who's a fan of SHORT TEST CYCLES? lets build one.....

[ledhead]

I think this is BS.

My first cycle was 10 weeks. I didnt notice any additional gains after around week 8. That being said, I was in a slight calorie defecit the final weeks of my cycle. But I know my body pretty damn well and for me, I already know that anything longer than 10 weeks is a waste, unless we're throwing in other compounds mid or end cycle. Week 9 is around when the gains stop, and I think I remember N2 saying the same thing. Anything longer than a 10 week cycle is just further shutting you down, IMO.

I will be doing a log of a 6 week cycle here in a few weeks. And I can guarantee at LEAST a 20 pound gain and I will keep damn near most of it. SURE, if I extended it another 4 weeks I might gain another 10 or 15 pounds, but how much of that will I keep? and how much harder will recovery be BECAUSE of those additional 4 weeks?

short cycles worthless? I cant wait to prove you wrong.

and o yes, there will be pictures

Actually, since you are citing Needto, myself, Needto and Nelson had this debate a few weeks back and Needto utterly agreed with me. I said short cycles are a "waste" of gear, don't put words in my mouth. I cited my opinion. Imo, you get better results with moderate cycles.. Short cycles have some value, but imo, not much---sorry to disagree with you..

Yeah, you are going to pack on 20 lbs of quality muscle in 6 weeks, LOL... No water weight?? Just pure quality muscle??? And keep all your gains?? I cant wait for you to prove me wrong either because if you do, rest assure, I will be running short cycles from now on. According to the gains you are claiming you are going to make in the time you are claiming you are going to make them, growth would not give you them kind of results----I will be watching!!!

 

[wcjcMr.O]

I never said it would all be quality muscle weight. Of course I will have some water weight. But I will gain at least 20 pounds on this cycle(with water weight). And I will keep at least 10 pounds of it. Realistically, I will probably blow up about 30 pounds and keep close to half of that, maybe 12 pounds. Is even 10 pounds of quality muscle in 6 weeks a "waste"? I certainly dont think so

a "waste" of gear? worthless? whats the difference?

and thats fine you have your own opinion. No hard feelings man. I just completely disagree that short cycles are a "waste" of gear. And hopefully my results will change the way people look at what is "needed" to gain quality muscle.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Bottom line: You will not gain as much muscle on a short cycle as a long one, but overall, you keep a higher percentage of it.

In other words, if you gain 30 pounds on a 16 week cycle, 3 months later of being "off", chances are you'll likely keep 9-10 pounds. But if you gain 15 pounds on a 4 week cycle, 3 months later of being "off" and you'll likely keep 7-8.

So in essence, you make better gains on shorter cycles in the long run.

And I speak from personal experience and experience guiding others. Most guys never did short cycles , nor recommend them so how can they argue their effectiveness or ineffectiveness? Other than it's just not what THEY do.

 

[wcjcMr.O]

Bottom line: You will not gain as much muscle on a short cycle as a long one, but overall, you keep a higher percentage of it.

In other words, if you gain 30 pounds on a 16 week cycle, 3 months later of being "off", chances are you'll likely keep 9-10 pounds. But if you gain 15 pounds on a 4 week cycle, 3 months later of being "off" and you'll likely keep 7-8.

So in essence, you make better gains on shorter cycles in the long run.

that makes sense. And like you were saying....you can run more of them. Which is what im after. I guess Ill just have to wait and see when I run this short cycle.

 

[moya]

I think this is BS.

My first cycle was 10 weeks. I didnt notice any additional gains after around week 8. That being said, I was in a slight calorie defecit the final weeks of my cycle. But I know my body pretty damn well and for me, I already know that anything longer than 10 weeks is a waste, unless we're throwing in other compounds mid or end cycle. Week 9 is around when the gains stop, and I think I remember N2 saying the same thing. Anything longer than a 10 week cycle is just further shutting you down, IMO.

I will be doing a log of a 6 week cycle here in a few weeks. And I can guarantee at LEAST a 20 pound gain and I will keep damn near most of it. SURE, if I extended it another 4 weeks I might gain another 10 or 15 pounds, but how much of that will I keep? and how much harder will recovery be BECAUSE of those additional 4 weeks?

short cycles worthless? I cant wait to prove you wrong.

and o yes, there will be pictures

amazing you could come to that conclusion having only ran one cycle and being in a caloric deficit the last weeks...

shut down is shut down... going through the recovery process for gains made on a 6 week cycle vs. a 16 week cycle is the same timeframe from my experience... only with the larger gains in the 16 weeker there is more to maintain... however if you ever get to that point using short cycles its going to take just as much to maintain....

