Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Does anyone do short cycles with good results?

Nighthawkk

Nighthawkk

New member
I have heard of people doing 2-4 week cycles consisting of such compounds as fina, winny, prop, var, and clen. My question is... would every day injections of these anabolics actually be worth it it terms of keeping gains post cycle? Has anyone tried this?
 
i wonder how many of the long cycle advocates have actually tried a short cycle. i did my first short cycle a few wks ago. it was a 5 weeker. first 2 wks were 750 mg sus EW, 1 through 5 was test suspension 50mg ED,1 through 4 nandrolone phen prop 150mg EW. ate till my stomach begged for mercy and gained 19lbs in 4.5 wks. last 4 days i was down with flu and lost around 6lbs. got back to the gym and on nolva and creatine for 3 wks gained 2 lbs! no change in bf%. it all depends on what ur goals are. a string of short cycles separated by enough gaps will definitely see good gains which will be kept more easily than the long cycle and IMO some might actually see a net gain in excess of with long cycles.
 
I think those that oppose shorter cycles have never tried them... Plus there is a bias because obviously you will gain more in a 12-weeker than a 3-4 weeker, but you have to take into consideration the recovery periods and how much mass is actually kept. I would tend to think shorter cycles would not shut you down as hard because of the shorter-acting esters leaving your body quicker, plus post-cycle recovery can be started much sooner.
 
Nighthawkk said:
I think those that oppose shorter cycles have never tried them... Plus there is a bias because obviously you will gain more in a 12-weeker than a 3-4 weeker, but you have to take into consideration the recovery periods and how much mass is actually kept. I would tend to think shorter cycles would not shut you down as hard because of the shorter-acting esters leaving your body quicker, plus post-cycle recovery can be started much sooner.
Click to expand...


Agreed. All the vehement arguements for long cycles have absolutely no merit other than it's fun being on steroids.

For keepable gains, health, safety, recouperation, and long term benefits, 3 week cycles are the way to go. But, you know...everybody wants to be big yesterday.
 
i have tried 3 week cycles.
albeit w/ tren, so i was suprresed too hard.
in 3 weeks, i was looking good. and strong. kept most of the strength but little of the mass.

all in all- kept about 3 lbs.
would i do it again, probably don the road, w/ different compounds. ie primo var. never fina again
 
I stay on year round (as I compete) but I have also done short cycles....you must get your body used to a certain weight before going off.....it is like trying to set a dial.....

with short cycles you dont achieve this....

short cycles are worthless....i would like to talk with someone who has doen several short cycles a year..(3 weeks) and gained more than 5 lbs of muscle a year.....not yo yo weight but a solid 5 lbs....
 
cells said:
I stay on year round (as I compete) but I have also done short cycles....you must get your body used to a certain weight before going off.....it is like trying to set a dial.....

with short cycles you dont achieve this....

short cycles are worthless....i would like to talk with someone who has doen several short cycles a year..(3 weeks) and gained more than 5 lbs of muscle a year.....not yo yo weight but a solid 5 lbs....
Click to expand...

I know at least 20 people who have done it, including myself.
 
All vehement arguments for long cycles are worthless?

Wow.

3 week cycles are the way to go?

I wonder if you would pinpoint for me the actual change in risk from say, ten weeks of test versus three weeks of test, and then plot that argument against the difference in gains.

I can see that certain steroids would be bad candidates for long cycles, yes. But how about constructing an argument for a three week oxandrolone cycle versus a twelve week oxandrolone cycle, with data to back up the position?

Three week cycles with two month breaks, I assume? Because a three week break is not a break, it's a pause, and continuing another three week cycle just twenty one days later is actually continuing the same cycle, only inefficiently.

So that gives you twelve weeks on, nine months off.

Why do a cycle at all?

That is indeed the question. Why cycle for three weeks at all? What exactly are you enhancing in three weeks?

Now, about those foolish vehement arguments for longer cycles:

First off, your joints and tendons have time to acclimate to your newfound strength.

Secondly, you don't have to immediately double calories in order to see gains.

Thirdly, your strength and endurance increase at a rate that enables you to train longer, harder, and with heavier weights, without risking injury.

