EQ vs. 1-test cyp
- Thread starter Chuck
- Start date
SonOfThor
New member
I think its because nobody makes a veteranary-grade 1-test cyp injectable yet. That and the old addage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Who's going to spend any money on studies on the effectiveness of 1-test cyp on animals and so on when the work has already been done for EQ?
That's just my opinion, anyhow.
That's just my opinion, anyhow.
spoofy
Member
when I was on 1-test .. i had all types of breathing issues.
EQ causes an increase in the production of red blood cells. you can get more oxygen in and so on.. If I had to pick between the two.. I would go with EQ.. there is more research behind it then 1-test... and from personal experence.. I feel like crap on 1-test.
EQ causes an increase in the production of red blood cells. you can get more oxygen in and so on.. If I had to pick between the two.. I would go with EQ.. there is more research behind it then 1-test... and from personal experence.. I feel like crap on 1-test.
bigpetefox
Board Sponsor
ps24eva said:
The chemical name for 1-test is dihydroboldenone, but there may be abit more to it than just coincidence in such a term..
jminis
Well-known member
SonOfThor said:
Your right you didn't know. You also answered my question. EQ is far better ask anyone bro. CHUCK who started the thread asked how they compare mg for mg and I answered. If you had two choices EQ or 1test cyp which would you choose? No one would say 1test cyp. I can answer this question because I have done both you on the other hand obviously have not so you have no right answering this question. One of these compounds causes serious shutdown, and causes extreme lethargy. So say they did testing, do you honestly think it would result in optimal performance if given to a horse, don't think so. Don't have to be a scientist to figure that out.
On a final not people take 1test cyp because they can't obtain AAS. You figure out the reason of why that is and get back to me.
Jjaden
New member
SonOfThor said:
Gonna have to disagree with that one bro, there's millions of dollars on the line in horse racing, so I certainly think it's worth spending the money and studies on the animals when one compound may prove more effective than another in aiding the horses.
I'm certain there's many horse trainers and vets VERY interested in all of the new compounds coming out.
ps24eva
Member
jminis said:
it is common knowledge that eq converts to 1test aka dihydroboldenone.
Please research eq and primo on steroidology.com or ask anyone on a good steroid board.
In sum, eq is converted to DHB (aka dihydroboldenone aka 1test) by the same enzymes that convert test to DHT.
P.S. Primo is a DHB (aka dihydroboldenone aka 1test) derivative.
P.S.S. DHB (synonym for 1test) converts to DHT by a unknown mechanism, which sucks, because you can't prevent the conversion. I bet someone knows though somewhere....maybe patrick arnold?
jminis
Well-known member
I knew what it converted to my question, (which I should of been more specific) was what you said about how much was "a good portion". If a good portion is converted then both EQ and primo would cause excessive shutdown like 1test. No?? Instead both compounds are the opposite.
SonOfThor
New member
Just for the record, I'd choose EQ as well. I mean it increases RBC, supposedly has a great effect on collagen synthesis, and boasts a good androgenic:anabolic ratio, as well as not aromatizing directly into estrogen.. It slices, it dices, it makes you coffee in the morning and tucks you in at night!
I'm just saying that I don't think a whole hell of alot of resarch has been done into 1-test or any of these newer steroidal compounds that we're all using as human guinea pigs..
Could be that there is a thereputic use for 1-test.. who knows?
I'm just saying that I don't think a whole hell of alot of resarch has been done into 1-test or any of these newer steroidal compounds that we're all using as human guinea pigs..
Could be that there is a thereputic use for 1-test.. who knows?
bigpetefox
Board Sponsor
Why would you want boldenone to convert into 1-test? Trust me, boldenone has its benefits over 1-test, anytime.. Besides, it's mere speculation as to how much of it converts, there is a reason why Pharmaceutical companies didn't pick up dihydroboldenone for any medical reason..ps24eva said:
ps24eva
Member
bigpetefox said:Why would you want boldenone to convert into 1-test? Trust me, boldenone has its benefits over 1-test, anytime.. Besides, it's mere speculation as to how much of it converts, there is a reason why Pharmaceutical companies didn't pick up dihydroboldenone for any medical reason..
