Does anyone do short cycles with good results?

[Nelson Montana]

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

-sk

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


Riker! Word! Good post.

 

[BigAndy69]

FS, great post, that's exactly what I've seen myself.

 

[psychedout]

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.

Amen.

 

[Fukkenshredded]

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.

 

[Nelson Montana]

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.

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.

 

[AtLarge]

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

 

[Mini Viper]

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

 

[princeton]

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.

 

[rjl296]

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.

only cycle - LOL
i wouldnt stop. why- youre bound to loe some of the weight. post cycle.

 

[GodOfThunder]

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.