All this is foolishness?

Methinks not.
 
NO YOU MIGHT AS WELL CALL IT A BRIDGE/ tHE BODY ADAPTS BEST WITH LONGER TERM MUSCLE MEMOREY. tHAT IS THE LONGER IT IS PUSHED TO ITS MAX LIMIT THE LONGER THE GAINS LAST IME.
 
Opinions turn to arguments real quick on this board. I did 8-12 week cycles for years before I started 3 weekers, and they were the greatest change to my training regime. You can't point a finger at someone and say no it doesn't work when you don't know and you haven't tried, true, maybe it doesn't work for everyone, or it doesn't work for those that want to put on 50 lbs every cycle. But it works for many, this has always been a sketchy issue in every gym and on every board, and argueing back and forth isn't going to change anyones mind. 3 Weekers work for me. Can anyone challenge that ? Of course not, 'cause they don't know what works for the individual. Some see gyno from the thought of Dbol, others take stacks of drol, deca, test and don't see a trace of gyno. Everyone is diffrent, this is what makes anabolics such a personal thing to some people. One mans juice (no pun intended) is another mans poison.
 
Are shorter cycles better for someone looking only for strength gains as opposed to a bodybuilder?

I more interested in increasing my strength permanently. I think that several short cycles would allow me to slowly gain strength while not stressing my tendons/joints the way that I would by gaining a ton of strength in say 2-3 months.

That being said, I'm about to start a 10 weeker.
 
My wife likes short cycles of var, great for cutting and a little LBM. I prefer PL, and long cycles better for this IMO. All depends on goals.
 
It really all depends on the person...and there goals..and the difference between what ones think good gains are to anothers views..
 
Fukkenshredded said:
All vehement arguments for long cycles are worthless?

Wow.

3 week cycles are the way to go?

I wonder if you would pinpoint for me the actual change in risk from say, ten weeks of test versus three weeks of test, and then plot that argument against the difference in gains.

I can see that certain steroids would be bad candidates for long cycles, yes. But how about constructing an argument for a three week oxandrolone cycle versus a twelve week oxandrolone cycle, with data to back up the position?

Three week cycles with two month breaks, I assume? Because a three week break is not a break, it's a pause, and continuing another three week cycle just twenty one days later is actually continuing the same cycle, only inefficiently.

So that gives you twelve weeks on, nine months off.

Why do a cycle at all?

That is indeed the question. Why cycle for three weeks at all? What exactly are you enhancing in three weeks?

Now, about those foolish vehement arguments for longer cycles:

First off, your joints and tendons have time to acclimate to your newfound strength.

Secondly, you don't have to immediately double calories in order to see gains.

Thirdly, your strength and endurance increase at a rate that enables you to train longer, harder, and with heavier weights, without risking injury.

All this is foolishness?

Methinks not.
Click to expand...

Not for nothing Funkin, but your posts have been a little irritating lately. You're constantly eager to dismiss something and demand evidence without offering any of your own. Your imperious tone is also getting annoying.

Everything you say here is speculation and guesswork. Tendons acclamating to newfound strength. Increased endurence enabling you to train harder. Sounds good, but it's nothing but wishful thinking.

You also have a habit of making assumptions and putting words in peoples mouths. Every accusation against 3 week cycles you make is your own. But I guess it's easier to put the other guy on the defensive than to actually make a point.

There are plenty of reasons for the shorter cycle, the two main ones being that there is less suppression and faster recovery. Also, there's the fact that smaller gains are more easily sustained.

So, your wrong.
 
shredded: u talk abt short cycles as 12wks on and 9mths off- maybe. but the point is what u keep on the cycle. ok- u do an 8 wk cycle and gain 25lb (say) while AAS levels are inhibitory. very good. but the first day of post cycle (in my experience) how much of that do u find to be water? furthermore why talk abt 25 lbs when at the end of post cycle u cannot keep most of it? on 3-4 wk cycles gains may come slowly but they stay- that is not hypothetical or an opinion, it is a fact- ask anyone who has done it.

i do not compete so i cannot comment abt how useful short cycles are for someone who does. all i can say is this- for someone who does not compete and keeping max gains out of a cycle is obviously an issue- short cycles are definitely a good option.
 
