Gain retention

[redbottom2]

While I know that one should not cycle without being at their genetic maximum, I also know that you can not retain greater-than-genetic gains without continuing cycles. On that note, if one were to cycle without being at their genetic maximum, would they be able to retain their gains without ever cycling again? I ask this because in my head, if you can make enough test to get to said "maximum", surely you could take test, then recover to your natural levels, and maintain your genetic maximum. Am I crazy?

 

[SteveMobsterG]

While I know that one should not cycle without being at their genetic maximum, I also know that you can not retain greater-than-genetic gains without continuing cycles. On that note, if one were to cycle without being at their genetic maximum, would they be able to retain their gains without ever cycling again? I ask this because in my head, if you can make enough test to get to said "maximum", surely you could take test, then recover to your natural levels, and maintain your genetic maximum. Am I crazy?

I think that's wrong.

For a start it ignores the role diet, age and training play. Age, for example, means that you're not gonna see too many 300lb 60 year olds.

 

[stevesmi]

this subject is too complicated but this is a constant war the whole way

plenty of guys have used or use steroids and still look like shit

 

[dylangemelli]

this is a question for a psychic bro.. no human can answer this... there are so many variables that play into this and you are asking for someone to have a crystal ball and answer this...

 

[muskate]

You are over thinking things bro

1. develop a good base naturally
2. then if you are financially and mentally ready to use steroids, run your first cycle

 

[SteveMobsterG]

I've definitely seen (as we all can) photos and videos of former pros who were once seemingly huge and either retired and or injured looked merely average after. Some were out and out retired. Some did, as the poster suggests, overly rely on gear to keep the gains when they had them. Gary Strydom was a good example a few years back.

However, just from my own experience I think it's an exaggeration to say we need 'greater-than-genetic gains without continuing cycles.'

I was 175lbs at age 18. And I've NO IDEA whatsoever what I'd have ended up weighing without training, nutrition and yes, later on, steroids. But I do know what my body drops down to if, as I have had to, stop lifting due to an injury. In previous years the lightest I got was 18st or 264lbs. Back in 2016, as I've stated before, I badly hurt my back and did NO weights (just gripper work) for 16 weeks. I lost 10lbs - so 270lbs instead of 280lbs. I'd done a cycle that year for a comp and got to, I think, 291lbs or so (there's a record of it somewhere as we have to weigh in). So off gear but still training, as I am now, I'm 280. Off training and with less nutrition (as I was mostly laying on my back) I was 270. I didn't need more and more cycles with higher and higher amounts just to get to or retain where I was before .

To get beyond that... maybe. I've previously stated that I have been 299.6lbs on one cycle and I think that was the sus/deca cycle and did not go over 765mg total per week.

 

[MasonicBodybuilder]

Sounds like you are reading way too much bro-science man. Steroids do not do nearly as much as people think. All I would worry about is doing the best you can with diet and training. Genetics are what they are and you cant change them.