Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Considering Short-Cycling - Opinions Please (no bullshit)

Silent Method

Silent Method

New member
READ FIRST: I am considering running a sequence of short cycles. I am seeking any opinions, experiences, theories, and methods pertinent to SHORT-CYCLING!

IF you want to argue issues RELATING to one another's experiences, theories, and methods in regard to short cycles, BY ALL MEANS PLEASE DO SO! Hell, even if character issues come into play, fine, AS LONG AS IT RELATES DIRECTLY TO THE TOPIC!

IF you seek to initiate off topic arguments or simply bitch and moan because the entire Elite Fitness community does not fully agree everything you've ever contributed, go away.



If we cannot handle this, I'll cut my loses, delete this thread myself, and try again.



Thanks in advance for your opinions guys. I must say that I'm teetering back towards using a traditional cycle. Lets get the opinions flowing.
 
Do you have any idea yet as to your short cycle, I am sure everyone else would like to know what you have so far or what you at least are thinking about doing.

Bump!
 
Sure. Like I said though, I'm back to considering a full out cycle as well. (Damn you BigAndy!! J/K :D)


First, let is be said that money is always an issue. I'm putting myself through school. Given the choice in regard to what I'm looking for, I'd simply buy some low androgenic high anabolic goodies and shoot/swallow away.


Short cycle, I'm thinking a very simple 2-3 week d-bol run, followed by 3-5 weeks off. In the past, d-bol didn't seem to hit me very hard in regard androgenic side effects. It's positive effects however were unreal. I'd consider others as well.


Traditional cycle, I'm considering good 'ol test or a test/EQ stack between a half and one whole gram injectable(s) per week total with d-bol.
 
are you going to take anything on your weeks off after the 2-3 week run, or do you feel it unnecessary to do so? And is it only one 2-3 week run or several runs?
 
Hehe, :)

I've tried just about every cycle and I stand by my statements (I think I elaborated quite a bit on the other thread)

Short Cycle: Great for mass perservation with minimal sides, ie efficient cutting.

Long Cycles: Great for muscle Building and adapting to extra weight.

What I don't understand is guys using heavy doses of Tren and Test in short cycles. This goes agains the whole principle.

There are 3 main short cycle philosophies:

1- Up and down Cycles

This is mainly for guys who stay on YEAR ROUND, you jack the doses up for 3-4 weeks or so, back down for a cruise period (still on gear the entire time). It's great for people who have been on gear a long time.

2- Efficient Cutting Cycles

If you have a few lbs of fat to lose, this is great, Start dieting drug free for 2-3 weeks, add some clen, and then maybe some anavar or dbol+arimidex or susp for 3 weeks. Fast acting drugs only and try to use less suppressive/anti catabolic AS and a fairly low dose.

3- Shouldn't-be-using-AS-in-the-first-place Cycles

This is a new trend on elitefitness, 3 week on/ 3-5weeks off cycles. Results are not very permanent and doses are usually low althought some people use high doses. This is usually for users who think they are not hurting themselves and are smarter then other BBers. Truth is they are wasting there time and shouldn't be using AS in the first place.
 
BigAndy69, have you tried a 2 week cycle yourself. Why do you insist that it is a waste of time. Please explain to me why you think it is so bad. Im thinking of trying a two weeker, which Nelson has written about and advocates. He claims that the results are pretty much opposite of what you just explained. I would like as much feedback before i go trying this.
 
serbstyle1 said:
BigAndy69, have you tried a 2 week cycle yourself. Why do you insist that it is a waste of time. Please explain to me why you think it is so bad. Im thinking of trying a two weeker, which Nelson has written about and advocates. He claims that the results are pretty much opposite of what you just explained. I would like as much feedback before i go trying this.
Click to expand...

Never tried a 2 week cycle, tried 3 week cycles.

Every good bodybuilder I know thinks they are a waste of time.

They give the false impression of safety. If you want to be safe, you should do only one, 12-16 week cycle a year and add a 1-2 short 3 weekers for LBM perservation when cutting. That's the best way to maximize your gains and stay safe.

It takes time for the body to accept and adapt to new weight. It just doesn't happen in 2 weeks. You will most likely end up losing most of your gains in the end when you come off. (maybe not right away but it will happen)

Here's my cycle philosophy for adding mass:

-Phase 1: 7-8 weeks

Most muscle mass is added in 7-8 weeks.

