutrition, and strict training.
Again, the reality is that most folks go far over the "safety" caps because they are trying to make up for their sloppy lifestyles.
Anyway, regardless, I greatly appreciate our discussions and sharing of ideas. Thank you so much for your input, and your criticisms alike. I have no negative feelings, and quite the opposite, welcome future dialogue and discussions.
- 06-18-2009, 02:29 PM
Igoriginal: I was gona quote your post, but it was so long, so I just gut to the issues to respond to.
Your Issue 1: You are correct, very few people do have bloodwork done, but if the ones that do have virtually no problems, then that is the best indicator of the larger group as a whole. And actually, by working for the company, I have seen alot of people that really do. Percentage wise to the number of bottles sold, the % is fairly low, but overall, its still enough to get a fairly good guess. The point I am trying to make is that there are alot of people that have used the 4-chloro compounds with very few sides, and you speak in hypotheticals, which is fine, but they dont seem to carry over to real world sides.
Your Issue #2: I completely disagree with. Look around, there are many people that will chime in on a thread and say, oh yeah, I used H-Drol 6 months ago and had great results; but at the same time, if anyone has a bad experience, they are posting and raising hell the same day. As for your statement that ph's are mild, I think 4-chloro ones are mild to be methylated ph's, but they are still methylated ph's. As for your statement that dead or ill people rarely post, I think you are really exagerating things there because I have never once seen any as you put it 'grave illness' related to a 4-chloro ph.
Your Issue 3: 50 mg per day is YOUR safety recomendation, but most others disagree at this point. When the compounds first came out, they started at 50 and many companies followed suit at that dosing, us included. However, as more feedback came about and more people started upping the dosages, it became pretty well agreed upon that 75 was the norm. Hell, there are people that dose 100 to 125 mg per day, which in my opinion is overkill, but even then, sides are rarely reported.
I myself am not a proponent of the 'more the better' philosophy. I never recomend going over 75 mg per day, but in all honesty, I would myslef because I really dont see a problem with it. But then again, what I do with my body I am a little more riskier than what I tell others to do with theirs.
And yes, most people are sloppy with their lifestyles, but that is a personal responsibility issue. As a company, we provide what we feel are the safest dosages that will deliver the best results. We cannot control that a person is wreckless in their own life. I am a huge fan of personal responsibility not just in lifestyle, but in life in general.
We do recomend our Cycle Assist while on any ph cycle for overall support purposes, and I beat the issue to death with recomending people take Liver Assist XT by SNS for support and detox when their cycle is done.
I agree with err'ing on the safe side, I just happen to think the safe side is 75 mg whereas you think it is 50. I go off my personal experience, along with seeing the logs and hearing from people daily that have had their bloodwork done. (and to make it clear, I'm not a forum rep, I work for the company, so I see this much more than most do).
There is no substitute fro clean living and nutrition, just as there is no substitute for diet and proper training, but fact is, most people arent going to do things to a tee, so our guidelines on the product are based around that. I truly think people could go higher than 75 mg per day if they did have the perfect lifestyle, but hardly anyone does, hence the 75 mg per day recomendation.
I think that if you look at our products, you will see that our dosages are well thought out, and our recomendations are more thorough than most, if not all ph companies. In my honest opinion, some of our products can be taken well higher than the bottles say, but we do always err on the side of caution with things.
I have no negativity towards you either. I like the way you handle yourself in being able to have professional conversation. It is very enlightening in an industry where most people would rather argue and not respect each others rights to have different opinions.
06-18-2009, 02:49 PM
Thanks again, sir, for being up-front and honest with your views and convictions. I appreciate your professionalism and candidness more than anything.
Of course, given that you have had more direct contact with customers and their use of products, I would have to ultimately hand you the hat, and take the lower ground, because your experiences no doubt have given you better overall insight than my own.
My limitations stem from actual LAB / CHEM work. But LAB / CHEM work does not always translate to real-world drug interractions, and chemistry on paper does not always account for unforseen variables that could not be anticipated.