Fukkenshredded said:
All vehement arguments for long cycles are worthless?

Wow.

3 week cycles are the way to go?

I wonder if you would pinpoint for me the actual change in risk from say, ten weeks of test versus three weeks of test, and then plot that argument against the difference in gains.

I can see that certain steroids would be bad candidates for long cycles, yes. But how about constructing an argument for a three week oxandrolone cycle versus a twelve week oxandrolone cycle, with data to back up the position?

Three week cycles with two month breaks, I assume? Because a three week break is not a break, it's a pause, and continuing another three week cycle just twenty one days later is actually continuing the same cycle, only inefficiently.

So that gives you twelve weeks on, nine months off.

Why do a cycle at all?

That is indeed the question. Why cycle for three weeks at all? What exactly are you enhancing in three weeks?

Now, about those foolish vehement arguments for longer cycles:

First off, your joints and tendons have time to acclimate to your newfound strength.

Secondly, you don't have to immediately double calories in order to see gains.

Thirdly, your strength and endurance increase at a rate that enables you to train longer, harder, and with heavier weights, without risking injury.

All this is foolishness?

Methinks not.
Click to expand...

Good post.

-sk
 
Cool, I was gonna start a new thread, but since you're here Nelson!!;p

I'm designing a short from guidelines in BLB.. You had group tab with injectable in order to complement their effect on and against progesterone. Deca/Win, and Primo/Dbol. But you didn't associate any with Sus. So this is my question: Is Sus an option and to which oral should I match it. And, does Dbol have the same progesterone fithing properties as Winstrol?

Thanks in advance for any info provided! If you have any combos you recommend at the current time, please feel free.
 
sk* said:


It isn't fact.

-sk
Click to expand...

Yes it is. You just don't want to accept it as such.

discanting. When using sus, anavar makes the perfect tab complement.

D-bol does not e the anti prog effects of winstrol. But read a little deeper into the book. I do not recommend Deca.
 
silver_shadow said:
on 3-4 wk cycles gains may come slowly but they stay- that is not hypothetical or an opinion, it is a fact- ask anyone who has done it.
Click to expand...

then why didnt i keep mine ? 3-4 weekers blow IMO. done 2 and will never do them again. i have a much easier time keeping my gains from longer cycles, 8+ weeks then short cycles. thats not even close to a fact
 
Where is Realgains. He had a whole thing on short cycles a year or two ago. Do a search on him and it should come up. He was doing 2 weekers with higher than average dosages of short esters or suspensions.
 
Its funny to watch these discussions degenerate into personal attacks. How about commenting on the INFORMATION guys, and not PEOPLE?

Several things stand out here:

I think there are a lot of people commenting based what they "think" they know. Not from personal experience, not from having done long and short cycles and being able to really discuss the merits of each, but from "assuming" based on what they THINK they know.


Unless you have

- done BOTH long and short cycles (for comparison) or
- have done short cycles (to discuss how they work, on their own)
- or you know (DIRECTLY know, NOT quoting other 'net dudes) people who have done them,

then frankly your opinion does not carry much weight.

(But everyone is an expert whilst behind a keyboard. And they have huge balls too as long as they are swinging under a desk. But I digress ....)


A lot of guys are also stating "did short cycles and lost my gains". Ok, sure, maybe you did, but really - many many guys lose their gains from longer cycles as well. They may have MORE gains, and take LONGER to lose them, but the point is that they still are lost. So please, before you state "did a short cycle and lost the gains" and state that as PROOF of anything, please ALSO discuss your success with LONG cycles, and how you were able to (proportionally) keep THOSE gains for a long long time.

Same problem goes for diet as well. I think many guys expect AS to be magic and they blame the gear or the cycle design for their lack of progress, when in fact they don’t know how to train, or eat, or don’t rest, or they party, and then they blame it on "bad gear" or "bad cycle".



And before anyone gets pissy or defensive, I am NOT attacking anyone or singling anyone out - ok? So please, lets not have an individuals get anything less then helpful thinking that I am somehow "challenging" them. Relax.

Its all about learning.
 