There is NO speculation on how bold converts to 1test.
It is done by the good old 5a-reductase enzymes (Type I and II).
As to why I want bold to convert to 1test...a portion of eq's anabolic activity is from the conversion to 1test. Especially considering that eq isn't that anabolic in the first place, I wouldn't want to lose any of its anabolic activity.
IMO, for those saying that eq is better that 1test, must realize that theoretically, 1test plus dbol will equal massive gains, even more so that eq plus dbol for a multitude of reasons.
jminis
Well-known member
ps24eva said:
EQ gains tend to be more solid and more easily kept. Especially with it's effect on your appetite you could eat a horse on the stuff (no pun intended
) It increases protein synthesis, doesn't touch your sex drive, doesn't sap you of your will to live like 1test, it's hands down better. And as Pete said above there's a reason these pharm. companies didn't pursue it. I understand what your saying but how much it converts is unknown and in my eyes it's very low. I think 1test is a great compound no doubt about it and I've used it with great success, but it's sides are horrible. This is it's downfall.
DragonRider
Active member
What land did I step into here? I can't believe anyone thinks a PH is comparable in any way, shape or form to real steroids.
jjjd
Active member
you can definitely make a favorable comparison. m1t for example, is exceptionally powerful. it may not be AAS by legal definitions, but it is as potent is not more so than many respected AAS orals.
your body does not know whether a compound is a (as defined by law) PH, PS, AAS, or whatever. it just responds (or doesn't) to the compounds.
we have approached the point in PH/PS's (concomitant with their impending ban) where they are in the same ballpark as AAS'
your body does not know whether a compound is a (as defined by law) PH, PS, AAS, or whatever. it just responds (or doesn't) to the compounds.
we have approached the point in PH/PS's (concomitant with their impending ban) where they are in the same ballpark as AAS'
DragonRider
Active member
ps24eva said:
Has anyone heard of a little thing called the steroid control act which classified steroids as shedule II and III drugs on the federal drug schedule.
No offense to anyone, but if it was a steroid it would be illegal to sell it without a prescription.
It's a (PH) ProHormone.
Once more, no offense, but the only people who would call a PH stronger than a real steroid are the shysters who steal your hard earned money and people who have never tried real steroids.
DragonRider
Active member
BigVrunga said:
I'd love to be there if you ever make that plunge then. Not only will you **** and fall back in it from the sheer pleasure in the difference, but someone will need to stop you from bombing your local PH store.
Sir Foxx
Active member
Dragon, I suggest you do more research before talking about things you obviously know very little about. 1-Test was steroid that was developed by a pharmaceutical company in the 60's. Due to its high side effect profile it was never developed commercially. It has slipped into the OTC market. Definition time: Pro-Hormone: is a substance that requires conversion in the body by enzymatic processes to the target hormone. Steroid: A substance(hormone) that is intrinistincally(sp?) active, requiring no conversion in the body, which is what 1-Test(in all its forms) is. These are simplistic definitions of the subject above.
jjjd
Active member
PS, you are making a classic and common error.
1-test IS a steroid. PA says it is, any chemist worth his salt will agree.
that is to say, it is a steroid CHEMICALLY or Pharmacologically speaking.
Specifically, an anabolic androgenic steroid (AAS).
however, LEGALLY speaking, it is not a steroid. because it has not been classified as such, etc.
if you find this concept hard to grasp, let me give you two analogies.
tomato.
LEGALLY speaking, as determined by the supreme court, for the purposes of commerce (in the 1890's iirc), the tomato is a VEGETABLE.
however, BOTANICALLY speaking, tomatoes are fruits.
ask any botanist, and he will laugh in your face if you try to say a tomato is a vegetable. it is DEFINITELY a fruit, botanically speaking.
another example.
