+ 6 "Beginner" Cycles and why more is not always better
So lately I've been coming across many users that wish to cycle for the first time. Now apart from the fact that you need a solid base and everything to be on point for such a cycle to be really effective, I've noticed that the desired (and often recommended) dosages are not what I would call a beginner cycle at all.
Probably the most common "beginner" cycle people strive for here is test e @ 500mg/week for 12 weeks. I believe that this is too high. Personally, I did two 250mg/week and one 250mg/e5d cycle before I ever even went as high as that. Trust me, I gained PLENTY off those dosages blasting through my genetic limit, provided everything is on point as mentioned above.
Lets be honest, most beginners here shouldn't be running AAS anyways since they are far away from their natty potential. This implies that their muscular development is often not advanced enough in order to have sufficient receptors for the steroids to dock on to. Now imagine you are running dosages of 500mg/week, you really think your going to get an added benefit over 250mg/week? Hardly...
I've seen contest bodybuilders that never went above a total of 750mg per week, no matter which combination of compounds. Now obvioulsy they might have different genetics than you, but considering these facts is it really smart to be running dosages almost as high for a first cycle?
Personally, if I had to do it all over again I'd take a 250mg/week cycle over a 500mg/week cycle any day. I would even advise to extend the cycle by another 4 weeks. Good steady gains over a decent period of time will bring you muscle mass that you will eventually be able to hold much easier.
Additionally, with 500mg/week you are much more prone to side effects, which is totally unecessary as somebody who is only just beginning to take AAS and more often than not won't be able to make proper use of that dosage anyway.
Yeah, just wanted to get that off my mind...Maybe it will inspire some of you to rethink the conventional idea of a "beginner" cycle. My vote goes to 250mg/week.
- Bookmark
- 6
- 0
Anonthis was one of the most intelligent dudes I ever talked with on Eroids.. I think a lot of the ignorant kids drove him away :(
He bounced the day I got banned. He was like the only one who fought to try to unban me at the time
RustyhookerI ran most of my "stacks" at under 600/week and grew well every time. But then again, I've also found that a great stack can be run lower with....better gains. As far as lowering the 500/week as a beginner cycle.....it would be difficult imo. Not because of the dose but because of the mass amounts of bro-science going on all the other sites. Again, as a testing rat....yes i grew great at well below 500Mg on just test e over and over again. No doubts at all i can run my diet to match low dose and add good mass. The downside is I'm on these forums day/night....hyper active....and spend most every day simply getting newbs to drop tren and ATTEMP a great meal plan. There's only been maybe....maaaaaybe a half dozen guys I've gotten to drop the tren AND run low doses. It's basically an uphill battle.
Sorry for devils advocate blurb. Yes...you can grow big on 300/week. But can you fight social media?
Greekmuscle1Thanks for this post! Hopefully people will read it instead of thinking their mr olympia over night because if gear +1
BigBmajGreat advice. +
ok i have a question. does size matter? someone is starting their first cycle at 5'7 155lbs vs someone who is starting their cycle at 5'7 210 lbs. both guys aim to gain 20 lbs. wouldnt the heavier guy most likely need a heavier dose to reach that same goal?
I think you can answer your own question if you add the following hypothesis...
Let's say that the little guy has a natural test level of 500, and the big guy has a natural test level of 750.
We can also add that the big guy has 35% body fat and the little guy has 12%
in all honesty bro, i don't want to make a false assumption with that situation. in this question, their is two variables (BF and natty test levels) to consider.
i meant to ask my question so that the amount of lean muscle mass was the only variable in which the two people different.
before coming across this forum topic i assumed that the more lean muscle you had the more hormones it would take to grow. and a real life example of this is my friend who has cycled for 10 years never using more then 350mg of hormones each week. he could really fill out his frame but he never weighed more then 185lbs during his off season.
I think he means "All things being equal."
Nice post +1, a must read for newbs, followed by this one
http://www.eroids.com/forum/steroids-qa/steroid-cycles/its-not-the-gear
Great Post EBSNW1! I totally agree! Im doing a similiar cycle right now and Im seeing good gains and its not my first cycle. Thanks for putting this out there.
250mg a week for a first cycle is 2x or 3x more than the natural test produces.
I completely Agree, you will make gains and have a good experience.
I agree that a first low dose first cycle has merit. Followed by a moderately dosed longer cycle.
But for me, 500mg hardly made a difference. (Age 54 = lower natural test levels)
750 Mg every 9 days was my "sweet spot"
I also agree more is not necessarily better. I'm still seeing good gains several years/cycles later and have resisted going much higher.
-my 2 bits
I'm not trying to argue but genuinely want to know. What are the potential side effects? Why is that not "safe?" I'm doing 500 mg/ week split into 2 pins per week (Test E) and after 4 weeks (I know they say that you really start to get going after week 4) I feel stronger, feel calmer (if that makes any sense), and notice some very real muscle definition and gain. Anyone disagree (respectfully) on this 250mg/week for noobs?
I would love to see something like 300mg per week as the recommended beginner cycle. I wish I would have started at a lower dose because I probably would have made the same gains on 300 instead of 500. I know my buddy gained 20 solid lbs his 1st cycle and he only used 350 per week.
This would also help prevent gyno in more sensitive people so a lighter use of AI would be optimal. Good post I like the idea.
So are you trying to say that a 250mg per week for 16 weeks will be more benificial than a 12 week 500mg cycle? With everything being on point obviously.
Yup, and safer too..