Can someone explain the theory behind kick starting a cyle?

[Blkout]

Blkout, seriously, do you have any proof to support your argument? You have given nothing but your conjecture.

Proof is exactly what I'm asking for, seems no one is able to provide a documented study of any kind. ONly feedback is word of mouth saying "it worked for me" which is a mixed bag right now. Very few can actually say it worked for them, most people say that think it might have helped knowk a week of the normal time, which in my opinion is useless data because the whole idea of frontloading is supposed to mean its works alomst imeddiately.

Bottom line is that there are NO scientific studies showing it works, no proof of any kind other than a few select members on this forum. I don't really need any more proof to know its a waste of time.

 

[Blkout]

Hey- do me a favor.. The next time you go on a fina cycle at (say) 75mg ED, I want you to start of with 25mg ED for the first week then go to 50mg ED for the 2nd, finally getting up to 75mg ED for the third..

Because when you run test enanthate at xmg per week throughout, that is exactly what you are doing.

And people using prop in the beginning of a cycle "until longer esters kick in"? That's fontloading. ... It is a concept that "makes sence" in both pharmacology and mathematics.

Andy

No, that would not be the same thing, the same thing as frontloading would be to take 150mg or more the first few days then drop back to 75mg everyday.

People use prop in the beginning because its a faster acting ester not because of frontloading. You seem to be confused. Frontloading is taking a signifiganly higher dosage of front of a long acting ester in hopes of elevating blood levels sooner thus providing an almost immediate increase. Sounds good in theory, not so good in real world practice. Prop works well in the beginning of a cycle because the ester itself is actually used by the body almost immediately due the nature of the ester, not because of a higher than normal dosage up front.

Concepts that "make sense" don't always translate into real world gains. If frontloading worked like it was supposed to, everyone would be seein the effects, but as it stand very few people can actually say they've noticed anything, and I think those people are just experiencing the placebo effect.

 

[Andy13]

No, that would not be the same thing, the same thing as frontloading would be to take 150mg or more the first few days then drop back to 75mg everyday.

People use prop in the beginning because its a faster acting ester not because of frontloading. You seem to be confused. Frontloading is taking a signifiganly higher dosage of front of a long acting ester in hopes of elevating blood levels sooner thus providing an almost immediate increase. Sounds good in theory, not so good in real world practice. Prop works well in the beginning of a cycle because the ester itself is actually used by the body almost immediately due the nature of the ester, not because of a higher than normal dosage up front.

Concepts that "make sense" don't always translate into real world gains. If frontloading worked like it was supposed to, everyone would be seein the effects, but as it stand very few people can actually say they've noticed anything, and I think those people are just experiencing the placebo effect.

You and I agree on one thing... And that is that any kind of anecdotal reports in bbing that even attempt to be quasi-quantitative are near worthless.. Why? There are no controlled experiments, no practical means of measuring data, and nothing but highly subjective "results" that are so prone to psycological influence that it makes me want to puke.

With that, one cannot say "there is no proof (but anecdotal reports) that front loading works," arguing that anecdotal reports are insufficient sources of evidence.

and also say

"there is proof that front loading doesn't work," using anecdotal reports, this time, as a valid source of reasoning.

It's a double-edged sword. I think by now we have come to the conclusion that we cannot prove, nor disprove something of the nature of front-end loading based on anecdotal reports.

Some will swear by what the biggest guy has to say about whatever stack, diet, roid.. But I hold anecdotal reports under such scrutiny, that they are next to worthless sources of information IMO.

But isn't a BBer's opinion (especially if he is an EXPERIENCED BBer) worth anything? Yes.. but not so much when it comes to issues such as front loading. Why? Because, for starters, how do we know that, to what degree a BBer feels something, correlates, in any way, to what degree he is growing?

This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the problems associated with placing any validity whatsoever on anecdotal reports..

The psycology in the whole thing plays such a massive role in these reports as well.. Everything from him thinking he got bigger because he changed a light bulb in his bathroom to chicks at the gym smiling at him or feeling small because he's depressed for some unknown reason..