Last edited:
I've only done a few cycles, but i have done one of enanthante for 50 days (one 200 mg shot every five days) and i gained five pounds. i also just finished a sust cycle of four weeks, i used 500-750 a week (can't remember exact number now, alas, school work has wrecked my memory and brain) and i went from 190 to 215. granted, some of that is fat, but i plan on trying to gain another ten pounds of muscle and fat in the next few months naturally, and then kicking in some fina and test to cut. just from my experience, i'd think short and long cycles have benefits, and it would be foolish to ever deem one statement as absolutely, and irresolutely true. later
 
sk* said:


Not really, but I do know you are using your other aliases again. :)

-sk
Click to expand...


This very accusation shows how clueless you are. Not to mention classless for taking a cheap shot.


Riker! Word! Good post.
 
Fukkenshredded said:
All vehement arguments for long cycles are worthless?

Wow.

3 week cycles are the way to go?

I wonder if you would pinpoint for me the actual change in risk from say, ten weeks of test versus three weeks of test, and then plot that argument against the difference in gains.

I can see that certain steroids would be bad candidates for long cycles, yes. But how about constructing an argument for a three week oxandrolone cycle versus a twelve week oxandrolone cycle, with data to back up the position?

Three week cycles with two month breaks, I assume? Because a three week break is not a break, it's a pause, and continuing another three week cycle just twenty one days later is actually continuing the same cycle, only inefficiently.

So that gives you twelve weeks on, nine months off.

Why do a cycle at all?

That is indeed the question. Why cycle for three weeks at all? What exactly are you enhancing in three weeks?

Now, about those foolish vehement arguments for longer cycles:

First off, your joints and tendons have time to acclimate to your newfound strength.

Secondly, you don't have to immediately double calories in order to see gains.

Thirdly, your strength and endurance increase at a rate that enables you to train longer, harder, and with heavier weights, without risking injury.

All this is foolishness?

Methinks not.
Click to expand...

Amen.
 
I know it's all in good spirit, right?

Okay, I'll bite a little bit here. But in GOOD SPIRIT, Nelson, you know I respect you.

Wrong about what? I simply asked what actual specific risk was being minimized by truncating a cycle of a relatively safe steroid, such as oxandrolone, from a couple of months to three weeks.

I asked that a correlation of reduced risk, supported with documentation, be plotted against the minimized gains.

Never anywhere did I say that you were wrong about short cycles being applicable in certain circumstances.

In fact I agree that short cycles can be beneficial, in certain applications.

I simply took issue with your blanket statement that "...all vehement arguments in favor of long cycles are worthless..."

I think one might more accurately propose that, say, long cycles with certain steroids increase the health risks in a way that is disproportionate to the relative gains compared to a shorter cycle.

Would that be a more reasonable statement than yours?

Yeah, it would.

But hey, that's me, and like you said, my tone is irritating.

Especially lately, from what I understand.

The other question I brought up, and again, I point out that it is simply a request for clarification, not a blanket statement, is the issue of time off between these shorter cycles.

I realize that at times my writing is poor and not immediately clear, so I have to apologize for that shortcoming. I will put it another way...

Is time off between three week cycles also shortened, or is it kept to the full recovery time of six to eight weeks? Again, I am ASKING, not stating. See the difference?

There is another issue that needs to be addressed when talking about cycle length, and that is the issue of DOSE.

After all, I think a case could be made for lowering the dose more easily than could be made for shortening the duration.

Again, just speculation on my part. As you will no doubt quickly point out.

All I was trying to do, Nelson, was gain a little clarification with regards to your statements and propositions, which to me seem, at times, a bit extreme and all encompassing.

And about my tone...well...sorry about the fact that you are irritated with me lately.

Maybe your cycles are a bit too long...might be affecting your mood.
 
Last edited:
Fukkenshredded said:
I know it's all in good spirit, right?

Okay, I'll bite a little bit here. But in GOOD SPIRIT, Nelson, you know I respect you.

Wrong about what? I simply asked what actual specific risk was being minimized by truncating a cycle of a relatively safe steroid, such as oxandrolone, from a couple of months to three weeks.