For me doses stay at around 1500mg these initial weeks.

Calories are very high and Training is intense and brutal. That's when the 405lb incline press, 600lb deads..etc comes into play. Very Brutal. People are scared of me at this time, and they know to let me do my thing and back off. Very heavy weights and eye popping intensity.

After about 8 weeks, my joints can't take the brutal training and I've added most of the weight I'm going to add.

-Phase 2: 1-2 weeks

I keep calories high, training volume is slightly reduced, bad foods are cut out, cardio is upped slightly.

-Phase 3: 3-4 weeks

Focus is on strenght, volume is reduced, this helps the body adapt to gains.

AS switched to fast acting and lowered dose.

-Phase 4: 2 weeks

Focus is on strenght, carbohydrates reduced, volume is lowered

Very low dose; usually 40mg of Anavar only. Anavar helps me bounce back easier than other AS

-Phase 5: 2 weeks

PCT: Clen, HCG, Arimidex.

-Phase 6: 3 weeks

PCT: Clomid and Arimidex
 
BigAndy, what if you are an athlete like me and can only use short esters because of drug testing. You dont think a short 5-6 week prop cycle would be beneficial for gaining mass and strength???
 
Clean, if I do the short cycle, it'd be a series.

dzuljas, 5-6 weeks is, IMO a short traditional cycle. I think they can have positive benifit, but the question is, is that benifit cut short by stopping at 5 or six weeks? If utilizing short esters anyway, what matter if you run the cycle longer, given the opportunity?


BigAndy, I fully aree with the theory of "solidifying gains" through the functional use of cycle length. I think I have needed to re-assess just what my aim is in regard to AAS.

In regard to my interest, short versus long cycle "safety" is not my concern. Rather, long cycle "unpleasantries" are. As I stated before, specifically acne is my concern.

I've been considering the issue with quite some focus for the past few days. I think I'm comming to realize what I had known better in the past. If the "unpleasantry" of acne outweighs the positive effect of a mass cycle - don't do a mass cycle!


In regard to what I'm going to do, I've not made up my mind. I will say I'm shifting toward exploring acne control methods I've not yet tried.
 
I did a 2 week cycle and thought it was decent...

Honestly, silent, it's only 3 weeks we are talking about... it's such a small amount of time and gear that it would be easy for you to simply try it and see how it works out for you personally and the particular goals you are trying to achieve.

Go into it with realistic goals (as i'm sure you will) and i doubt you will be disappointed.
 
Lift Chief, you just echoed the sentiments expressed by Burning_Inside in a PM to me. I aree in theory, that it'd be cheap enough for me to run the short cycle and see for myself. However, if I do the short cycles and wish to assess them with any value, I feel I should run them in a sequential manner for a minimum of 3 minicycles. Assuming a 3 week on followed by a 3 week off phase, this would mean about 18 weeks worth of assessment!

I could do a quality mass cycle that I already KNOW works wel in less than those 18 weeks.
 
This is a new trend on elitefitness, 3 week on/ 3-5weeks off cycles. Results are not very permanent and doses are usually low althought some people use high doses. This is usually for users who think they are not hurting themselves and are smarter then other BBers. Truth is they are wasting there time and shouldn't be using AS in the first place
Click to expand...
I agree its a waste in my opionion. Most peopel are happy with weight gain. Yeah you will gain 9-12 pds or a little more but you will lose it anyway and you hardly built or get any strength of this short cycles. cycles need to be done like 5-6 weeks min. I really don't care for weight gain and hate to spend good gear or waste $ just to see 8-10 lbs increase in 3 weeks and then lose half of it due to being water weight. I really can't understand why primo or eq would be used in this short cycle b/c it will be more than a 3 week cycle so it defeats the purpose
 
The fact that the body must adapt to the added weight is the very reason short cycles are better. It's easy to maintain a weight gain of 5 pounds. But a gain of 25? You'll lose that oce you come off. Anyone who says otherwise is not being totally forthright.

Small gains are solid. Large gains are not. I don't know too many people who gained 25 pounds on a cycle and never cycled again and kept that 25 pounds. (Well, not 25 pounds of muscle anyway)

Another option is to go on a bulking diet prior to the cycle to establish a higher bodyweight.


Short cycles will do what they're supposed to do, so saying they're a "waste of time" makes no sense. To some people, a gain of 5 pounds is pretty great. If you think it's a waste of time for you, fine. But it's still 5 pounds.

