open discussion on SHORT CYCLES (BLAST cycling included)
-
perhaps this would pertain to more advanced cycles as the choice of compounds are key in designing short cycles... I want people to weigh in on their experiences as well as theorem pertaining to this concept..
-
cycles as short as 2 weeks are supposedly allowing successful gains.. as I scour the internets (yaes, teh internetz) looking for more info. I realize that I should bring this topic up here!
-
I've read about how 4 weeks are great, and that essentially cycles under 8 weeks are optimum - no doubt because of the notion of being "off" for less time is a key underlying 'positive' that many (including Bill Roberts) have pointed out.
-
Now through my own research, I know for myself that longer cycles are in general 'more suppressive' - your nuts aren't makin their own candy..
-
there's also the matter of 19Nor's, which in most people's eyes are considered very suppressive.. Yet also it does a VERY good job at doing what it's meant for.. building the body up... in every sense of the notion, there's evidence that points to up-regulation of the immune system, that's awesome right!
-
ok so where am I going with this, well in a nutshell the idea is that while you are under the curve for a shorter periods of time, you are also off for shorter periods of time.. Lipid values aren't affected as much, supposedly (I have yet to confirm this through my own experiences, mainly due to lack of time actually running gear) (what can I say, I've been natural most of my life, don't hold it against me lol I could have started years ago but firmly stood behind the belief that I should wait until I'm into my 30's.. I'm 32 now and I picked up my first dumbbell at the age of 12, you do the math on just how long I've been 'working out')
.. another plus is that you are able to run more cycles per year, so the real question is does this really translate into better gains over the course of a year.. well we know that if you are wanting to get freaky hugh then being under the curve for as long as possible is the way to do it.. yet this path ultimately leads to health complications down the road, without a doubt - all the pro's from yester-year have one issue or another, usually cardiovascular related. so what if you are wanting to reap the benefits of what a good cycle can provide, better health, improved recover, sense of well being and image, etc. .. so what are peoples thoughts on this!? 4 weeks on followed by 6 weeks off? how can this be good for gains? Is this truely enough time to allow retainable growth? Just how much growth have YOU seen in the first month? how much do you think you would lose? and then to go back on so quickly... obviously we would have to be dealing with fast acting compounds here - things like 1-test prop, test prop, tren ace, mast prop, NPP, test PP, what else have I not mentioned.. oh test-E .. yeah... what if you ran a whole different approach to 'front loading'... hear me out.. this is only a theory and I'm really just wanting a response from everyone, experiences are big in my book so share and elaborate.
I'm going to lay out an example of only the test base of a possible 4 week cycle (maybe extend to 5) that could even include other compounds added (I'd love to hear other's ideas and theories or experiences behind it) this example provides a natural taper down.. and the dosages are a bit aggressive, easily you can proportionally adjust them and I'm in no way advocating this!! I'm only using it as an example, perhaps someone could remake this example with better dosages and even added compounds. I'm trying to spark ideas on the concept of short cycles.. I'm sure I'm going to get a lil flamed for this but sometimes you need a little unconventional to stir up the pot.
day by day starting with day one for 35 days
- 1000mg. test-e, 150mg. test-p
- 750mg. test-e, 50mg. test-p
- 500mg test-e, 50mg. test-p
- 250mg. test-e, 50mg. test-p
- 250mg. test-e, 50mg. test-p
- 250mg. test-e, 50mg. test-p
- 250mg. test-e, 50mg. test-p
- 250mg. test-e, 50mg. test-p
- 250mg. test-e, 50mg. test-p
- 250mg. test-e, 50mg. test-p
- 250mg. test-e, 50mg. test-p
- 250mg. test-e, 50mg. test-p
- 250mg. test-e, 50mg. test-p
- 250mg. test-e, 50mg. test-p
- 150mg. test-p
- 150mg. test-p
- 150mg. test-p
- 150mg. test-p
- 150mg. test-p
- 150mg. test-p
- 150mg. test-p
- 150mg. test-p
- 150mg. test-p
- 150mg. test-p
- 100mg. test-p
- 100mg. test-p
- 90mg. test-p
- 90mg. test-p
- 80mg. test-p
- 80mg. test-p
- 70mg. test-p
- 60mg. test-p
- 50mg. test-p
- 50mg. test-p
- 50mg. test-p
- Bookmark
- 0
- 0
Interested to see if this would work with test prop/bold ace/tren ace
the question I have for you brother, is just how much change did you experience in one month on bold ace, or any other fast acting?
Never tried bold ace.
Honestly the only steroids I noticed immediate results was dbol and anadrol. With tren ace I noticed fat burning and minimal muscle gain in 4 weeks.
So maybe a test prop/tren ace/dbol 4 weeker?? That might be the best thing if you are trying to make gains in 4 weeks. IDK doses would need to be pretty high
I think this theory would only work if you are a blast/cruise person since the cruise would help "maintain" gains instead of lose everything in PCT
Good idea, i like the write up and i see the logic here. I personally would prefer to run an 8 week short ester blast and change up the short ester dosages/compounds every 4 weeks. A well known bodybuilder and diet/training/aas coach who's fee's are appriximately 860usd for 12 weeks substantiates the idea of alternating your short ester dosages every 4 weeks to maintain your cycles effectiveness.
Now if we look at the standard 12 week test e cycle. It takes approximately 4 weeks for your body to build up enough test e in your system to 'feel it' leaving you with an 8 week growth window. However the difference with these longer esters is that it takes 4 weeks to sufficiently enter your system and another 2 weeks to exit your system, contrary to shorter estered variants.