Humanity and its response to therapeutics / pharmaceuticals will always be far more dynamic and unpredictable then the "on paper" chem / lab results, because laboratory work is isolated and under more stringent control. This control proves to be a double-edged sword, as although it provided for workable compounds that are certified "pure", and less likely to create inconsistencies in batches, this same quality-control also weeds out the dynamism of human interaction.
This, of course, is why the need for human "test trials" (PHASES II and III) exist in the world of targeted pharmaceuticals, once chem / lab work (PHASE I) has been cleared.
To that end, I once again tip off my hat to you, because your line of work sits at the far end of PHASE III, as well as "PHASE IV" (after-market) responses.
I hope we do have more discussions, because I believe that only when both IN-LAB and IN-THE-FIELD work are COMBINED, do we get the best insight. As they say..."two views..." or, "two heads..." are better than one.
Thanks much, again, sir!
P.S. - I suppose I also haven't considered that the 4-Chloro compounds I've worked with are "pure" batches, whereas the market / after-market commercial compounds are mandated to include fillers and other ingredients to help extend shelf-life and improve the rate of product decay, but would simultaneously mean that less of the active compound is present per volume of delivery.
In that regard, we could theorize that the drug action of a pure lab batch of "50 mg" 4-Chloro is roughly equivalent to the drug action of a filler / preservative commecial grade of 75 mg.
Perhaps, this is an issue we have not realized, and so, would BOTH be right, from our own personal experiences.
If that is the case, then this might also explain why so many commercial versions of an active compound may slightly be underdosed, because their dosage requirements are passed down from the LAB! After all, with no initial "FIELD" dosage data available, LAB DOSAGES are all that the supplement companies have to go on in the early release of their products!
I may be on to something, here.
06-23-2009, 02:00 PM
06-23-2009, 05:52 PM
1. The average homogenous size of the particulates of active compound, as measured in "microns" (micrometers), "angstroms" (angstrometers), or even "nanons" (nanometers).
Variations in individual particulate size change the density, and hence the cell-membrane permiability / cross-flow of the active compound, and can make or break that compound's effectiveness in real-world applications. This actually has a higher impact on bioavailability than the whole-solution percentage of the active compound itself.
2. The specifically-designed or chemically-arranged medium of the active compound: Ex. Liquid suspensions, crystaline suspensions, mist-particulate inhalation suspensions (respiratory delivery), transdermal suspensions, injectable suspensions, etc.
3. The chemical / electrostatic environment of the active compound's production. Lab / Pharmaceutical-grade compounds are RARELY exposed to plain air...and instead are stingently assembled or bio-engineered in more stable gaseous / aqueous environments (super-cooled and inert nitrogen-based environments, for example...rather than some cheap, everyday assembly-line sweat shop), or sometimes even near-vacuum containment.
They also use de-charging (electric-current dissipating) mechanisms, to bring the instances of compound oxidation / free-radical exposure to near 0.
I understand that you are a representative of CEL, but if you are honest, then you'll admit that in order for CEL (or virtually any other "supplement company") to be cost-effective, and thus have a remote chance of ensuring the financial survival of a product's initial launch, the active compound is almost ALWAYS mixed with relatively inferior properties...usually a cheap, coarse powder / crystalline compound, mixed will inexpensive fillers/ delivery compounds.
This is not an exception, but rather the norm for the supplement industry. It is not a cynism of the supplement industry, but rather just stating the unbiased facts. It's a neccessary marketing reality that cannot be avoided in order to keep costs down, both for the producer AND the consumer alike. After all, there is a reason why true pharmaceutical-grade compounds cost a fortune, when stacked against your everyday off-the-shelf supplements. This cannot be denied. But it IS usually not spoken of.