2 weeks is too short. You'll barely train each bodypart one time. The HPTA can handle exgogenous interuption for about a month before HPTA becomes severely suppressed. My original SFH program was a 3 week plan with a one week "taper." Bill Roberts took the concept and made it into a 2 week on/2 week off plan, which I believe is not only less neffective, but no safer than just staying on.

Finally, you have to WANT to do a short cycle. A lot of people don't like worrying about blood pressure and bad lipid profiles as well as the other detremental aspects of steroid use. Has everyone forgotten? They are drugs. They can harm your health.

We have to lose this " serious bodybuilders only do long cycles" mantra No. Only guys who like long cycles do long cycles. There are lots of serious bodybuilders who don't even juice and look better than 90% of the guys who do. If someone wants a modest boost, they'll do a short one. But it isn't really a "which is better" issue. But short cycles are certainly safer.
 
ok nelson so whats the point with Primo? I mean you said on another thread of a 3 weeker cycle using 400mg of primo for 3 weeks this is not a 3 week cycle which will end up going to 5-6 weeks due to primo explain that one. I agreed with him doing var and prop and he added dbol but primo i don't see it not a good idea
 
dzuljas said:
BigAndy, what if you are an athlete like me and can only use short esters because of drug testing. You dont think a short 5-6 week prop cycle would be beneficial for gaining mass and strength???
Click to expand...

Of course, My layout is ideal but if you are being drug tested, it's a whole different scenario.
 
There is always that great, long thread that I think was started by Realgains a while back. We should review that as well.

I think one of the major issues with respect to short cycles is - do peopel keep the gains?

And that question is only relevant if the people KNOW how to keep gains, and hopefully by comparison they are aware of their tendancy to keep gains from longer cycles.

Do we have any guys that have done hopefully shorter and longer cycles and who can discuss:

Their ability to keep gains ....

Their ability to recover quickly?

I doint think anyone would dispute the fact that shorter cycles are safer. I think the two issues above are what it really comes down to when discussing the benefits of shorter cycles.
 
Riker29 said:

I doint think anyone would dispute the fact that shorter cycles are safer. I think the two issues above are what it really comes down to when discussing the benefits of shorter cycles.
Click to expand...

I do dispute that statement. I've got to go now, but I'll be back later with my thoughts and a comprehensive post.
 
BigAndy69 said:


I do dispute that statement. I've got to go now, but I'll be back later with my thoughts and a comprehensive post.
Click to expand...

Ok, maybe that is a topic for discussion then. I didnt mean to assume incorrectly.

So it comes down to:

Do we have any real info that points to these shorter cycles being safer?

Do we have any guys that have done hopefully shorter and longer cycles and who can discuss their ability to keep gains?

Do we have any guys that have done hopefully shorter and longer cycles and who can discuss their ability to recover quickly?
 
I have no problem keeping 15 lbs. off a 10 week cycle. Also I noticed that even though most of my weight gains came during the first half of the cycle, strength gains continued until the very end. Just a thought.
 
some may think I'm full of shit, but to be honest I've done 3 weeks of dbol + 10iu insulin post workout(during dbol and 1 week after) with intense training, and good diet.. result.. I put on 18lbs.. 2 weeks later after staying on track with training and diet I leveled out at a net gain of 14lbs.


--bodyfat readings increased by .2 by tanita scale, but there is a margin of error, no observed difference.
 
ok like i stated before who cares about weight gain unless your a toothpick. How about strength? thats the key for most short cycles i don';t think you really gain much on strength just weight i would think.
 
strength increased each consecutive week for me, which is common, but everyonce and a while it stalls for a bit, during the 3 week dbol period I did not stall, not saying that it was because of the dbol/slin that I didn't stall... I could have not anyway...

but who says strength gains are the only important thing? adding more muscle is important to most people here I think? correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Yeah I care about putting on muscle, I see strength gains as a side effect.

Variation, when did you do this cycle?
 
ya of course as you get stronger you're going to be putting on muscle assuming that you're consuming enough of the proper nutrients, and I think your strength gains will be marginal if you're not..

I did this cycle about 1.5 months ago.
 