I asked that a correlation of reduced risk, supported with documentation, be plotted against the minimized gains.

Never anywhere did I say that you were wrong about short cycles being applicable in certain circumstances.

In fact I agree that short cycles can be beneficial, in certain applications.

I simply took issue with your blanket statement that "...all vehement arguments in favor of long cycles are worthless..."

I think one might more accurately propose that, say, long cycles with certain steroids increase the health risks in a way that is disproportionate to the relative gains compared to a shorter cycle.

Would that be a more reasonable statement than yours?

Yeah, it would.

But hey, that's me, and like you said, my tone is irritating.

Especially lately, from what I understand.

The other question I brought up, and again, I point out that it is simply a request for clarification, not a blanket statement, is the issue of time off between these shorter cycles.

I realize that at times my writing is poor and not immediately clear, so I have to apologize for that shortcoming. I will put it another way...

Is time off between three week cycles also shortened, or is it kept to the full recovery time of six to eight weeks? Again, I am ASKING, not stating. See the difference?

There is another issue that needs to be addressed when talking about cycle length, and that is the issue of DOSE.

After all, I think a case could be made for lowering the dose more easily than could be made for shortening the duration.

Again, just speculation on my part. As you will no doubt quickly point out.

All I was trying to do, Nelson, was gain a little clarification with regards to your statements and propositions, which to me seem, at times, a bit extreme and all encompassing.

And about my tone...well...sorry about the fact that you are irritated with me lately.

Maybe your cycles are a bit too long...might be affecting your mood.
Click to expand...



Okay, fair enough. No, it isn't your tone, just the penandticism. It just seems that, at times, you question minutia just for the sake of nit picking.

But no big deal. Let's move on.

Yes, time on is a factor, as is dosage, but a certain dosage is nessesary to get gains. It makes more sense to do a higher dose for a short time than to do a lower dose which the body will quickly adapt to and keep it surpressed.

And no, time off should NOT be shortened. That's a common misperception and one perpetuated by Bill Roberts who took my short cycle concept and made it into the absurd "2 week on - 2 week off" program which is about as dumb as anything I've ever heard.
 
OK I VENTED IN MY LAST POST ON HIS THREAD BUT MY OPINION STANDS AND iVE GOT DECADES OF EXPERIMENTING TO SUPPORT MY REASONING. tHE PROS DO COME OFF CYCLE AND WHAT THEY DO IN THAT INTERUM TIME IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT NEVER DISCUSSED SUBJECT. bUT THEY KEEP THEIR SIZE AND OFTEN COME BACK EVEN BETTER-WE ALL KNOW HOW BENEFICIAL A SOLID BREAK CAN BE. SHORT CYCLE FULLFIL NO DEFINABLE PURPOSE.IMO MUSCULAR GROWTH AND MEMORY REQUIRE THE MAXIMUM RELEVANT AMOUNT OF TIME FOR SUSTAIN IMPRINTED GROWTH. MUSCLES ARE VERY ADAPTIVE AND SHORT PROGRAMS IMO DONT ALLOW ONE TO BREAK BEYOND THIS BARRIER. SORRY TO VENT BUT I BELIEVE THIS WITH YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
 
Well, When I first tested the waters of using AAS I done a short cycle to begin with to see how I would react!!

I done a 4 week cycle using dbol only:
Wk1 - 30mg ED
wk2 - 40mg ED
wk3 - 40mg ED
wk4 - 30mg ED

Results: I put on 8lbs during the first 3 weeks, no gains on the last week. Most of this was water around 6lbs and after post cycle I actually kept about 1-1.5lbs of lean mass (prob lost a little bit)!!! So I dont know whether if that was a waste of gear or what?? cos gains were very minimal!!! Maybe I should of gone with a different AAS instead of dbol!!! lol

peace
 
My question would be if I started an 8 week cycle of test and liked my results after 3 to 4 weeks, could I stop there and start post cycle clomid. The difference fo rme is that I'm only looking for 10-20lbs gain of my first and probably only cycle.
 
princeton said:
My question would be if I started an 8 week cycle of test and liked my results after 3 to 4 weeks, could I stop there and start post cycle clomid. The difference fo rme is that I'm only looking for 10-20lbs gain of my first and probably only cycle.
Click to expand...

only cycle - LOL
i wouldnt stop. why- youre bound to loe some of the weight. post cycle.
 