LEGALLY speaking, yohimbine is a DIETARY SUPPLEMENT.
however, pharmacologically speaking, it is a DRUG.
see the difference? the difference is due to DSHEA which defines "dietary supplements". dietary supplements are not treated like drugs (even though many are drugs) and are not classified as such - LEGALLY.
again, this is a common mistake
1-test is DEFINITELY a steroid. pharmacologically, chemically speaking, it is.
LEGALLY speaking, it is not
hth
1-test IS a steroid. PA says it is, any chemist worth his salt will agree.
that is to say, it is a steroid CHEMICALLY or Pharmacologically speaking.
Specifically, an anabolic androgenic steroid (AAS).
however, LEGALLY speaking, it is not a steroid. because it has not been classified as such, etc.
if you find this concept hard to grasp, let me give you two analogies.
tomato.
LEGALLY speaking, as determined by the supreme court, for the purposes of commerce (in the 1890's iirc), the tomato is a VEGETABLE.
however, BOTANICALLY speaking, tomatoes are fruits.
ask any botanist, and he will laugh in your face if you try to say a tomato is a vegetable. it is DEFINITELY a fruit, botanically speaking.
another example.
LEGALLY speaking, yohimbine is a DIETARY SUPPLEMENT.
however, pharmacologically speaking, it is a DRUG.
see the difference? the difference is due to DSHEA which defines "dietary supplements". dietary supplements are not treated like drugs (even though many are drugs) and are not classified as such - LEGALLY.
again, this is a common mistake
1-test is DEFINITELY a steroid. pharmacologically, chemically speaking, it is.
LEGALLY speaking, it is not
hth
bigpetefox
Board Sponsor
1-test needs no chemical reaction to become an active compound because it is already.. Geez, how many M&M''s does it take for people to realize it's not a ph just because it's legal?DragonRider said:
supersoldier
She thinks my traps'rrrr sexy!
:shoot: You stepped into a land of vast knowledge, do some reading and have a look around.DragonRider said:
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
It doesn't require any conversion, unlike a prohormone, and it was classified as a steroid as far back as the 60 and 50s.DragonRider said:
It's a steroid, but it doesn't fall under the DSHEA because it hasn't been used as a medical drug before. That's how it skipped, for now.
BTW, in about 1 month Andro, Norandro, etc. are all legally going to be considered steroids....lol....and schedule III drugs at that.
jjjd
Active member
i fear you are right.
great news on the front as to a nice delay (thanks senator hatch), but delay doesn't mean it aint gonna happen.
i'd also like to point out for all those ninnies blaming the war on drugs on the right and on republcians, that is senator hatch, a republican, who stepped forward and challenged the thing that nobody else will - this ridiculous pseudo-science surrounding ephedra ban, AER's etc.
great news on the front as to a nice delay (thanks senator hatch), but delay doesn't mean it aint gonna happen.
i'd also like to point out for all those ninnies blaming the war on drugs on the right and on republcians, that is senator hatch, a republican, who stepped forward and challenged the thing that nobody else will - this ridiculous pseudo-science surrounding ephedra ban, AER's etc.
Sir Foxx
Active member
Before everyone starts thinking Hatch is this great guy, remember he is pushing for severe prison sentences in music trading on the internet. This from a guy who's own website was caught using stolen code without payment to the original author. He did a good thing here but he's still a piece of ****.
Sir Foxx
Active member
What partianship are you talking about? Look at this guy's overall record on all kinds of things and my statement will make a whole lot more sense. Also, he hasn't saved anything yet. He has just delayed it, probably to come up with something more restrictive. Also, music trading isn't theft in any sense of the word, at most it might, and I repeat might, be copyright infringement, which is a whole lot different than theft. Spare me your lack of knowledge.
jjjd
Active member
because we're not talking about his WHOLE record. we are talking about THIS issue. and calling a guy "a piece of **** " because you disagree with him politically, just shows you to be prone to petty, ad hominem attacks.
i am well aware of hatch's record. i am also aware that HE is the one who has stepped forward on this issue to challenge the bull.
does it just irk you that (like i said) it has not been the democrats who have stepped forward as the bastion of civil rights and freedom they allege to be?
