Newbie cycles that vets could learn from.

[Ulter]

If this sounds familiar it's because I posted it 100 times already...



"along with that come some pretty nasty sides, especially if you are using test for example. Acne would be the worst visible side for many."

The sides, for the vast majority of people under 35, are same at 500mg as 1000mg.



REPOSTED with permission from AF:

I will assume that you are going to train the same whether you are taking 1gr of test or taking half that. You are going to inject twice a week whether you inject 1gr or half that. You will eat the same, use the same anti-E's with a possible variance in your doses. You'll take the same 300mg of clomid the first day after your cycle is over and the same 100mg/day the first week and the same 50mg/day the 2nd week. Will the sides be different if you take 1gr a week or half that? Probably not. (You should adjust your doses down anytime you get unwanted sides.)
So at the end of 8 weeks, after all your time and effort, you're going to look at the bar and see how much weight you've add to it, you will look in the mirror and see how much muscle you've added. Do you want 1gr's worth of muscle or do you want half that?


Note: I know it's not double, but the point is the same.

There is more so I'll add it here. If you are taking 500 or 1000 you are still risking the same time in jail. You have the same chance of infection, hitting a nerve, etc. from injecting. You have to go through the same trouble of finding, paying for, and receiving your AS. Whether you use 500mg or 1000mg.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Utter: Your conclusion is flat out wrong.

For one thing, the difference in blood pressure will be considerable. Also, twice the dosage will not produce twice the gains.
Going with your logic why not do 4 grams in one week, gain 80 pounds and never have to do it again? It just doesn't work that way.

Where my concept differs from RG (or maybe not, but I don't recall this being addressed) is that the short cycle isn't supposed to be BIGGER gains FASTER. It's all about small gains. It makes more sense to gain 8 pounds and keep 5 than it does to gain 30 pounds and keep 6.

Small gains are more solid and more easily retained. If you do 4 short cyles a year, that's a total of 20 pounds of solid muscle. Can any say that isn't enough? If so, move on.

And you won't need Clomid, Nolva, HCG, Acc, or anything else. That's the deal in a nutshell. If that sounds good, short low does cycles are the way to go.

 

[Ulter]

Sorry Nelson been there, done that. Your theory of short cycles doesn't work in vivo.
Short cycles will shut you down just like long ones. These short cycles were put to rest on Anabolic Fitness almost 2 years ago when members ran them and had blood work done and were all shut down. If you go to the AF Hall of fame you can read all about it. Read "Jumping on the Short cycles bandwagon" and the "Fangowango cycles are dead"

I put a note that I know it's not twice the gains. Maybe you missed it.

Nelson the difference between 500 and 1000mg will not make a significant difference in blood pressure. At least none to be concerned with when using enough anti-E to prevent the water retention that contributes to it.

"Going with your logic why not do 4 grams in one week, gain 80 pounds and never have to do it again? It just doesn't work that way."

That's not my logic and I am surprised to even see that in a post you authored.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Utter: The analogy was just to underline the premise that more gear doesn't result in comparbale gains. I wasn't suggesting you didn't know that, but there seems to be a lot of people who don't.

I've seen severe BP spikes once dosages get near the 1 gram mark. Adding anti-e's present there own set of problems.

The issue was never the shut down of HPTA. Hell, a few d-bol will do that in about a week. Again, the premise is making slow steady gains as opposed to "blowing up" and eventually losing those gains.

Although suppression occurs from short cycles, the RECUPERSTION is much faster if the HPTA has been supressed only a few weeks as opposed to several months. That is not to be lightly dismissed! The longer the supression the more muscle lost. Sure, you can go from drug to drug to drug attempting to circumvent the dilemma, but using the short cycles appoach is simpler, healthier, more economical and ultimately, will look better and last longer.

 

[Ulter]

Ok

I have not seen this dangerously high BP problem at only 1000mg. However I have only been doing this 20 years so I imagine if you've seen it I will run into it eventually.
The short cycle from a gains standpoint makes even less sense than from a HTPA recovery standpoint. Does anyone deny that their best gains come in the 4th to 6th week?
I am at a disadvantage because I have not read what you are using in your short cycle or how short is short. I imagine it's the same thing discussed two years ago.
However, in order for it to be as productive as an 8 week cycle it would have to be tren and suspension and an oral. Which means dailies (IMI) for these guys, so most woudn't do it anyway.
Two good cycles a year will net better gains than 6 short ones. Like I said, this method of cycling was en vogue 2 years ago but it wasn't productive, practical, or safer.