Why are people so worried about Ananvar being expensive? If I was going to put something into my body, I would want it to be the highest quality product available. I know many of us are on budgets, but why settle for a lesser compound? We are dealing with our bodies, folks.
 
i dont know why this thread has drawn so much flame. In plain logic, short cyccles might be a viable means for pros or non to offset crashes wo having to be on full time and gain some benefits of receptors site cleasing. I myself will do short cycles to reboost mt system and i dont even have to use clomid or hcg, just maybe liquidex. Keep things in perspective bros. Everything we do has a reason, just remember.
 
Mini Viper said:
Well, When I first tested the waters of using AAS I done a short cycle to begin with to see how I would react!!

I done a 4 week cycle using dbol only:
Wk1 - 30mg ED
wk2 - 40mg ED
wk3 - 40mg ED
wk4 - 30mg ED

Results: I put on 8lbs during the first 3 weeks, no gains on the last week. Most of this was water around 6lbs and after post cycle I actually kept about 1-1.5lbs of lean mass (prob lost a little bit)!!! So I dont know whether if that was a waste of gear or what?? cos gains were very minimal!!! Maybe I should of gone with a different AAS instead of dbol!!! lol

peace
Click to expand...

how long ago was this and how much do yo still maintain?its a long term deal bro imo.
 
AtLarge said:
OK I VENTED IN MY LAST POST ON HIS THREAD BUT MY OPINION STANDS AND iVE GOT DECADES OF EXPERIMENTING TO SUPPORT MY REASONING. tHE PROS DO COME OFF CYCLE AND WHAT THEY DO IN THAT INTERUM TIME IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT NEVER DISCUSSED SUBJECT. bUT THEY KEEP THEIR SIZE AND OFTEN COME BACK EVEN BETTER-WE ALL KNOW HOW BENEFICIAL A SOLID BREAK CAN BE. SHORT CYCLE FULLFIL NO DEFINABLE PURPOSE.IMO MUSCULAR GROWTH AND MEMORY REQUIRE THE MAXIMUM RELEVANT AMOUNT OF TIME FOR SUSTAIN IMPRINTED GROWTH. MUSCLES ARE VERY ADAPTIVE AND SHORT PROGRAMS IMO DONT ALLOW ONE TO BREAK BEYOND THIS BARRIER. SORRY TO VENT BUT I BELIEVE THIS WITH YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
Click to expand...

the key here is ur use of "IMO". some of us have done short cycles and can say "in my experience"- they work. and i don't give a flying frog what the pros "supposedly" do. A) i don't compete B) there is too much ambiguity in what they tell us regarding AAS.
guys like me will probably never know exactly what those guys really do.
 
as posted by AtLarge
how long ago was this and how much do yo still maintain?its a long term deal bro imo.
Click to expand...

My short cycle was in begining of june this year, I've still kept about 1.5lbs of lean mass. Strength was the same since and gains were much much slower!!

I started my second cycle mid-August this year and I'm coming to an end on 2nd week of October. This is a longer cycle around 8weeks, this is so I can compare how much mass I will actually keep between long and short cycles!!!

peace bro
 
are u stupid or something? ur short cycle was a dbol only cycle. i think before u jump onto the AAS band wagon u could at least do a LITTLE reasearch. what were ur goals? to gain water?
 
Mini Viper said:
as posted by AtLarge


My short cycle was in begining of june this year, I've still kept about 1.5lbs of lean mass. Strength was the same since and gains were much much slower!!

I started my second cycle mid-August this year and I'm coming to an end on 2nd week of October. This is a longer cycle around 8weeks, this is so I can compare how much mass I will actually keep between long and short cycles!!!

peace bro
Click to expand...
++

Not to pop your bubble, im sure you did make some solid gains-but saying you kept 1.5 lbs is like saying i needed a big beer piss. j/k
 
as posted by silver_shadow
are u stupid or something? ur short cycle was a dbol only cycle. i think before u jump onto the AAS band wagon u could at least do a LITTLE reasearch. what were ur goals? to gain water?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm stupid, like I said I was testing the waters of using AAS!! Anyway, my goals is putting on more size, which is why my current cycle is:

Wks 1-3 dbol 30mg ED
Wks 1-8 sustanon250/week

Frontloaded sus at 500mg for first 2 weeks.