So what about how many pounds he gained? Fat he lost? etc... Again, differences in diet, training, calibration of instruments used..

See, BBing is certainly not a very precise science.

So, for a person like me who thinks a person's opinion is worthless, what is considered valid?

Well, can we agree that, for the most part, the higher the blood levels of an AAS, the greater the muscle gain (this widely documented, by the way).

Can we also agree that the greater amount of time spent on some blood level of AAS yields greater muscle gains than the same blood levels over a lesser amount of time (this also widely documented).?

I can show you, mathematically, that at xmgs/week of an AAS with a half life of 6 days, the blood levels will steadily climb until they reach a point where subsequent injections only raise the blood levels marginally, this blood level considered "maximal theraputic" for xmg/week steroid. It happens after about 3 weeks for an AAS with a 6 day half life.

As you know by now, the goal with front end loading is to elevate blood levels up to this maximal level (but NOT beyond) over a shorter period of time rather than waiting for three weeks.

Now, didn't we already agree that the higher the blood levels of an AAS, the greater the gains?

Did we also agree that the more time spent at a given blood level, the greater the gains?

From this follows the theory of front loading. It, along with many other schemes in bbing, can't be proven nor disproven. The only thing we can do to prove or disprove schemes like this in BBing is to use evidence that IS infact credible or logical. Then stack it against each other..

I have brought forth the logic that is in favor of front-end loading. In order to make a statement such as "front loading does not work" and have it be considered anything but just another meaningless, anecdotal opinion, will require reasoning with validity on the same level, or higher than mine.

Otherwise, your opinion is worthless to me.

 

[Blkout]

You and I agree on one thing... And that is that any kind of anecdotal reports in bbing that even attempt to be quasi-quantitative are near worthless.. Why? There are no controlled experiments, no practical means of measuring data, and nothing but highly subjective "results" that are so prone to psycological influence that it makes me want to puke.

With that, one cannot say "there is no proof (but anecdotal reports) that front loading works," arguing that anecdotal reports are insufficient sources of evidence.

and also say

"there is proof that front loading doesn't work," using anecdotal reports, this time, as a valid source of reasoning.

It's a double-edged sword. I think by now we have come to the conclusion that we cannot prove, nor disprove something of the nature of front-end loading based on anecdotal reports.

Some will swear by what the biggest guy has to say about whatever stack, diet, roid.. But I hold anecdotal reports under such scrutiny, that they are next to worthless sources of information IMO.

But isn't a BBer's opinion (especially if he is an EXPERIENCED BBer) worth anything? Yes.. but not so much when it comes to issues such as front loading. Why? Because, for starters, how do we know that, to what degree a BBer feels something, correlates, in any way, to what degree he is growing?

This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the problems associated with placing any validity whatsoever on anecdotal reports..

The psycology in the whole thing plays such a massive role in these reports as well.. Everything from him thinking he got bigger because he changed a light bulb in his bathroom to chicks at the gym smiling at him or feeling small because he's depressed for some unknown reason..

So what about how many pounds he gained? Fat he lost? etc... Again, differences in diet, training, calibration of instruments used..

See, BBing is certainly not a very precise science.

So, for a person like me who thinks a person's opinion is worthless, what is considered valid?

Well, can we agree that, for the most part, the higher the blood levels of an AAS, the greater the muscle gain (this widely documented, by the way).

Can we also agree that the greater amount of time spent on some blood level of AAS yields greater muscle gains than the same blood levels over a lesser amount of time (this also widely documented).?

I can show you, mathematically, that at xmgs/week of an AAS with a half life of 6 days, the blood levels will steadily climb until they reach a point where subsequent injections only raise the blood levels marginally, this blood level considered "maximal theraputic" for xmg/week steroid. It happens after about 3 weeks for an AAS with a 6 day half life.

As you know by now, the goal with front end loading is to elevate blood levels up to this maximal level (but NOT beyond) over a shorter period of time rather than waiting for three weeks.