Even a TABLET form of a compound is marginally yet significantly superior to its free-flowing, powered capsule form. After all, look at Culver Concept's version of 4-Chloro...called "Chlorodrol-50." It's tableted and packed individually in blister packs. This elimitates two variables that dramatically increase the
4-Chloro's shelf-life and overall quality: 1. Because of the tablet form, only the "skin" or outer-most part of the compound is ever exposed to air. The rest of the tablet is virtually "air-tight" simply because of its more solid structure held together by resins (as opposed to free-flowing powder in a capsule). 2. The individual packaging in "blister packs" further decreases the degradation of the active compounds, because capsules that sit inside a bottle and bump up repeatedly against each other can even cause reactions with ONE ANOTHER! (Sticking and clumping together when exposed to moisture...melting of the capsule gelatinous material itself, etc).
There's no coincidence that Chlorodrol-50 is flying off the shelves, and is getting VERY DIFFICULT to secure, or even FIND. Most distributors are often sold out, or on back-order. This is usually the case for MOST tableted versions of supplements. Either they are being hoarded up like crazy, or are being pushed into "discontinuation" by various organizations, because their quality rivals true pharma.
However, the downside to tableted versions is their HIGH COST, which again, NOT EVERYONE can afford. And some companies are making tablets, but the compound itself is crap to begin with, so tablets don't neccesarily garantee that the business itself is not scrupulous.
CEL, on the other hand, has had independent lab confirmations of their compound quality, and this I say in the highest esteem!
Hence, supplements are a GODSEND for most of us who CANNOT EVER afford real pharmaceutical-grade versions of the same compounds, legal OR illegal.
Therefor, "purity" is a loaded word, and one that involves MANY variables and components which I have no desire to get into detail over. Certainly many more variables than just the "percentage of the active compound" in your average, everyday, cheaply-produced crystalline-powder capsule.
And THIS is what I was refering to.
P.S. - I am personally VERY HAPPY and SATISFIED with CEL, by the way, and have nothing but GOOD PRAISE for it. Pound for pound, FEW OTHER companies have provided such high-quality compounds in capsule form. As a measure of cost-per-unit, I would argue that CEL stands head and shoulders above many others.
06-23-2009, 06:17 PM
- 6'0" 195 lbs.
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Rep Power
- Lv. Percent
Wow!!! That was ALLOT of great reading!!!! Thanks for the debate guys. I love that I can now objectivly look at two sides of something( both of which where presented well) and the make a more informed choice for myself.
06-23-2009, 06:25 PM
- 6'0" 195 lbs.
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Rep Power
- Lv. Percent
I was going to run a PPlex/Estane 20/30 cycle to try and gain some strenghth and harden up. I don't want to put on allot of mass. One of the apealing things about this cycle was the appetite supressing qualities that come with PPlex. what do you think? Stick with the PPlex/Estane or try the EQPlex/Esatne for vascularity, hardness and slight strength?
06-24-2009, 12:39 AM
- 5'10" 163 lbs.
- Join Date
- May 2008
- Rep Power
- Lv. Percent
Honestly this thread has raised my IQ EQ-Plex looks great, and I am starting to see some logs now(like outsidebackers)
06-25-2009, 03:11 PM
When I speak of quality, I am referring to each batch of raw materials being sent for quality testing before they are encapsulated and the finished product made. Once the quality is confirmed, they are sent to be encapsulated, where of course there are other ingredients added because they must fill up the capsule space. Then the product is sent for testing again to reconfirm the percentage of purity of the active ingredient to make sure there was no mistake in encapsulation and for correct mg per capsule.
I could also strongly disagree with you as to tableted forms being the best for this type of product. Even most manufacturing facilities, whom would love to have the extra money paid to them for tableting state that it isnt ideal for these types of products. Also, the raw materials are exposed to air in the capsulating/tableting/raw material shipping portions of production enough to where if degredation would occur due to air, it would already be done.
Again, appreciate you ending there on kind words. As far as my paragraph above, I think we may just have to agree to disagree on that.
If you are looking to harden up, some options would be:
- EQ-Plex & E-Stane
- H-Drol & EQ-Plex
- H-Drol & Topical Formestane
For hardening, I would definately add Suppress-C into your PCT.
09-01-2009, 01:31 AM
- 6'1" 220 lbs.
