03-16-2002, 02:16 AM #1Associate Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
My Observations: "Cutting Cycles", Nature vs. Nurture, One Answer does not fit All
I am no Clarence Bass on the BF scale, or even a competitive BB'er as many of you already "know" me. At the same rate, I am not a slouch either. Just put me in the middle somewhere! I just want to throw in my interpretation of the so called, "cutting cycle". There have been high volumes of posts on all the boards as the weather is warming and far sighted athletes mentally, physically, and intellectually, post and provide advice, on methods of "cutting up their muscle" for Spring and Summer apparel and festivities.
This is just P-X's opinion, my friends, out of potentially thousands. But if it helps clarify or explain things as to why certain advice/direction is given to even 1 bro, then it was worth the time to type away. Or heck, better yet, hopefully some bro's can enlighten me in areas outside of my comfort zone. Or areas I've become complacent in over the years, or issues I am just off base or in "left field".
Yeah, it's wordy and lengthy!! But it is real and my own words. It should not induce REM sleep, as would an "unimaginative" 10 page copy and paste from a JAMA article. So hear me out if you can manage to, and reply if you wish. If not, print a hard copy, and use as reading material in an area conducive to reading pleasure in your home, when time permits.
So, what the heck is a "cutting cycle"? Is there a universal one? Does the same "formula" and "regimen" apply to all?? Does a proven formula even exist? Or even worst, is success limited exclusively to those with certain genetic predispositions? How critical is gear selection in formulating a "cutting cycle"? Is it as critical as we make it out to be? Are quantitative goals even possible to predict? Maybe the answers are obvious to some, but none the less, many different opinions lately.
IMO, there is a lot of misconception, incomplete explanations, and missing key elements for designing and incorporating successful so called "cutting cycles" across all the boards lately. Also, I have observed a lack of understanding as to why certain AS/MEDS are utilized for the so-called "cutting cycles", while other AS/MEDS are consistently sidelined. Do the MODS of all boards have the answers? How about VETS of the boards? Do MD's? Does anyone have a clear, concise understanding in designing an "all encompassing" cutting cycle to meet the needs of the vast majority? Or does each bro have his own unique formula genetically pre-determined, based on his unique intrinsic bi-chem pathways and external environment?
Some people have commented that "cutting cycles" will automatically lower BF. Some say only BB'ers need to do "CS"'s. Some say you will gain strength but lose muscle. Some say a waste of time, w/o this or that. Some say double the cardio. And finally, yes, you can drink the winny for "extra cuts" or even to gain that the "sword like seperation" of a quad and hamstring on a side shot. Who's advice, if any, is correct, are all partially correct? How can we discount or discredit someone's unique experience of their so called "CS"?
To me, all anabolic steroids , (comparitively)some to greater/some to lesser (extent) promote a favorible environment for fat loss or a decrease in BF composition than if the MED was not present at all. (Because of endogenous insulin and absorption/shuttling of nutrients in out of muscle tissue. Someone versed can save my ass here if they so wish. It really does not matter as to why, it is already accepted/proven.) My point is.......
There is absolutely no guarantee or recipe to follow that will magically acheive this "cutting" effect that people covet and desire. We all do agree, I'm sure, that AS's can potentially accelerate and magnify effects. From there, groups of varying opinions are formulated and we go in different directions. Who do I/we/you follow? Does it really matter? Gear is just one component of many that can manifest a desirable "CS", right?
After all, any AS combo to some degree, will facilitate and promote an optimal environment for potential, accelerated qualitative muscular hypertrophy, increase in RBC synthesis, increase in ATP/phosph creatine synthesis, and increase in rate of protein production. Do these actions describe a "CS"?
With that said, in my eyes, no steroid can directly "cut muscle" or make you "cut up", to the best of my experience and knowledge. It is clearly evident that some people feel that there are. Not saying that they are wrong, and I am not saying I am right. I am just re-emphasizing the wide discrepency in thought process/analysis.
So-called "cutting cycles", which IMO, should be more accurately described as cycles intended "to make the athlete's muscles visually appear harder, muscle tissue visually appear more vascular, and muscle tissue visually appears more striated, and visually tighter, etc..". may help clear up any potential mis-interpretations of what a "CS" is to some.
So how does one even begin to attempt to capture these very appealing and widely sought after attributes, I just described based on my opinion of "CS"?
For starters, IMO, I would speculate that one would do so by incorporating steroids in your program that will cause minimal/little/or virtually no subcutaneous water retention or prominence of estrogen SE's leading to.... More often than not, it is subcut water that limits the visual hardness appearance of any physique, rather than the presence of too much BF. IMO, this is why people repeatedly recommend the following MEDS across the boards; Primobolan , Winny, tren , anavar are just some popular matches. This is also where agents outside of the AS category may also be introduced for reasons that may include genetic predisposition, affinity or lack of receptor/drug (is) saturated, liver dysfunction, thyroid assay issues, etc.
Even with these AS compounds consistently recommended daily across the board communities, can anyone explain as to why these AS's stimulate this visual effect more effectively than others?? I think we just did, right? or didn't we?
