# EQ or DECA to stack with sust?



## repoj (Sep 30, 2004)

I have some amps of sust with some winnie to stack toward the end of the cycle.  After some research and more than numerouse suggestions from friends and you guys, 250 mg's per week is to low a dose for my body frame, as is anything under 400mg's. I was thinking to stack the sust with either Deca or EQ. Wht would you guys suggest, one or the other?


----------



## ZorroAzul (Oct 1, 2004)

I am glad that now you agree 250/week is too little.

from my own experience, I got much better results stacking the sustanon with 400 deca for 10 weeks than I did with 600 EQ for 14 weeks... 

But why even bother to stack with something else? Just get more sustanon, that's all you need.


----------



## repoj (Oct 1, 2004)

I can get the deca from a personal source withing about two weeks or so, I can get more sust from a very relaiable inline source that I got what I have from, but it would cost more and take longer. I would love to get more sust but my friend's supplier doesn't offer sust that I know of.


----------



## BUSTINOUT (Oct 3, 2004)

IMHO deca sucks and prefer EQ...but thats just me.


----------



## repoj (Oct 3, 2004)

Why do you prefer EQ over Deca? I haven't tried either but I hear that Deca is great with test and EQ is great for a cutting cycle. What do you think would be a good stack?


----------



## Mudge (Oct 3, 2004)

Isn't this your first cycle?

You are probably going to like one or the other better for your own reasons, I could live without ever seeing deca again.


----------



## repoj (Oct 3, 2004)

I have noticed that Deca has kindof a bad rap around here. What's up with that? What's so bad with deca?


----------



## repoj (Oct 3, 2004)

By the way, this is for my next cycle, I want to get more sust and stack it with either deca or EQ. EQ is starting to look good but Deca has allot of old time popularity, I need the pro's and cons of both.


----------



## Mudge (Oct 3, 2004)

Yep deca was pretty popular back in the 70s and I'm sure the 80s as well.


----------



## TrojanMan60563 (Oct 4, 2004)

Repoj I don't think people here don't like deca, but comparing the results to tren which seems to be the thing around here its not as effective. I have not used it so I can't tell you from experience, but deca is a milder drug then say tren


----------



## Mudge (Oct 4, 2004)

Around here? Tren blows deca away anywhere. The only people that dont like tren are those that can't deal with sides they get from it, mine were always mild.


----------



## TrojanMan60563 (Oct 4, 2004)

Mudge said:
			
		

> Around here? Tren blows deca away anywhere. The only people that dont like tren are those that can't deal with sides they get from it, mine were always mild.



Ok people now days choose stronger anabolics like trent rather then something mild like deca.


----------



## ZorroAzul (Oct 5, 2004)

Mudge said:
			
		

> Around here? Tren blows deca away anywhere. The only people that dont like tren are those that can't deal with sides they get from it, mine were always mild.




That's a little extremist Mudge.

If what you are looking for is a milder steroid, with great results for a newbie and basically zero side effects, then DECA "blows tren anywhere".  My first cycle was deca +test, and it was very satisfied with the gains and lack of side effects, except for increased acne which developed when I added the test to the cycle.

I cannot speak from experience regarding Tren, never used it.  But from what I have read about it, it is a wonderful drug for those willing to tolerate the sides. some of us aren't willing to do it.


----------



## Mudge (Oct 5, 2004)

Sides depend on the person, at 100mg ED I had some issues sleeping.

My first cycle was test and nothing but, dont need deca to be happy.


----------



## LAM (Oct 5, 2004)

repoj said:
			
		

> By the way, this is for my next cycle, I want to get more sust and stack it with either deca or EQ. EQ is starting to look good but Deca has allot of old time popularity, I need the pro's and cons of both.



you can use EQ in a bulking or cutting cycle...it is a better compound than deca and while it does supress the HPTA it is a hell of a lot easier to come back from EQ than Deca.  It takes some people 3-6 months to get back to normal after using Deca.  you NEVER hear about that happening with EQ...

I would use EQ with Test since test decreaes collagen synthesis and EQ increases it...


----------



## ZorroAzul (Oct 6, 2004)

What is the correct proportion for EQ/Test??  Last cycle I ran 600 Eq/ 250 sustanon and I only put on 10 lbs after 14 weeks.

