Does anyone do short cycles with good results?

[cells]

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....

 

[Nelson Montana]

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....

I know at least 20 people who have done it, including myself.

 

[Fukkenshredded]

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.

 

[AtLarge]

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.

 

[lostlazy]

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.

 

[gretak911]

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.

 

[majutsu]

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.

 

[cells]

It really all depends on the person...and there goals..and the difference between what ones think good gains are to anothers views..

 

[Nelson Montana]

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.

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.

 

[silver_shadow]

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.