Nelson Montana said:
The fact that the body must adapt to the added weight is the very reason short cycles are better. It's easy to maintain a weight gain of 5 pounds. But a gain of 25? You'll lose that oce you come off. Anyone who says otherwise is not being totally forthright.
Click to expand...
This logic is a bit misleading IMO. Sure, we hear all the time about so and so gaining 25-30 lbs off their 12-14 weeks cycle. I think they are mistaking tick marks on the scale for real muscle gain. In truth, 12 solid pounds is a more average post-recovery yield off of a 14 week cycle. (By comparison, givted athletes are doing phenominally well gaining 12 pounds a year without gear.)

Do the math. To keep a gain of 5 pounds made in 4 weeks your body must make adaptations MORE RAPIDLY than if 12 pounds (post-recovery) were gained in 14 weeks.


5 pounds up in three weeks is a huge jump, numericaly analog to 20 pounds in just 12 weeks BTW. I think many people have unrealistic concepts of just what rapid muscle gain is. 12 pound is a LOT of muscle.

I believe 5 pounds of new muscle grown with a 3 week/1 week taper plan is highly unlikely.

I know your reply Nelson - you've had clients who've done just that, etc, etc. I've replied to that before. I don't believe you. Do a formal clinicaly supervised case study, replicate this in multiple, average athletes, and publish the results in a reputable journal. Do so and you will become very famous.

(Please don't launch into a whine about my asking for evidence or not blindly accepting what you say. Obviously my mind has not become fixed for or against this subject.)





variation, thanks for the input. Very interesting. Don't take this as a flame bro, but it's a bit hard to swallow. I'm not saying your lying, but I believe a more detailed body comp analysis would show there is more at play.

I must, however, admit I have no experience with slin, nor background researching it's effects on athleted, so I cannot really comment with too much certanty. Something to think about.

variation, in what manner did you use the slin?
 
I don't know why everyone has such a problem with Primo on a short cycle. If the last shot is taken at the end of the third week you'll have some mild active anabolism trailing off for another week. Big deal.

There can not be any argument that short cycles are safer. How anyone can rationalize that taking drugs for a longer period of time is safer than taking them for less time???

Now, if you do 3 weeks on and don't fully recuperate and do ANOTHER short cycle, then the safety issue is less significant. You should stay off a short cycle as long as you stay of a long one.

SM: Your math doesn't really add up. If you gain 25 pounds over a longer period, it may be slower, but you're forgetting the X factor -- you're enhanced. And the longer you're enhanced, the bigger the crash when you come of. And how well you recuperate is the biggest factor in maintaining gains. It's a LOT easier to maintain 5 pounds with only a slightly suppressed HPTA than it is mainatining 25 pounds with a VERY supressed HPTA. When you look at it that way, it adds up.


But I have one question for you. How come everyone else can give advise and they get karma yet I have to provide clinically
supervised case studies? Just wondering.

Look man. I presented the logic in black and white. Take it or leave it. But it wasn't just for you. I'm sure there are other members who appreciate the input.
 
Silent Method: for the insulin use, humalin-r was my choice, the layout was:

only used post workout(though I could use daily), no carbohydrates were ingested during the entire 4 week phase (sure trace amounts).

No fat was taken 2 hours pre or 3 hours prior to insulin injection, only a shake consisting of 120g whey +10g creatine (12g protein per iu) but it is important to use whey as it clears the GI tract quickly and proper amounts of the the whey (to build muscle) and the amino acids alanine, glutamine, and arginine mainly as a method to employ glucogensis (they are most prominant here) to maintain blood sugar. (so you don't go hypoglycemic). and hour later a shake of 15g whey and 15g soy isolate is consumed.. then another an hour later of same specifications.. all other meals outside of this time ranger were 50% fat and 50% protein (trace carbs) from any sources I wanted..

Using this method You can avoid fat gain, and even loose fat & gain muscle if you keep calories lower, but I was consuming a fair bit due to the fact I wanted more gains, though I have lost bodyfat and gained in the past on insulin only, but the gains were small.
 
My all time favorite was a 3 weeks Test prop/primo/anavar. No sides at all. No clomids. But lot of food !!!
 
Nelson Montana said:
There can not be any argument that short cycles are safer. How anyone can rationalize that taking drugs for a longer period of time is safer than taking them for less time???
Click to expand...
Antibiotics is an easy example. Short time on can -> inefficient adaptation can -> compromised imune system. (And no, typical oral antibiotics don't kill disease causing organisms - they force your body to adapt in such a way that it does.) A dosing pattern that is too short will actually inhibit immune adaptation to evolving pathogens.