Now, didn't we already agree that the higher the blood levels of an AAS, the greater the gains?

Did we also agree that the more time spent at a given blood level, the greater the gains?

From this follows the theory of front loading. It, along with many other schemes in bbing, can't be proven nor disproven. The only thing we can do to prove or disprove schemes like this in BBing is to use evidence that IS infact credible or logical. Then stack it against each other..

I have brought forth the logic that is in favor of front-end loading. In order to make a statement such as "front loading does not work" and have it be considered anything but just another meaningless, anecdotal opinion, will require reasoning with validity on the same level, or higher than mine.

Otherwise, your opinion is worthless to me.

Well, let me play the devil's advocate for a moment then. Lets try two different cases.......

First case,
Lets say we frontload Test Cyp at 1200mg for the first 2 weeks and then drop back to 400mg for the remaining time of the cycle, which we'll say is 8 more weeks for a total of 10 weeks. Lets say that in theory your frontloading works and that it shortens the delay time of the Test taking effect by 1-2 weeks, meaning that the test effectively starts working by the end of the second week or beginning of the 3rd week as opposed to not frontloading and the Test comes in the 4th week or so.


Second case,
Now lets forget about the frontloading and start at 400mg a week and continue on through the cycle at that rate, well since you didn't use up an extra 800mg a week for the first two weeks, that should leave you about 1600mg extra to play with, so lets add that in to the normal 10 weeks worth we had to start with, which should in effect give us another 4 more weeks at 400mg a week, 1600mg left over from not frontloading. Therefore, our cycle would last for 14 weeks instead of the frontloaded 10 weeks.

Which do you think is going to be more effective? I'll put my money on the 14 week 400mg/week cycle over the frontloaded cycle anyday. And why? Because, worst case, on the regular cycle it would come in the 4th week or so and then you would have 10 more weeks at same dosage of 400mg a week. On the frontloaded cycled, you would have beaten the delay time by 1-2 weeks at best, and then you would be left with 7-8 more weeks of 400mg a week to work with.

So, my question is which one should be more effective?

And please, stop acting like my opinions are worthless, they are just as vaild as yours or anyone else's for that matter. While I did agree with all of your post, that last little line was immature.

 

[Razarsharp]

Was the orginal question about frontloading dbol to get things going quicker and he was wondering if he would lose those gains? C'mon guys, can't we all just get along!

I don't have a lot of experience but I have done a regular cyp cycle for 10 weeks at about 300mg/week - gained nicely, didn't snag any serious pumps until 4-5 weeks in. Now, I'm frontloading with prop at 500mg/week for 3 weeks and then throwing in sust. So far, it's taken, oh, about 4 days before I started getting good pumps and my strength has gone up. I suggest frontloading for the effect, quicker strength gains, and the full enjoyment of the cycle from day 1 until day whatever. Whether or not it works better or not...would be such a small difference it's not worth wasting one's time talking about it. I mean what's 3-4lbs of muscle and maybe a 4% increase in strength(estimates of course) difference in the long run with frontloading vs reg. dosages throughout.

A good study would be impossible because steroids happen to be illegal...go figure right, but both arguments are valid and make a lot of sense.

I'm going with Zyg on this, frontloading is my new thing and I have been rubbing it off on everyone else I talk to.

 

[Blkout]

Was the orginal question about frontloading dbol to get things going quicker and he was wondering if he would lose those gains? C'mon guys, can't we all just get along!

I don't have a lot of experience but I have done a regular cyp cycle for 10 weeks at about 300mg/week - gained nicely, didn't snag any serious pumps until 4-5 weeks in. Now, I'm frontloading with prop at 500mg/week for 3 weeks and then throwing in sust. So far, it's taken, oh, about 4 days before I started getting good pumps and my strength has gone up. I suggest frontloading for the effect, quicker strength gains, and the full enjoyment of the cycle from day 1 until day whatever. Whether or not it works better or not...would be such a small difference it's not worth wasting one's time talking about it. I mean what's 3-4lbs of muscle and maybe a 4% increase in strength(estimates of course) difference in the long run with frontloading vs reg. dosages throughout.