 

[wcjcMr.O]

amazing you could come to that conclusion having only ran one cycle and being in a caloric deficit the last weeks...

shut down is shut down... going through the recovery process for gains made on a 6 week cycle vs. a 16 week cycle is the same timeframe from my experience... only with the larger gains in the 16 weeker there is more to maintain... however if you ever get to that point using short cycles its going to take just as much to maintain....

thanks for your input moya. lol

 

[gymjunkie09]

I think this is BS.

My first cycle was 10 weeks. I didnt notice any additional gains after around week 8. That being said, I was in a slight calorie defecit the final weeks of my cycle. But I know my body pretty damn well and for me, I already know that anything longer than 10 weeks is a waste, unless we're throwing in other compounds mid or end cycle. Week 9 is around when the gains stop, and I think I remember N2 saying the same thing. Anything longer than a 10 week cycle is just further shutting you down, IMO.

I will be doing a log of a 6 week cycle here in a few weeks. And I can guarantee at LEAST a 20 pound gain and I will keep damn near most of it. SURE, if I extended it another 4 weeks I might gain another 10 or 15 pounds, but how much of that will I keep? and how much harder will recovery be BECAUSE of those additional 4 weeks?

short cycles worthless? I cant wait to prove you wrong.

and o yes, there will be pictures

Gains taper off because myostatin levels increase. But with that being said longer cycles do have their place when running compound like deca were you wanna run the test 2-4 weeks past the deca. So if you run deca for ten weeks then obviously you wanna run the test 12-14 weeks. Then you have compounds like eq which people like to run longer as well. So it all depends on what you're running. Imo if you're running test e you should go 8-10 weeks with it but I will definitly be following your log. Idk about 30 lbs but I'm sure you will make some nice gains......good luck

 

[Nelson Montana]

amazing you could come to that conclusion having only ran one cycle and being in a caloric deficit the last weeks...

shut down is shut down... going through the recovery process for gains made on a 6 week cycle vs. a 16 week cycle is the same timeframe from my experience... only with the larger gains in the 16 weeker there is more to maintain... however if you ever get to that point using short cycles its going to take just as much to maintain....

That is patently false. As long as there's misunderstanding there, there'll never be an agreement. That's like saying it doesn't matter if you smoke one cigarette a day for 2 weeks or 2 packs a day for 10 years -- the result is the same as long as you stop smoking before contracting cancer. Not so. There are long term effects to anything and shutting down hormonal production is one of them. And besides, T doesn't "shut down" entirely after a few weeks if dosages are same. You'll be suppressed, but not shut down.

 

[jimbob1]

I thought test cycles dont even really "kick in" until week 4 or 5? So on a 6 week cycle you would only get a week or two of gains?

I know ive been on two weeks right now and havent noticed any strength gains yet, only some water weight.

 

[UA_Iron]

This is strawman rhetoric - over simplifying an argument and then beating it down and claiming victory.

........................

Sounds to me, with that statement, that's exactly what you're trying to do.

Your oversimplified statement of "test is test" is your strawman rhetoric. It's silly at best.

Very simple explanation for that. Faster acting compounds are "purer" than long acting esters. The ester essentially takes up more "room" so in a sense, there's actually more testosterone in a 100mg shot of prop than in enth. But the difference is nominal over the long run. I might question the nitrogen retention difference stated in that study, but even so, it'd be the difference between and extra 50 grams of protein or so. These days with products like gear, that difference can be made up very easily.

I'm well aware of this fact. Did you just feel like throwing it out there to make it sound like you know something? "Purer"? Really? I know what you are trying to say, but this word has other repercussions besides you trying to communicate that mg per mg there is more of the parent testosterone molecule in test propionate versus enanthate.

I haven't seen any studies indicating the effectiveness of gear. Care to cite any?

You simply are wrong. These drugs weren't designed for bodybuilding purposes.

What are we, 4? YOU'RE WRONG. Esterification of testosterone is done to achieve different things... test isnt just test. And I'm not sure ANY drugs were designed for bodybuilding.

It's still finite. If esters built up over the course of weeks and months then people on HRT would show higher and higher levels of T in their system and that just isn't the case.

This argument does not counter what I said previously. I think if you understood math well enough you would agree with my statement. Yes, peak testosterone concentrations within the body will approach a maximum - I know, I've charted and posted it here back in 2006/2007. They approach a higher maximum with a longer ester than a shorter ester. Again, "test is test" is a silly statement.

But what if ALL your 400 grams of protein were in one sitting? It would actually be LESS effective, So again, it's splitting hairs and has absolutely NOTHING to do with a longer ester taking longer to "kick in."

Swing and a miss.


You should stick to marketing supplements over stating silly things on AAS boards and then never supporting them with facts.