Some argue that perhaps a short steroid cycle is inefficient at causing the adaptations being sought while throwing an assault to the body's natural system.

The safest cycle is no cycle. In regard to safety, cost versus benifit ratio is what we are looking at.


Nelson Montana said:
SM: Your math doesn't really add up. If you gain 25 pounds over a longer period, it may be slower, but you're forgetting the X factor -- you're enhanced. And the longer you're enhanced, the bigger the crash when you come of. And how well you recuperate is the biggest factor in maintaining gains. It's a LOT easier to maintain 5 pounds with only a slightly suppressed HPTA than it is mainatining 25 pounds with a VERY supressed HPTA. When you look at it that way, it adds up.
Click to expand...
Go back and re-read my post. Your equation in this reply was wrong to begin with in regard to my post.

Assume 5 permanent lbs in 4 weeks using your method. Thats 1.25 pounds per week.

Assume 12 permanent (post-recovery) lbs pounds in 14 weeks using a traditional method, tapering for the last several weeks. This is a very realistic number. That's .85 of a pound per week.

1.25 pounds versus .85 pounds per week. Redo the math.

The short cycle example requires more rapid physiological adaptation. I'm still open minded on the short cycle idea Nelson, but your maintaing a given weigh gain easier/harder logic does not fly with short cycle poundage you cite - even when your traditional cycle figure is slashed in half.


Nelson Montana said:
But I have one question for you. How come everyone else can give advise and they get karma yet I have to provide clinically
supervised case studies? Just wondering.
Click to expand...
Go back and re-read my post. I simply do not believe your figures. In addition, I have trust issue with you based on some of your past contributions. No flame, just being honest.

In addition, I'm not busting your balls when I say I'd like to see you do a formal study on this. If you are correct with your figures, no study to my knowlwdge has ever shown anything like it.

Hell, maybe I'll push for my own study on this for my grad work.

Nelson Montana said:
Look man. I presented the logic in black and white. Take it or leave it. But it wasn't just for you. I'm sure there are other members who appreciate the input.
Click to expand...
Using your figures I have shown that a typical traditional cycle yielding 12 post-recovery pounds over 14 weeks allows your body more time to adapt to the lean tissue than would your 5 pound yielding 4 weeker. Either change your figures or change your "easier to hold onto" argument.


Still, Nelson, I am open to the idea of short cycling, specifically in regard to HTPA impact (both short and long term) - don't get wrapped up in frustration when I argue. Reasoned argument is the stuff of discovery. If you have more on topic argument, feel free to contribute. However, don't get huffy if I don't gobble it up.
 
Last edited:
manny78 said:
My all time favorite was a 3 weeks Test prop/primo/anavar. No sides at all. No clomids. But lot of food !!!
Click to expand...

this is the cycle i'm doing now with some low-dose d-bol in the first week. i plan to stay off for six weeks minimum and see what i have after that.

the long-acting ester issue to me is irrelevant. it's just a built in taper. if the argument is that this really makes the cycle 4 or 5 weeks, then all cycles that use long-acting esters are really 1 or 2 weeks longer than their stated length. so what?

Nadr
 
Okay first off, "I gained 14 lbs" or whatever means NOTHING to me.

Going from 170lbs to 185lbs is not a big deal, going from 230 to 245 at the same bodyfat percentage is a huge jump.

Problem is a lot of guys who don't have much experience get what they consider good gains on short cycles and they think this applies to everyone.

If I gain 10lbs at my level, I'm very happy, that's a good year for me. Of course, right now I'm about 225 at 9% or so at 5'8 so it's a whole different ballgame. I'm shooting for 235-240 at 9% on my next cycle.

I think the difference is in many people's goals.

When you weight 175 and can hardly put up 225 on bench, gaining 5lbs is not a big deal.

Are short cycles a waste of time? For most bodybuilders, YES.

Most guys use steroids to be big and ripped. They don't risk there health, FREEDOM, reputation for a little muscle mass using cycles not long enough to even break a sweat.

How many workouts can you do in 3 weeks?

Ask yourselves this, when you were naturals, how long did a natural bulk cycle last? Usually 8-16 weeks, NOT 3 weeks.

Sure beginners will gain better on 3 week cycles and a little gear, but how long will that last? A little gear is better than no gear, right?

There is no question that less gear has less side effects..but from my years of experience, countless blood tests, there isn't much difference between side effects from ineffective doses and from effective doses. Very little difference in sides from 250mg of Test and 500mg of Test. The difference in gains is a whole different story.

