Equipoise can produce androgenic side effects such as acne, accelerated hair loss in those predisposed to male pattern baldness and body hair growth. However, the overall androgenicity of this steroid is greatly reduced due to the structural nature that creates EQ in its double bond at the carbon one and two position. Such side effects of Equipoise are still possible, but they will be strongly linked to genetic predisposition, but most will find the threshold is fairly high.
When combating the possible androgenic side effects of Equipoise, it’s important to note they are brought on by the steroid being metabolized by the 5-alpha reductase enzyme. This metabolism will reduce Boldenone to an extremely potent androgen in dihydroboldenone, far more potent than dihydrotestosterone (DHT); however, the total dihydroboldenone activity has proven to be extremely low in human beings. You will further find the androgenic nature of Boldenone will not be significantly affected by 5-alpha reductase inhibitors like Finasteride that are often used to combat the reduction to DHT.
Due to the androgenic nature of Equipoise, women may potentially experience virilization symptoms. Virilization symptoms may include body hair growth, a deepening of the vocal chords and clitoral enlargement. However, the low androgenicity will make this steroid possible to use for some women without such symptoms. At the same time, the extremely slow acting nature of the compound can make it difficult to control regarding blood levels, and alternative steroids may be preferred. Without question, individual sensitivity will dictate a lot. If Equipoise is used and virilization symptoms begin to show, use should be discontinued immediately at their onset and they will fade away. If symptoms begin to show and are ignored, the symptoms may become irreversible.
Clinical research which poses net risks raises important ethical concern. Net-risk studies raise concern that subjects are being used as mere means to collect information to benefit future patients. Research procedures that pose net risks may seem to raise less concern when they are embedded within a study which offers a favorable risk-benefit profile overall. Yet, since these procedures pose net risks, and since the investigators could provide subjects with the new potential treatment alone, they require justification. An investigator who is about to insert a needle into a research subject to obtain some blood purely for laboratory purposes faces the question of whether doing so is ethically justified, even when the procedure is included in a study that offers subjects the potential for important medical benefit. The goal of ethical analyses of clinical research is to provide an answer. Clinical research poses three types of net risks: absolute, relative, and indirect (Rid and Wendler 2011). Absolute net risks arise when the risks of an intervention or procedure are not justified by its potential clinical benefits. Most commentators focus on this possibility with respect to research procedures which pose some risks and offer no chance of clinical benefit, such as blood draws to obtain cells for laboratory studies. Research with healthy volunteers is another example which frequently offers no chance for clinical benefit. Clinical research also poses absolute net risks when it offers a chance for clinical benefit which is not sufficient to justify the risks subjects face. A kidney biopsy to obtain tissue from presumed healthy volunteers may offer some very low chance of identifying an unrecognized and treatable pathology. This intervention nonetheless poses net risks if the chance for clinical benefit for the subjects is not sufficient to justify the risks of their undergoing the biopsy.