A good study would be impossible because steroids happen to be illegal...go figure right, but both arguments are valid and make a lot of sense.

I'm going with Zyg on this, frontloading is my new thing and I have been rubbing it off on everyone else I talk to.

Well, I think your confused, but that's ok.

Yes, the original question was about taking D-bol to help get the cycle started quicker, but I don't consider that frontloading, that's stacking.

Also, you say that you are frontloading with Test
Prop right now, that also is not frontloading, that would also be stacking.

Fontloading is when you take a larger than normal dosage of a long acting ester to try to raise blood levels faster. This is what the argument is about right now. Your situation does not fall into that category. You combined a short acting ester to get the cycle started then later relying on the long acting ester to take over. This is stacking which I will agree is a good idea and will show noticeable gains.

Frontloading on the other hand is questionable......

 

[SUST-MAN]

I'm going with Zyg on this, frontloading is my new thing and I have been rubbing it off on everyone else I talk to. [/B]

Rubbing it off? hehe

Great thread Guys....I'm going to frontload this cycle. Whether it works or not....it cants hurt, Thats my opinion.

 

[Zyglamail]

Well, let me play the devil's advocate for a moment then. Lets try two different cases.......

First case,
Lets say we frontload Test Cyp at 1200mg for the first 2 weeks and then drop back to 400mg for the remaining time of the cycle, which we'll say is 8 more weeks for a total of 10 weeks. Lets say that in theory your frontloading works and that it shortens the delay time of the Test taking effect by 1-2 weeks, meaning that the test effectively starts working by the end of the second week or beginning of the 3rd week as opposed to not frontloading and the Test comes in the 4th week or so.


Second case,
Now lets forget about the frontloading and start at 400mg a week and continue on through the cycle at that rate, well since you didn't use up an extra 800mg a week for the first two weeks, that should leave you about 1600mg extra to play with, so lets add that in to the normal 10 weeks worth we had to start with, which should in effect give us another 4 more weeks at 400mg a week, 1600mg left over from not frontloading. Therefore, our cycle would last for 14 weeks instead of the frontloaded 10 weeks.

Which do you think is going to be more effective? I'll put my money on the 14 week 400mg/week cycle over the frontloaded cycle anyday. And why? Because, worst case, on the regular cycle it would come in the 4th week or so and then you would have 10 more weeks at same dosage of 400mg a week. On the frontloaded cycled, you would have beaten the delay time by 1-2 weeks at best, and then you would be left with 7-8 more weeks of 400mg a week to work with.

So, my question is which one should be more effective?

And please, stop acting like my opinions are worthless, they are just as vaild as yours or anyone else's for that matter. While I did agree with all of your post, that last little line was immature.

You seem to be comparing apples and oranges here. Your first example is too high of a frontload, which means that you wouldnt have 1600mg to play with but 800mg. Next, most people that I know of suffer greatly diminushed gains the longer the cycle goes and why many dont run 14 week cycles. Having siad that the frontload allows gains to come sooner (for many) and allows them to keep the cycle a bit shorter yet still get the same(or better) overall benefit of a longer cycle which has the added benefit of not being shut down so long and offers a faster recovery post cycle.

As for andy's comment you didnt like, you have done nothing but hound frontload threads calling them bullshit and saying they do not work. Then you use the same reasoning(anecdotal) to prove that it doesnt work. So what your saying is that this anecdotal proof is good enough to prove it doesnt work, but not good enough to prove it works. Sounds kind of hipocritical to me.

Granted some people do not respond readily to AAS, normal dose or frontload, these people will not benefit. However, many DO respond readily to AAS as the frontload poll has shown. Not as many people responded to it as I had hoped, but even those that say its not worth doing claimed to notice a benefit, not one of them siad it was totally bogus. So, in addition to the mathmatical equations for hydrolization and half life, the poll shows our anecdotal evidence(both your evidence against, and mine and Andy's evidence for).