first of all, copyright infringement IS theft. so spare me, about my 'lack of knowledge".
you have no idea what my knowledge is in the legal field, but i have little doubt you would lose in any legal debate with me on either criminal or const. law.
your statement that "He has just delayed it, probably to come up with something more restrictive. " again just shows you grinding your partisan axe.
how do YOU know that he has these nefarious plans? how about judging him for his actions, not your kreskin'esqu mind reading game as to what his real EVIL intentions are?
oh, i forgot. he's a "piece of ****" so he doesn't deserve that consideration, as to judge him on his ACTS, not your mind reading exercises as to his real intentions that you really have no idea about
i am well aware of hatch's record. i am also aware that HE is the one who has stepped forward on this issue to challenge the bull.
does it just irk you that (like i said) it has not been the democrats who have stepped forward as the bastion of civil rights and freedom they allege to be?
first of all, copyright infringement IS theft. so spare me, about my 'lack of knowledge".
you have no idea what my knowledge is in the legal field, but i have little doubt you would lose in any legal debate with me on either criminal or const. law.
your statement that "He has just delayed it, probably to come up with something more restrictive. " again just shows you grinding your partisan axe.
how do YOU know that he has these nefarious plans? how about judging him for his actions, not your kreskin'esqu mind reading game as to what his real EVIL intentions are?
oh, i forgot. he's a "piece of ****" so he doesn't deserve that consideration, as to judge him on his ACTS, not your mind reading exercises as to his real intentions that you really have no idea about
Sir Foxx
Active member
Where do you get I'm a democrat? I vote mostly republican and probably fall closer to libertarian. Since you do not know what Hatch's plans are, why are you so quick to deify him? I take his whole record in account and extrapolate that he is most likely up to no good. It's called deductive reasoning. Might want to read up on it. Copyright infringement is not theft. This point right here makes everything else you say you know questionable. I suggest you read copyright law then get back to me.
jjjd
Active member
i didn't say you were a democrat, #1
#2 i am not deifying anybody. i am lauding him for what he DID, whereas you then call him a "piece of ****" and make wild-ass conjectures about negative possibility as to why he might have done it. wild-ass negative conjecture of course
#3, it's not DEDUCTIVE reasoning, what you did. It's INDUCTIVE reasoning. so, nice try
in deductive reasoning, the conclusion follows NECESSARILY from the premises.
in your example, they do not follow NECESSARILY. it is not a deductively valid argument
it's an example of INDUCTIVE reasoning
i suggest you get a dictionary, or better yet,. a professor of philosophy, specifically analytical reasoning to explain the difference to you
i won't expect an apology for your error. that would take intellectual honesty.
you'll probably evade, or create more strawmen. but at least you can learn what deductive reasoning vs. inductive reasoning actually is
i have read copyright law. i have also testified in civil court on several occasions, but please keep digging yourself a deeper hole.
try to accept you were wrong about deduction vs. induction, and then maybe i can accept you are capable of honest discussion. i'll stand by
#2 i am not deifying anybody. i am lauding him for what he DID, whereas you then call him a "piece of ****" and make wild-ass conjectures about negative possibility as to why he might have done it. wild-ass negative conjecture of course
#3, it's not DEDUCTIVE reasoning, what you did. It's INDUCTIVE reasoning. so, nice try
in deductive reasoning, the conclusion follows NECESSARILY from the premises.
in your example, they do not follow NECESSARILY. it is not a deductively valid argument
it's an example of INDUCTIVE reasoning
i suggest you get a dictionary, or better yet,. a professor of philosophy, specifically analytical reasoning to explain the difference to you
i won't expect an apology for your error. that would take intellectual honesty.
you'll probably evade, or create more strawmen. but at least you can learn what deductive reasoning vs. inductive reasoning actually is
i have read copyright law. i have also testified in civil court on several occasions, but please keep digging yourself a deeper hole.
try to accept you were wrong about deduction vs. induction, and then maybe i can accept you are capable of honest discussion. i'll stand by
