Bold 200 results not typical of Boldenone only cycle results

[hungrylotus]

Why is it that most people in the steroids section recommend against doing an Equipoise only cycle, and the results posted by those who have done it are not as good as the gains reported by people doing equal length Bold cycles?

I don't understand how the results don't equate, especially since the Equipoise only cycles are dosed higher than would be the conversion of Bold.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

[nutsy54]

Why not ask the folks in the Steroid section. . . ?

[Androgen]

Why is it that most people in the steroids section recommend against doing an Equipoise only cycle, and the results posted by those who have done it are not as good as the gains reported by people doing equal length Bold cycles?

I don't understand how the results don't equate, especially since the Equipoise only cycles are dosed higher than would be the conversion of Bold.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

Most people in the steroid section do not exaggerate their gains as much. They also expect more from cycles IMO (since they are using injections, and rightly so).

They also are usually firm believers that you shouldn't run a cycle with test as a base (which I agree with, but unfortunately do not adhere to).

IMO there is no way you will gain more off bold than EQ (unless you use huge doses of bold and microscopic doses of EQ).

[XCriticalBenchX]

Why is it that most people in the steroids section recommend against doing an Equipoise only cycle, and the results posted by those who have done it are not as good as the gains reported by people doing equal length Bold cycles?

I don't understand how the results don't equate, especially since the Equipoise only cycles are dosed higher than would be the conversion of Bold.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

Until you know exactly what you are doing and how your body reacts to every different type of drug, test is a must as a base in every cycle otherwise you will not have all that pleasant of a time.

People reccommend against EQ only cycles the same way they avoid deca only, dbol only, etc. EQ will shut you down, not as hard as deca though.

Stacking EQ with test is best because EQ itself is very very weak unless ran at large doses for long periods of time. It's more of an apperance changer than muscle builder since it causes increased RBC production resulting in a more fuller apperance along with heightened vascularity.

[Rodzilla01]

Why is it that most people in the steroids section recommend against doing an Equipoise only cycle, and the results posted by those who have done it are not as good as the gains reported by people doing equal length Bold cycles?

I don't understand how the results don't equate, especially since the Equipoise only cycles are dosed higher than would be the conversion of Bold.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

IDK, but there could be a few different answers for this:

1. BOLD may have a higher conversion rate than once suspected and therefore people may be taking higher doses than once thought.

2. The people who have used strictly just an EQ cycle may have not used a high enough dose for just EQ by itself.

[VaughnTrue]

it comes down to the fact that Bold200 converts @ 7-10%...which makes 600-800mg/day(normal dosing) converts to 300-420mg/week of Equipose(400mg/day being standard EQ dosing), and 400-560mg/week when using 800mg!




on top of that, Bold200 is used for many peoples first cycle...resulting in large gains

[XCriticalBenchX]

it comes down to the fact that Bold200 converts @ 7-10%...which makes 600-800mg/day(normal dosing) converts to 300-420mg/week of Equipose(400mg/day being standard EQ dosing), and 400-560mg/week when using 800mg!




on top of that, Bold200 is used for many peoples first cycle...resulting in large gains

If you give me enough bottles to run at 1400mg so its around 750mg EQ, for eghh 20 some weeks.. I'll test it out for you! I can do a damn good comparison on that!!!

[v4lu3s]

because most people that use it are NOWHERE near any kind of genetic potential and would make massive gains on ANY steroids.

[derf87]

Sorry to bump this, but I was actually wondering this exact same thing today and I searched the forum and found this thread.

Typical bold cycle is 600mg/day. That's 4.2 grams per week. At a 10% conversion ratio (although I've read as high as 12% is possible) to boldenone you're looking at 420mg boldenone per week.

An Equipoise/Boldenone only steroid cycle of even 600/mg per week is said by people in the AAS section to do basically nothing. So why do people on iForce Bold cycles routinely gain 10-15 leans pounds in those 5 or 6 weeks?

My only guess might be that the slow, STEADY absorption of boldenone in a Bold cycle would be more effective then EQ once or twice a week. I've never done a cycle of anything, pH or steroid. I just have a keen interest in the way things work

[Alec Trevelyan]

because most people that use it are NOWHERE near any kind of genetic potential and would make massive gains on ANY steroids.

This is so true!!!

[GoalsmotivateU]

one can theorize all they want, all that matters is it works and is safe. and as good and doing a normal eq cycle. doesn't get much better than that

[XCriticalBenchX]

one can theorize all they want, all that matters is it works and is safe. and as good and doing a normal eq cycle. doesn't get much better than that

Although bold may be a solid Ph choice, gains for sides wise, I do not think you can equally compare it's gains to eq itself.

Try running EQ, then bold, then answer that question. But aside from the comparison, bold is a solid product.