Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Ok Dudes, Long Or Short Cycles?
- Thread starter Krazykat
- Start date
- Status
C
cbeaks
Guest
Re: Well
LOL
Krazykat said:I am most disappointed, Mr Montana never responded to such a strong attack on his short cycle theory.
There`s still time!
Chris
LOL
Re: Well
Did I miss something here? I didn't read any argument aginst my cycle. All I read is that some people like to stay on longer. That doesnt mean it's more effective in the long run. It just means thats what some people like -- because it provides instant gratificaton. But in the long run, it's worse.
....................Krazykat said:I am most disappointed, Mr Montana never responded to such a strong attack on his short cycle theory.
There`s still time!
Chris
Did I miss something here? I didn't read any argument aginst my cycle. All I read is that some people like to stay on longer. That doesnt mean it's more effective in the long run. It just means thats what some people like -- because it provides instant gratificaton. But in the long run, it's worse.
Um
Mr Montana,
I have read a great deal of your articles. But I don`t really understand exactly what your point is on short cycles. Yes health problems are only associated with prolonged use and testosterone is recovered quicker, anti-estrogens are needed less and cortisol build up is reduced etc.
But if a person (CBeaks) is staying on for much longer than you suggest and is off for equally long and maintaining their gains (read his previous posts). What is your argument against it?
Is it soley health, or is it that this person would lose a lot of muscle in a longer time off, say maybe a year. Whereas doing 3 week cycles results in muscle gains that is effectively maintainable forever?
Many thanks,
Chris
Mr Montana,
I have read a great deal of your articles. But I don`t really understand exactly what your point is on short cycles. Yes health problems are only associated with prolonged use and testosterone is recovered quicker, anti-estrogens are needed less and cortisol build up is reduced etc.
But if a person (CBeaks) is staying on for much longer than you suggest and is off for equally long and maintaining their gains (read his previous posts). What is your argument against it?
Is it soley health, or is it that this person would lose a lot of muscle in a longer time off, say maybe a year. Whereas doing 3 week cycles results in muscle gains that is effectively maintainable forever?
Many thanks,
Chris
MrRTTB
New member
went from 160 to 205.7lb in 9 weeks, lost water and fat and 6 weeks later weight still 194. Focused on the diet, at a lot but still clean. Fat? Some yes, but still veins on back, chest, shoulders(even more visable). Still 6 pack abs. Sides? yep, some pimples 
BUT I once was at 205lb so that is probably why I gained that ampount eof weight in that short time. An accident and a few other things made me loose and drop down to 160.
I'm doing a 3 weeker right now, using prop winny and slin, great results so far, arms up 0.8" in 1½ weeks.
Shooting for 220 at 10%bf, then going off for probably the rest of my life.
But my wote would be 9weeks with frontload, maybe 11-12 without.
BUT I once was at 205lb so that is probably why I gained that ampount eof weight in that short time. An accident and a few other things made me loose and drop down to 160.
I'm doing a 3 weeker right now, using prop winny and slin, great results so far, arms up 0.8" in 1½ weeks.
Shooting for 220 at 10%bf, then going off for probably the rest of my life.
But my wote would be 9weeks with frontload, maybe 11-12 without.
Nelson, you favor short cycles and primobolan as the drug of choice, but others have pointed out that primobolan is long acting and it takes a while to kick in. Someone said that it will only kick in by the time your almost through with your cycle, so how can this be overcome?
Kat: Yes to all your comments. And the fact that short cycles produce smaller gains which are more easily maintained. In the end, one can only hold on to so much muscle naturally, and one can only hold on to so much muscle through the use of anabolics. I don't care if someone gains 100 pounds with gear, they can't keep it. In fact, they'll probably only keep what they can get from a well constructed low dose cycle. So why take the risks?
Having said that, if someone DOES gain 100 pounds, it's very difficult, to convince them that what they're doing isn't working well. In their mind, everything is great -- for now.
Anakin: We all need to dispell this myth that steroids take weeks to "kick in." That simply is not true. They kick in in a matter of hours, even long acting esters. True, the half life of my 3 week cycle would extend the "active" time another week or so, but that acts almost as a taper. And I recomened staying off for at least 2 months after that.
Having said that, if someone DOES gain 100 pounds, it's very difficult, to convince them that what they're doing isn't working well. In their mind, everything is great -- for now.
Anakin: We all need to dispell this myth that steroids take weeks to "kick in." That simply is not true. They kick in in a matter of hours, even long acting esters. True, the half life of my 3 week cycle would extend the "active" time another week or so, but that acts almost as a taper. And I recomened staying off for at least 2 months after that.
The third "cycle" I ever did (back in the 1800's) was nothing but 25 mgs of d-bol a day. After 4 days, what I used to squat for 10 reps I squatted for 20. 30 pound dumbells were too light for curls. I needed 50's even though I never used 50's before. Yep, D-bol works fast. And it works well. That's why I recommend it up front on a 3 week cycle.
J
Juice Authority
Guest
Re: Re: Well
The short-cycle theory/approach to AAS is completely ineffective and lacks all merit and common sense. In fact, it's counter-productive. To suggest a 2-3 weeks cycle shows a clear lack of knowledge of AAS pharmacology. The short 2-3 week cycle you suggest will just about completely shut down your HPTA and then you suggest going off?? While you're off the body isn't producing natural testosterone anyone because the 2-3 weeks you were on shut down your natural production of testosterone. What part of that don't you get??? Do you just come up with these brainless theories to stir up controversy? What's the point of it? To make fewer gains that are easier to maintain. Even that notion is wrong for the reasons mentioned above.
Nelson Montana said:
The short-cycle theory/approach to AAS is completely ineffective and lacks all merit and common sense. In fact, it's counter-productive. To suggest a 2-3 weeks cycle shows a clear lack of knowledge of AAS pharmacology. The short 2-3 week cycle you suggest will just about completely shut down your HPTA and then you suggest going off?? While you're off the body isn't producing natural testosterone anyone because the 2-3 weeks you were on shut down your natural production of testosterone. What part of that don't you get??? Do you just come up with these brainless theories to stir up controversy? What's the point of it? To make fewer gains that are easier to maintain. Even that notion is wrong for the reasons mentioned above.
- Status