 

[Nelson Montana]

We just disagree. You've never seen BP probems. I have. Lots of people have.

Yes, I do advocate orals along with an injectabe, but at low dosages. Mg per Mg, orals have several advantages.

Not productve? Depends on your goals. Obviously more gear will equal more weight gain. But I don't care for the puffy, overblown look it provdes and I've found big fast gains to be the most short lived.

I've had dozens, maybe hundreds of people tell me that the short cycles I recommend produced excellant results with no sides. How many guys who do a gram a week for 10 weeks can say they have no sides? Look at this board bro. Gyno, bloat, no dick, acne, loss of gains. But to each his own. The readers will ultimately decide for themselves.

 

[Realgains]

If one is already fairly big and the goal is to gain as much mass as possible in a few months then long cycles with fairly high doses are for you....but the newbie that is below his natural max simply doesn't need a lot of gear to gain very well. He may very well gain better with a gram a week but I don't think by very much. I for one see a big diffence in sides from 500 of test to a gram. Maybe some people are luckier than me and have better genetics I don't know.

Short cycles are not for everyone but I think they have there place.

I have had my test levels checked before and after a short cycle of tren/test. Before it was my normal of around 550. My test production was likely nearly zero after the two weeks but I retested after a week off, that is after week three, and my test had rebounded to a higher level at 670. Some think this is due to the pituitary being ultra sensitized to GnRH, it not having time enough to "go to sleep". By week 4 my test had dropped to 560.

In the 4 weeks off I gained a little more strength but lost weight due to the loss of water weight. I have kept up to 8 pounds with short cycles and have seemed to hang onto gains better over time. I experienced no sides, save for a little low back pump while running...no acne, no PBH, very minimal change in lipid profile etc.
It does seem that test levels recover very rapidly after short cycles. I have never had this rapid recovery with long cycles and certainly never gained an once of strength in the immediate weeks post cycle.

Maybe short cycles are underestimated.
They can be quite productive if using fast acting compounds.

 

[Fonz]

Finally, the moderates are gaining ground....it only took a few years...LOL

Moderates?

More like the ultra-conservatives..............LOL

Fonz

 

[Realgains]

Moderates?

More like the ultra-conservatives..............LOL

Fonz

I remember a poll taken once on this board and if I am remembering correctly the majority of the members were between 19 and 25 with runner up 17-21.

There are a lot of very young bro's on this board that just need to train naturally for a while and make great gains..so I think we should be conservative. Most guys here don't need large doses to gain well so why use them. I think its best to save higher doses for when you are much bigger and at least at your natural max weight.

RG

RG

 

[Ulter]

"Most guys here don't need large doses to gain well so why use them."

I have listed the reasons why men need to use moderate dosing as opposed to very low. Twice.

"...You've never seen BP probems. I have. Lots of people have."

Define BP problems and lots of people.
There are 5000 active members on our board with the vast majority being vets and none of them have reported dangerous increases in BP, to my knowledge, using only 1000mg. With the exception of some of the over 40's.



The posting describing sides on this board are not a reflection of how many experience them vs how many don't. People instinctively like to report negative information 9 times* more often than positive. The people without sides don't post that they had no sides for the most part. Also, most of those reporting sides are doing so while using low doses anyway.

"How many guys who do a gram a week for 10 weeks can say they have no sides? "

About 90% of the vets on these boards.

"I have kept up to 8 pounds with short cycles"

If people could gain and keep 8 pounds of LBM from every fangowango cycle they do it would only take 4 years doing it just once every 3 months to go from 200 to 300 pounds at 10% BF.
It may work for some once but it doesn't on a consistant basis and we all tried it 2 years ago and proved that.



*A National Restaurant Assoc study showed people are 9 times more likely to tell someone about a bad restaurant experience as as opposed to a good one.