boston789
New member
I've been wondering lately (probably because of the cycle I'm on now due to the fact that it's a long one) that if longer cycles yield better results and/or have less side effects than shorter ones; or vice-versa. I know there are a few guys on here that swear by hitting your receptors hard and fast work best for them. And then there are guys on here (probably the majority) who think that longer cycles are the only way you can really build muscle.
There are also people here; probably like myself, who hasn't done a short cycle (by short I mean about 6 weeks give or take) in a long time.
So my question is, and I hope I get alot of responses because this can help educate and open up possibilities of new cycles for alot of people, what do you think the pro's and con's are of long and short cycles. Which ones do you think is more effective? Why? Which type of cycle do you usually do?
My cycles usually last between 14-18 weeks. I dont have a hard time recovering either (I get blood work done and my overall feeling is fine) but sometimes staying on that long can really put a toll on your body. Maybe a 6 weeks on, 6 week off schedule is worth it?
There are also people here; probably like myself, who hasn't done a short cycle (by short I mean about 6 weeks give or take) in a long time.
So my question is, and I hope I get alot of responses because this can help educate and open up possibilities of new cycles for alot of people, what do you think the pro's and con's are of long and short cycles. Which ones do you think is more effective? Why? Which type of cycle do you usually do?
My cycles usually last between 14-18 weeks. I dont have a hard time recovering either (I get blood work done and my overall feeling is fine) but sometimes staying on that long can really put a toll on your body. Maybe a 6 weeks on, 6 week off schedule is worth it?