yea, thats not going to happen...because of the INSANE price point (You're talking about a $150 bottle), and the fact that 1600-2000mg/day of this stuff would be extremely unhealthy.
Any more unhealthy than just 400-600mg of EQ? Maybe since being oral it could stress the liver out, I could see that. But if EQ is so benign, (assuming you are taking Nattokinase or some other anti-coagulant to keep blood healthy as well as calcium channel blockers) I'm trying to understand how something that converts to even less amounts of the same target hormone would be any more unhealthy, unless you are suggesting a moderate dose of EQ is extremely unhealthy.
-Stressing the liver I can understand, and therefore maybe cholesterol issues too
-Perhaps the pre-cursor hormones have side effects on their own?
I have a difference of opinion with this idea that somehow the less potent, less effective pre-cursors to target steroids are a safer option than the banned, well-studied and modestly-priced steroids. I think we've all bought into the idea that the more effective a steroid is, the more harmful it is. At mg for mg comparisons, this may be true. But we overlook the fact that more effective steroids do not require as high of dosages to get similar results as do the weaker ones.
Trestolone Acetate and Testosterone P/E/C come to mind. You'd have to run 1000mg/wk of Test to get similar results from only 300-400mg/wk of Trestolone. Similar stories can be heard between pro-hormones and actual steroids.
That said, I remember the pro-steroid Dienolone, which behaved a bit differently than straight Dienolone. One was dry and one was wet. Both were ridiculously good at increasing muscle fullness, hardness and strength though. The point is that the pre-cursor has side effects all on its own that the daughter and target steroid did not.
Anyways, it was just my opinion, which is grounded in research and experience, but certainly not 100% fact-based.