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Rep Power
- Lv. Percent
Thank you for posting all the you guys. That was extremel informative. I really appreciate the section explaining the difference between types I and II anabolics. I especially enjoyed the fact that the whole conversation was kept very professional and mature throughout the thread. That goes to show we are not all a bunch of big dumb meatheads.
But thank you again igoriginal and CompEdgeLabs for your extremely informative posts.
And I look foreward to my next CEL cycle which after reading this thread will almost definately contain EQ-Plex.
Oh yeah...Best of luck to igoriginal on his Havoc/EQ-Plex cycle.
09-01-2009, 01:49 AM
- 6'1" 220 lbs.
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Rep Power
- Lv. Percent
Oops nevermind the part about type I and II anabolic explanations. That was another post. Its late and Ive been reading on here for a while. My bad.
But Great Posts none the less!!!
09-01-2009, 03:19 PM
I appreciate your kind words for both me and the CEL representative on here.
I personally still have MUCH to learn, and I believe that the only way in which discussions can remain civil within these threads is when we regularly admit to ourselves that NO ONE knows everything. Everyone, big and small, contains a bit of knowledge that someone else may lack. No single person has every piece of the puzzle within their posession. Only through sharing, discussing and constructive and well-informed debating can we all hope to continue on our path of a steadily-evolving field of fitness / bodybuilding. And, therefor, everyone....you, me, him, her....plays a crucial role in the learning process and the furthering of the advancement of sports / performance sciences. When we shut people out with our egos, we ultimately shoot our OWN personal path of knowlede in our proverbial foot.
That having been said, I suppose I owe a few of the readers of this thread an apology, as I've promised to keep you good folks in the loop on my "cycle" with Havoc / EQ-Plex. So, much thanks goes to Breeze for sending me this recent reply today, reminding me that I abandoned my posting without a satisfying conclusion of reporting my proposed cycle.
Here's how my (experimental) cycle went:
- Week #1:
I first "prepped" my body for the upcoming cycle by up-regulating the total number of available androgenic receptor sites within my skeletal muscle. This is done by doing a short-duration (one week) load of ARACHIDONIC ACID (an "omega-6 fatty acid"). I stress the statement "short-duration", because with prolonged and elevated intakes, arachidonic acid (and most other omega 6's) is a highly pro-inflammatory compound and is one of the primary nutritional causes of increased blood pressure, joint stiffness, arthritis, insulin disfunction / diabetic diseases, cardio-pulmonary (heart / lung / circulatory) problems, and other related conditions where inflammation plays a pivotal role in the progression of such diseases.
It is no coincidence, then, that when we get stressed out or overtrained, for example, the extra production of negative stress hormones (such as cortisol) act on our physiology by allowing pro-inflammatory fatty acids such as arachidonic acid to have a greater effect on our bodies (break down of tissue, inflammation, swelling, etc), while inhibiting anti-inflammatory fatty acids (such as the Omega-3 fatty acids). Although this is a short-term defense mechanism, if not kept in check, becomes chronic or rampant and can lead to your gradual yet eventual demise! No kidding! Stress and inflammation KILLS! Quite literally!
However, ironically, arachidonic acid (along with the rest of the omega-6 family) is one of the primary "gateway" chemical-mediated signal molecules that control the quality of your androgenic (hypertrophic muscle growth) responses! Without efficient utilization of omega-6 fatty acids, you CANNOT theoretically build huge muscles. No matter HOW hard you push yourself!
In fact, in recent studies performed by independent universities and medical establishments such as the Mayo Clinic and published in peer-reviewed literature such as the New England Journal of Medicine, biopsies of various genetically varied human muscle tissues were conducted to see why some people have BETTER "muscle genetics" (mesomorphic) than others. The startling find shows that muscularly-genetically superior humans (mesomorphs) utilize arachidonic acid at much higher rates than "hard-gainers." It is one of the first solid studies done which indicate strong evidence that genetic variants in muscle growth even effect nutritional uptake of specific compounds!