 

[Blkout]

You seem to be comparing apples and oranges here. Your first example is too high of a frontload, which means that you wouldnt have 1600mg to play with but 800mg. Next, most people that I know of suffer greatly diminushed gains the longer the cycle goes and why many dont run 14 week cycles. Having siad that the frontload allows gains to come sooner (for many) and allows them to keep the cycle a bit shorter yet still get the same(or better) overall benefit of a longer cycle which has the added benefit of not being shut down so long and offers a faster recovery post cycle.

As for andy's comment you didnt like, you have done nothing but hound frontload threads calling them bullshit and saying they do not work. Then you use the same reasoning(anecdotal) to prove that it doesnt work. So what your saying is that this anecdotal proof is good enough to prove it doesnt work, but not good enough to prove it works. Sounds kind of hipocritical to me.

Granted some people do not respond readily to AAS, normal dose or frontload, these people will not benefit. However, many DO respond readily to AAS as the frontload poll has shown. Not as many people responded to it as I had hoped, but even those that say its not worth doing claimed to notice a benefit, not one of them siad it was totally bogus. So, in addition to the mathmatical equations for hydrolization and half life, the poll shows our anecdotal evidence(both your evidence against, and mine and Andy's evidence for).

Zyg, as much as I normally respect your opinions, they are starting to mean less and less to me. You are changing everything as you go along and your obviously bothered by the fact that someone might have a different opinion than your own. Could it be your God complex or just your moderator status? I don't know and I don't care, your not upsetting me at all and anyone who reads this thread can see that there are two sides to every coin.

As for Andy's remark, it was still immature regardless of what you think. If I called frontloading BS, its not insult to you or him personally, but saying my opinion is worthless is an insult to me. Obviously you don't care because I have stepped on your toes.

As for my post, how did I use too high of a frontload? I have seen many people using 2 and 3 times the normal amount for a frontload, I think it was well within reason. Also I don't think you read very well or either you can't add and subtract very well, but if you were taking 1200mg of Test for the first two weeks, then went back to 400mg for the remainder of the cycle, as opposed to 400mg for the whole cycle, you would save yourself 1600mg of Test in the first two weeks. 1200-400=800 week 1, 1200-400=800 week2, 800+800=1600 left over by week 3. Is it clear yet?

As for not running longer than 14 week cycles, how many pro's run less than 14 weeks? There is no proof of greatly diminished gains, and that rumor probably started with the myth that you need time to clear out your receptors. Only problem with long cycles is that the risk of side effects increase, but surely its no worse than taking double or triple the dosage of an ester up front when frontloading, so we'll leave the side effects out of it. Long cycles are fine and 14 weeks it not really that long anyway.

As for my opinion on frontloading, its just that, MY OPINION, and guess what? I'm entitled to it. No proof has been established as to whether or not it works so what proof do you have? OPINIONS from people how have tried it. That's right.....OPINIONS.

Most of the people in the poll are riding the fence of uncertainty, VERY few had any positive results that could make any claim toward proving it works. The rest state that maybe it helped by a week or so and some are not sure of that. I don't expect too many people to say it does not work at all because those who know don't do it and probably won't respond to the poll. I expect most of the people who respond favorably to be sheep who only follow the leader because they don't know any better. My point is that if it saves a few days or a week, its not worth doing in my opinion when you could just save that extra upfront dosage and use it later at the end of the cycle where more gains would occur. Seems the problem with all steroid users is that everyone wants results overnight, which is why we have such crazy ideas as frontloading. Got to try to see results a few days earlier. Any top bodybuilder will tell you, nothing happens overnight, it takes time to build a quality physique using gear or not. Everyone should learn to be patient and use their gear correctly and the gains will come.

Stacking is a much better alternative to frontloading.......

 

[XCYTER]

I think this post was frontloaded.