From a biochemical process viewpoint, I cannot personally recognize a suitable explanation of choosing a MED A, over a MED B, or even a MED C without considering ALL the AS available first. All types of AS, are "apples and oranges" figuratively, in comparison. However, they still must all be compared from all aspects in some universal way and then applied to the unique situations, characteristics, attributes, of an individual. What do I mean? Certainly not easy. Here is my explanation of how I think it could be done.
IMO, the differences in AS effects (positive and negative), can be speculated in a ratio or fraction of some sort, on a designated numerically calibrated scale. It could be done by determing where each AS uniquely falls into the anabolic<---->androgenic spectrum scale IN RELATION TO OTHER AS's. If an AS is standing alone by itself, the individual empirical data/observations/effects of the lone AS, cannot be scored/scaled because nothing else is available to measure it against. Example to follow.
This scale, I think, could accurately speculate within a determined statistical error/gradient, the positive effects relative to potential negative SE's and vice versa, relative to other AS. Example, comparitively, oxymetholone and primobolan would be on completely opposite ends of the scale that I am proposing. Primo being nearly 100% anabolic, trace androgenic, and oxymetholone highly androgenic, trace anabolic. Certainly not a fool proof method, but it does begin to organize AS MEDS in a comparitively and orderly visual format. (For those collegiate chemistry bro's out there, visualize the "standard" acid/base scale you learned as a comparitive tool.) This AS scale I envision/desscribe is essentially the same thing.
Instictively or intuitively, I think experienced users or VETS or experts, are already doing this type of analysis when giving advice or designing their own programs. Still, perhaps, a simple universal model could be developed and incorporated so that any individual could understand how experts can rationalize and construct several plausible or "correct" answers for one simple, straightforward "sample cycle" question. Because we all know, there is more than one right answer in many cases.
Is this idea plausible? Is anyone still reading or even understand what the heck I am saying? LOL!! I think it could be done. However, there still is no categorization or designations of a 100% pure androgenic AS or a 100% pure anabolic AS, if memory serves me correct.
In other words, all the so called, "anabolic steroids ", still exhibit some androgenic effects, and the so called, "androgenic steroids", still exhibit anabolic effects. To begin this tedious process, both ends of the scale, (the extremes)would need a finite/definitive value corresponding to a parameter of speculative effects based on monitored experiments in designated conditions and scenarios. All other AS, would fall in between the two ideal standards representing the 100% "pure" anabolic and 100% "pure" androgenic.
Enough with the complex MED selection, dosaging, and cycle . So finally, I have observed that users often neglect to address and consider even more critical areas than the actual choice and amount of MEDS, while developing their optimal "cutting cycles". IMO, these are vital components where the margin of error between success and failure is slight and very tempremental! These would include, diet, (perhaps its calorie restricted?), volume of training, a CV component?? (new activity?, increase?)sleep, recuperation and recovery, and finally, perhaps agents outside of the AS category may be introduced (certainly plausible for some).
It is impossible to generalize these other vital factors/components in assessing individual needs and formulating a "standard regimen" or sure fire program to get people successfully from point A to point B.
This is the fun and challenge we all face. Moreover, I guess this is an underlying impetus of why we have discussion boards that promote different interpretations and opinion. To help each other formulate, develop, and share experiences in all aspects of training protocol. Some bro's are even addicted, and probably need to find other hobbies, in addition to this one/or lifestyle.
Despite constant challenge and a myriad of moving obstacles, I think we would all agree that there is definately a sense of accomplishment, order, and satisfaction after each session on the board. This is certainly positive. There is no universal "guide", such as fundamental law or theory, to expedite a consistent, repetitive response tailored to each individual in this realm of fitness. If there was, I guess we would all be at 5% year round.
Limitations of genetic research and private funding may cause this challenge/mystery to go unsolved for the foreseeable future;
"It is impossible to give precise data or information of all the biochemical processes which take place during AS intake." (WAR, p. 11 1996)
Let alone, the precise data of the biochemical process/effects of the AS's themselves from individual to individual or more specifically, from cell to cell.
It is not surprising that nearly 100% of all "CS" success stories that I encounter are limited to only the most disciplined, dedicated, patient, far sighted athletes, and those who encounter a little luck on the way. AND of course, they are born tailored and genetically engineered to "fit the role" if he/she so chooses to play the part, sometime in the prime of their lifetime.
03-16-2002, 02:27 AM #2
good post bro!
iv long held the theory that much of a lifters ability to lose bf is due to genetics and plain hard work! i take myself as an example... i find it very hard to lose bf at any time, and i train hard and heavy 5 days a week and i do an hour of cardio 5 days a week and sometimes even 6 days a week.
diet is much to do with this as well, however, a cut in calories doesnt seem to make that much difference to me, whereas i know guys who will shrink (Muscle and fat) in days if they cut their calories.
im not and never have been a competitive bb, and as far as im concerned the need to get to 5% bf is relegated to the people who are! im currenlty "cutting" in an effort to lower bf, and to some extent its working, however im NOT that worried if i dont lose much.
for those who ARE worried about their bf this post might help them by clearing up some of the arguments which they are likely to hear about what is best. its all personal anyway, since we all react differently to the combination of AS, diet and training.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)