There is a huge difference in side effects from 250mg of Test and No Test at all.

Why would anybody risk there money ordering from sources, risk getting arrested, divorced...etc for a pussy 200mg, 3 week cycle. Yea, I gained 3lbs! Yippy, I'm so smart and safe.

If you gain serious mass on these low dose short cycles, you probably shouldn't be using gear in the first place.

Also, I'm sick of hearing about primo, 90% of people doing primo are shooting fakes or Nandrolone PhenylProp (which is fast acting)

You know how many newbies do source checks with me on scamming website and plan on doing primo for there first cycles. They can't even locate a non scamming source and they want to do primo. We've got to get that primo bullshit out of there heads.

Now, there are older members, 40+, who want to get an extra edge, that's a whole different scenario.
 
Also, this notion that you keep more of your gains on short cycles is wrong.

Crash occurs when there is a sudden severe fluctuation in hormone levels (Test)

Tapering off with a long cycle, will delay recovery but it will be more gradual and it the end the gains are more permanent.

When you do 3on/3off or whatever, you are on pretty much year round, what will happen when you take a full break? Gains will subside because your joints and system did not adapt to that extra muscle.
 
This needed quoting. LOTS of good points bro.




BigAndy69 said:
Okay first off, "I gained 14 lbs" or whatever means NOTHING to me.

Going from 170lbs to 185lbs is not a big deal, going from 230 to 245 at the same bodyfat percentage is a huge jump.

Problem is a lot of guys who don't have much experience get what they consider good gains on short cycles and they think this applies to everyone.

If I gain 10lbs at my level, I'm very happy, that's a good year for me. Of course, right now I'm about 225 at 9% or so at 5'8 so it's a whole different ballgame. I'm shooting for 235-240 at 9% on my next cycle.

I think the difference is in many people's goals.

When you weight 175 and can hardly put up 225 on bench, gaining 5lbs is not a big deal.

Are short cycles a waste of time? For most bodybuilders, YES.

Most guys use steroids to be big and ripped. They don't risk there health, FREEDOM, reputation for a little muscle mass using cycles not long enough to even break a sweat.

How many workouts can you do in 3 weeks?

Ask yourselves this, when you were naturals, how long did a natural bulk cycle last? Usually 8-16 weeks, NOT 3 weeks.

Sure beginners will gain better on 3 week cycles and a little gear, but how long will that last? A little gear is better than no gear, right?

There is no question that less gear has less side effects..but from my years of experience, countless blood tests, there isn't much difference between side effects from ineffective doses and from effective doses. Very little difference in sides from 250mg of Test and 500mg of Test. The difference in gains is a whole different story.

There is a huge difference in side effects from 250mg of Test and No Test at all.

Why would anybody risk there money ordering from sources, risk getting arrested, divorced...etc for a pussy 200mg, 3 week cycle. Yea, I gained 3lbs! Yippy, I'm so smart and safe.

If you gain serious mass on these low dose short cycles, you probably shouldn't be using gear in the first place.

Also, I'm sick of hearing about primo, 90% of people doing primo are shooting fakes or Nandrolone PhenylProp (which is fast acting)

You know how many newbies do source checks with me on scamming website and plan on doing primo for there first cycles. They can't even locate a non scamming source and they want to do primo. We've got to get that primo bullshit out of there heads.

Now, there are older members, 40+, who want to get an extra edge, that's a whole different scenario.
Click to expand...
 
Nelson Montana said:


Another option is to go on a bulking diet prior to the cycle to establish a higher bodyweight.


Click to expand...

just wanted to know how exactly this would work.
i did something like this before my last 5wk cycle. i did 3 wks of bulking on creatine. then for a wk, dropped the creatine and went to a moderate cal (low carb) diet for a wk, light workouts. then started the cycle. i don't know if this was the reason, but i found a good strength gains right in the first wk itself.
 
my cycles have always been longer than 8 wks previously. just that i personally was unsatisfied with these on 2 counts- sometimes 2mths after cycles, gains would diminish. secondly, during the cycles, gains would slow down anyway after 5-6 wks. the gains i am referring are both size and strength.
anyway, that's why i chose 5 wks as my short cycle length and i am pretty happy with it. good gains during the cycle most of which were kept. also, 2mths later i have been able to gain a little while off. just my .02
 
BigAndy69 said:

Now, there are older members, 40+, who want to get an extra edge, that's a whole different scenario.
Click to expand...