I am thinking of next one 500 test cyp, 500 EQ, what do you think?    I ran first cycle 10 weeks 500 sustanon 400 deca and shitty diet, put on 15 lbs easily....  ¿?


----------



## repoj (Oct 6, 2004)

See now I'm going between two different decisions here. On e end Deca is old school and VERY trustworthy like your experience Zorro, on the other EQ arromatizes very poorly and gives pretty good gains over time and I hear that the sides for EQ are less than Deca. I'm beginning to believe that this cimes down to personal preference.


----------



## LAM (Oct 6, 2004)

ZorroAzul said:
			
		

> What is the correct proportion for EQ/Test??  Last cycle I ran 600 Eq/ 250 sustanon and I only put on 10 lbs after 14 weeks.



you weren't eating enough...

I don't think there is a certain ratio that should be used it really depends on what your goals are and how many cycles you have done and how much LBM you have....


----------



## Mudge (Oct 6, 2004)

Food is king.


----------



## pop (Oct 7, 2004)

iam gonna run test and eq for first cycle with 1-4 d-bol, deca would give me 2 much bloat higher bp aswell.


----------



## TrojanMan60563 (Oct 7, 2004)

Pop test and Dbol have more risk of raising your BP then decca.


----------



## repoj (Oct 8, 2004)

after carefull concideration on both issues, I'm thinking of doing my first real cycle with sust and EQ. I like what I'v heard from both but I wanna give EQ a try. If I change my mind guys, can you all give me a hint as to how much to use of both. I'm thinking about 250 mg's of sust-1 amp-, and 200 mg's of EQ every week adding up to 450 mg's. I figured I would do the same for the Deca if I decide to use that instead. Feedback anybody-please


----------



## LAM (Oct 8, 2004)

if you are running a 10 week cycle I would use at least 400-500 mg/wk of EQ...

and through in B-6 @ 200 mg/ED during the whole cycle


----------



## Mudge (Oct 8, 2004)

Something like that at least, EQ is not a strong compound by any means. Run it long and run it hard or dont bother


----------



## ZorroAzul (Oct 8, 2004)

Mudge said:
			
		

> Something like that at least, EQ is not a strong compound by any means. Run it long and run it hard or dont bother



Define long and hard please (without reference to anyone's genitals!)     I am considering extending my EQ Cycle since it was such a letdown, and I am going to increase the calories as LAM recommended.  is 20 weeks 600mg EQ too much???  I am @ week 15 and last shot next Monday.


----------



## pop (Oct 8, 2004)

without  the  deca  i  might  not  explode  then


----------



## Mudge (Oct 8, 2004)

ZorroAzul said:
			
		

> is 20 weeks 600mg EQ too much???  I am @ week 15 and last shot next Monday.



EQ by itself would be a complete ass waste of time, its way too mild a compound IMO. 600mg would be the dead minimum I would use and thats what I'm on now, its kind of nice but its NOT tren, or even test for that matter and I get very little from either of those now in terms of "oh shit this is magic."

I dont view it as worth the price for what I'm looking for, which is gains. If you want to see your veins its nice  and if you want strength then run it 800mg plus and it will show something after week 5.


----------



## LAM (Oct 8, 2004)

ZorroAzul said:
			
		

> Define long and hard please (without reference to anyone's genitals!)     I am considering extending my EQ Cycle since it was such a letdown, and I am going to increase the calories as LAM recommended.  is 20 weeks 600mg EQ too much???  I am @ week 15 and last shot next Monday.



nah...you can run EQ for extended perioids so 20 weeks isn't too long


----------



## TrojanMan60563 (Oct 8, 2004)

Everywhere I read about EQ its profile says people run it around 200mg per week...sounds like that would be a waste of money and time when I hear everybody talking about running 600mg+


----------



## LAM (Oct 8, 2004)

I don't know where you are getting 200 mg/wk.  there used to be a time when people would only use 200 mg/wk because EQ only came in 25 and 50 mg/ml so the dosage was the limiting factor as frequent and high volume injections were needed to achieve high blood level concentrations.  now with EQ being available at 200 and 300 mg/ml people are using higher dosages.