Of course, this may then conversly explain why many genetically-gifted (mesomorphic) bodybuilders....the largest of the bunch....have heart trouble later in life. The same genetic affinity for omega-6 utilization that made them huge, also made them more likely to have health problems down the line. These genetic freaks have higher instances of inflammatory-mediated diseases as they age. I guess the sword cuts both ways.
What does this all mean in a nutshell? That how well we utilize specific fatty acids, specifically omega-6 fatty acids, will determine how easy it is for us to build muscle beyond the basic need for human survival. In short, if you lack the ability to utilize these fatty acids effectively, then you are prone to living out your life as a mediocre "HARD-GAINER!"
But fear not, because these same studies show that the hurdles of genetic use of these compounds can be partially overcome by INCREASING our consumption of these acids. At least in short bursts, to prevent permanent damage to your health. In nature, arachidonic acid is found in high abundance within specific meat souces, such as "red meat" bovine animals (beef, buffalo, etc), eggs and dairy products, for example. This may partially explain why some bodybuilders SWEAR by eating large amounds of steak as their means of getting "huge." Obviously, there is some nutritional truth to these claims.
But unfortunately, for the rest of the hard-gainers to cross the nutritional threshold of omega-6 utilization, they would have to GORGE on these meats beyond all normal means in order to obtain the amounds needed to produce a meaningful result. And they'll most likely get FAT faster from the grossly elevated calorie intake, before they ingest enough arachidonic acid to grow muscles beyond their genetic limitations. (Hence, why many hard-gainers require high-calorie "bulking" cycles if they are to add any meaningful amounts of muscle).
But for those wishing to stay lean while "fixing" this hurdle? Simple. By consuming a sole high-quality pharmaceutical source of arachidonic acid (without added calories) in gel-cap form. (I say "gel-cap", because unless the contents are enterically sealed, the fatty acids will turn rancid and spoil quickly). One of my favorite supplements for arachidonic acid intake is Molecular Nutrition's "X Factor." Although I am not promoting a particular supplement, just giving an example. No doubt, there are quite a few companies that probably manufacture high-quality arachidonic acid gel-caps. But they are NOT common, as who would see the face value of ingesting a pro-inflammatory agent from the standard medical "wellness" community? So you have to do a good search. Also, I am not personally recommending the use of this product, just sharing information, and what I've experimented with for myself. If you are ALREADY prone to having high blood pressure, heart-related problems, inflammatory diseases (arthritis, diabetes, liver disfunction, kidney disfunction, immune disorders), this may not be a smart choice. It is up to you to make an educated and informed decision. Just know that, as always, less is more. And it helps if your blood tests show that when off of a cycle, you have otherwise healthy, non-abnormal parameters and no traces of any serious medical complications. Don't use a supplement that adds on to an already existing problem. Muscle is cool, but the value of your life is much cooler.
Besides, even a FOOD source of arachidonic acid (such as steak and eggs) is better than nothing. You certainly can't lose with this mentality, as these sources provide ANOTHER valuable exogenous compound....CREATINE.
So, there you have it. If you don't gain muscle quickly, chances are you need to "wake up" your androgen receptors. Even if you take the most POWERFUL illegal injectables, if your genetic physiology cannot overcome the hurdle of omega-6 fatty acid utilization and androgen up-regulation, then NOTHING will work well like it's supposed to. NOTHING.
I will be posting Week #2 tomorrow. Thanks.
Similar Forum Threads
- By CompEdgeLabs in forum Company PromotionsReplies: 5Last Post: 05-18-2009, 04:20 PM
- By CompEdgeLabs in forum Company PromotionsReplies: 9Last Post: 05-10-2009, 10:12 PM
- By CompEdgeLabs in forum Company PromotionsReplies: 4Last Post: 05-01-2009, 07:27 PM
- By CompEdgeLabs in forum Company PromotionsReplies: 1Last Post: 05-01-2009, 06:51 PM
- By ReaperX in forum AnabolicsReplies: 55Last Post: 03-14-2008, 01:04 PM