Ok, what do you recommend for us? (shit, I want you to know that hurt to admit!)

I'm looking to do a cycle, and thinking anavar + ?. Any suggestions?
 
DelCastillo said:


Ok, what do you recommend for us? (shit, I want you to know that hurt to admit!)

I'm looking to do a cycle, and thinking anavar + ?. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...

TESTOSTERONE! Add some Anavar and it wil be even better.
 
Testosterone is very suppressive to an older guy. You're better off with something milder -- unless you want HRT but that's a whole other situation.

I think the difference here is Big Andy is thinking in terms of being "on" and I'm thinking in terms of the aftermath.


Also, to me, "real" strength is the strength you maintain while un-juiced. Again, short cycles are great at this. But if you just want to be really strong while "on" then sure, longer higher doesed cycles are for you.

SM: The antibiotic analogy doesn't really apply, but that's another story. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone of anything. Just providing information. And as long as everyone acts civil, I will too.

Good thread.



So far.
 
I'm not going to claim I know all that much about juicing in your 40's, I haven't thought about it much, and I've noticed most middle aged men have completely different goals in general.

"I think the difference here is Big Andy is thinking in terms of being "on" and I'm thinking in terms of the aftermath."

Actually, my whole philosophy centers around the aftermath. I'm not interested in the immediate aftermath as much as long term.

I didn't train or bodybuild for months, blew up to 270-290 (sleep apnea didn't help)

It didn't take much time for me to get back in shape because in the past I had focused on allowing my body to adapt to the new muscle growth. When I come off, I hardly lose anything.

As far as being "on", I actually hate being "on", that's just me.

The only time you should be "on", ie relying on steroids is while you are perserving LBM (cutting)

Juice is not forever, eventually we have to come off.
 
Nelson Montana said:
SM: The antibiotic analogy doesn't really apply, but that's another story. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone of anything. Just providing information. And as long as everyone acts civil, I will too.
Click to expand...
The point of the analogy is that indeed there are instances where being on a drug for a shorter period of time is worse than being on for a longer period of time in regard to theraputic cost versus benifit.
 
silver_shadow said:
my cycles have always been longer than 8 wks previously. just that i personally was unsatisfied with these on 2 counts- sometimes 2mths after cycles, gains would diminish. secondly, during the cycles, gains would slow down anyway after 5-6 wks. the gains i am referring are both size and strength.
anyway, that's why i chose 5 wks as my short cycle length and i am pretty happy with it. good gains during the cycle most of which were kept. also, 2mths later i have been able to gain a little while off. just my .02
Click to expand...

this is exactly why i'm pondering the "short-cycle", I tend to gain more fat than muscle in the last 4-6 weeks of a 12 week cycle and am trying to avoid that.

Typiclly I do 10-12 weeks of long esters (EQ/test. enathate), dbol or winny as a jump start, and with anti-e's the whole time. I gain a good 10-15lbs the first 6 weeks. Then my body composition takes a turn for the worse when I gain ~10lbs more during the rest of the cycle. When I come off longer cycles, no matter how much PCT i do, I always lose at least 5-7lbs. I've been thinking that maybe this adaptation process is over-rated and possibly non-exsistent, so it might be time for a change in cycle-layout. I plan on trying the following:

Test prop 1-5
150-200mg EOD
Dbol 1-5
40mg ED
Fina 1-5
100mg EOD
 
yes, my short cycle was 5 wks- but having seen the progression of gains thro that, i would definitely try 2-3 wks as well. originally i planned to go for 3-4 wks but was "afraid" of the "unknown" and went a bit further. also, i would assume cutting my 5wks a bit and i should still hold on to gains.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

~Vision~
Is your beach body ready yet? Try this combo...
Replies
11
Views
3K
Tiger Salman Khan
Tiger Salman Khan
jasonhill800
How Do You Know If You're Training Enough?
Replies
10
Views
3K
ballin2504
ballin2504
jasonhill800
Napsgear Article: More and Better Sex (For the Ladies)
Replies
14
Views
4K
BodyMonster34
BodyMonster34
Macedog24
The best STEROIDS for your arsenal to get MONSTER SIZE + Hardcore bulking article
Replies
8
Views
4K
Tazz
Tazz
S
Please critique my Test Cycle
Replies
9
Views
2K
RickRock13
RickRock13
Top Bottom