I just started a cycle using EQ at 800 mg/wk...


----------



## Mudge (Oct 8, 2004)

TrojanMan60563 said:
			
		

> Everywhere I read about EQ its profile says people run it around 200mg per week...sounds like that would be a waste of money and time when I hear everybody talking about running 600mg+



This has to be Bill Llewellen, because it will increase your RBC count so much you will die from it. 

Match it to the test dose at a minimum IMO, if you are going for a very long cycle then I'd probably be more flexible on it, but thats just my take on it so far. It isn't tren and I would not even run tren at such a low dose.


----------



## LAM (Oct 8, 2004)

plus EQ is just not that strong of a steroid, it is predominately an anabolic with a very low/moderate androgenic propeties...you need to use a decent amount especially if you have a lot of LBM and 200 mg/wk is not a decent amount...


----------



## TrojanMan60563 (Oct 8, 2004)

well then when would I want to employ EQ? When and why would I want to use it? I suppose I will give it all a go down the road and I'm sure everyone reacts differently to EQ but I want to know what phase in my diet would EQ benefits me most?


----------



## Mudge (Oct 8, 2004)

If you dont see a reason to use it then dont. Even many of the highly powerfull steroids would be used over 200mg a week, so I dont know why you bought into this logic with a weak steroid 

You'll find people using more than that of anadrol per day, as an example.


----------



## TrojanMan60563 (Oct 8, 2004)

Mudge I didn't make the comment to start a conflict....I just want to know when in a diet phase would EQ benefit a BBer the most. Or be most effective. I want to give everything a fair shake eventually, but I'm just trying to determine when EQ is best administered.


----------



## LAM (Oct 8, 2004)

EQ increases nitrogen retention so that aids in muscle protein synthesis.  and since it also increases RBC it will have a positive effect on endurance.  EQ will aromtize very little so there is no associated bloated and/or increase in body fat.  the gains are slow but solid.  depending on the diet EQ can be stacked with test to bulk or aid in cutting....it is a very usefull compound with low sides...


----------



## Mudge (Oct 8, 2004)

TrojanMan60563 said:
			
		

> I want to give everything a fair shake eventually, but I'm just trying to determine when EQ is best administered.



Who said anything about conflict? You can take any drug you want, whenever you want. It does aromatize so I probably wouldn't take it during contest time, then again I dont compete so I would not know, because there are guys who take anadrol around contest time.


----------



## Just a guy (Oct 9, 2004)

U have to use a shit load of EQ.. thats just my opinion.. im on 1,200mg's a week and im luvin it... but christ.  That seems like alot.


----------



## TrojanMan60563 (Oct 10, 2004)

would switching from 10-12 weeks of deca to EQ for another period of 10-12 weeks cause the recovery from deca less? Test would be ran the entire length. My thought here is running the drugs that shut you down the worst first then move on to a milder drug. During a long cycle like that HCG would be used for multiple weeks during the cycle. Any opinions on this?


----------



## Mudge (Oct 10, 2004)

Are you asking if running a 24 week cycle is better than 12 weeks in terms of recovery?


----------



## BUSTINOUT (Oct 10, 2004)

Just a guy said:
			
		

> U have to use a shit load of EQ.. thats just my opinion.. im on 1,200mg's a week and im luvin it... but christ.  That seems like alot.



I'd say choose another drug next time.  If you have to shoot that much EQ to see anything, then EQ may not be the drug for you.


----------



## TrojanMan60563 (Oct 10, 2004)

Mudge I see how that looks...but what I was trying to say rather then running deca the entire time would splitting the cycle deca first then end the long cycle with EQ make an easier recovery then using deca the whole time. Does that make sense? I know the longer the cycle of anything the long its going to take to get back to normal....but I am trying to find out if going from deca to EQ would make things easier to recover from?


----------



## Mudge (Oct 10, 2004)

6 weeks of each? I wouldn't bother.

One technique sometimes used though is simply dropping deca 2 weeks before the cycle ends.


----------



## TrojanMan60563 (Oct 10, 2004)

I mean running like a 24 week cycle with a base of test.....but using Deca the first half then switch to EQ the last half....would recovery be easier then if you used deca the whole time?


----------

