No one (this is laughable) says "hey, dig me, the BBng stud-man, becuase I maintained a high blood concentration ...". LOL
People want results. Lean mass. Low sides. Thats what they want. Now it may be true that for many guys (not all) that means high and consistent blood concentration is the best way. But thats not their goal.
Riker29, you seem to be missing the point a little here unless I am missreading you. You say people want results, but in the end results DO come from consistent blood levels. As for sides, front loading does not necessarily give any more sides than a standard cycle. The peak dose does not vary much, if at all from a front load to a standard cycle. If you dont think consistent blood levels play a crucial role in gains, try your next cycle with 1g of prop shot once a week and see how your body does as you follow the bouncing ball. An exageration yes, but maybe that helps to get the point across.
As for your acne comments, very good point, however, if you notice blood levels on a non frontloaded cycle are never very constant, they climb through the whole thing. SO if your theory of changing hormone levels are at the root of acne, then perhaps a cycle that imposes a change, gets blood levels up fast and keeps them there will offer less sides?
I applaud your efforts here guys. I think if this helps people understand more about what they are doing it's great. It seems to me however you are over-complicating a pretty basic cycling concept.
Perhaps thier should have been a disclaimer in andy's post, but at the same time its hard for anyone to cover all the bases and fend off all potential attacks. It has been stated before by both andy and myself that we both understand there are a great many variables. There is not only product injected, but location of injection as well as injection volume. These are things that little has been done to quantify and then only on a small group of AAS and a small variance in inj location. Just because there are variances does not mean we can not try and make what we do know and have control over a little clearer.
You say that we are overcomplicating a pretty basic cycleing concept, but in essence we are not over complicating anything, just trying to add some light to a subject that has been discussed with no evidence or clarification to back it. I dont think Andy's goal, and I know mine wasnt, to complicate anything, but add some credability, with numbers and pictures. A means to educate and not confuse. Half life computation is not rocket science and anyone can do it, if they take the time. Andy has posted the formula and explained it well enough that anyone can incorporate it. One a side note, I dont think anyone has come out and said cycle this way or not at all, these are just more ideas for people to experiment with and take for a test drive to see how they fare.
Some people come here and throw up a cycle for opinions and every now and then we still see a cycle that pyramids and everyone is quick to act and say thats old school. Keep it straight line throughout. Recenty there have been some saying to front load if anything. I would bet that a couple years down the road some one will post a flat dose cycle and be told to front load, flat dose cycles are old school. Just because something works does not mean it cant be improved.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