You always gain a little water regardless whilst bulking is not my main concern, and plus I use anti-e's to deal with bloat which I never mention in my cycles.!!
 
hey listen- sorry i didn't mean to flame u. ok my point is this- a dbol only cycle is no way to gauge AAS. it won't give u any significant gains. so plz forget that u did it- consider it an aberation (sp?). don't think of it as ur short cycle or any other cycle for that matter. don't use it as any sort of yardstick bcoz it doesn't count.
peace
 
as posted by silver_shadow
hey listen- sorry i didn't mean to flame u. ok my point is this- a dbol only cycle is no way to gauge AAS. it won't give u any significant gains. so plz forget that u did it- consider it an aberation (sp?). don't think of it as ur short cycle or any other cycle for that matter. don't use it as any sort of yardstick bcoz it doesn't count.
Click to expand...

Hey no worries man, non offense taken! I do see your point, I kinda didnt count the short cycle as a 'cycle' so to speak, lol!! So my current cycle is my proper cycle, heheh!

Peace
 
This post has taken a bad direction...I don't know how it arrived on d-bol only cycles, I wouldn't even consider that to be a cycle.
What the original argument and inquiry concerned was the usage of short-acting esters in a 2-4 week cycle, as opposed to long-acting esters in 8-12 week cycles, and how they compare in terms of relative lean gain . Granted you might gain 15-20 lbs in 12 weeks...fucking great. But how much of that are you actually going to keep? Instead, assume you do a two-weeker of tren/winny/prop and gain, say, 7 lbs and keep it all. Relative to the 12 weeker, lean mass gained per time on-cycle is a much greater ratio, not to mention the increased recovery time. I suppose not everyone will choose to do this, but it's just an idea that shouldn't be disregarded because you have not done it, or don't want to try. I am not discluding the value of a long-cycle...in fact they are necessary for big mass gains. But shorter cycles can possibly be safer and effective as well...
 
3 weeks equals about 15 workouts.
how much can you really gain from 16 workouts????

on the other hand, a 16 week cycle equals about 80 workouts...

enough said!
 
satch boggie I like the way you put that.

As far as Nelson is concerned I feel like you guys are too hard on him. I do not think Nelson i saying that long cycles will yield less gains then short ones I feel like he is trying to say that short cycles yield less sides. I agree alot with nelson because I feel he is conservative when it comes to drug use. On the other hand you will never become Mr.O doing 4 week cycles, but you can become big by many standards.

Just my thoughts
E
 
ran two cycles at 6 weeks: had great results with them. also ran one 5 week cycle. i will never run anything lower than 6 weeks.
 
concordsize said:
satch boggie I like the way you put that.

As far as Nelson is concerned I feel like you guys are too hard on him. I do not think Nelson i saying that long cycles will yield less gains then short ones I feel like he is trying to say that short cycles yield less sides. I agree alot with nelson because I feel he is conservative when it comes to drug use. On the other hand you will never become Mr.O doing 4 week cycles, but you can become big by many standards.

Just my thoughts
E
Click to expand...

yes- no one said u can compete on 2-4 weekers: but u can make slow and pretty steady gains and get pretty big and strong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Richard Brown
Napsgear You`re Doing Your First Cycle All Wrong!
Replies
7
Views
476
chesty
chesty
FishyAnchovy
Orals Only as 1st Cycle
Replies
21
Views
2K
Tiger Salman Khan
Tiger Salman Khan
Richard Brown
Napsgear How to Come Off Cycle WITHOUT Losing Your Gains
Replies
10
Views
777
chesty
chesty
Legomannen123
Tips for a 2nd cycle?
Replies
29
Views
4K
25homes
25homes
Mk11kh
Approved Log My Testosterone Primobolan Anavar Cycle Log
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Replies
724
Views
62K
25homes
25homes
Top Bottom