**my short cycles** (yes short)

[hulkzer]

i know alot of people on this board say that short cycles don't work. im not looking to gain 20 lbs in 3 wks. im looking for small steady keapable gains, with minimal sides and pct. i have heard of good results from similar cycles on other boards. so only one way to find out. if they don't work then i only lost 7wks including pct and a littler $.these are some cycles i thought of.

1
prop 100mg ed wk1-3 (frontload first day w/ 300mg)
drol 75mg ed wk1-3 (never tried)
proviron 25mg ed wk 1-3
pct

2
prop 100mg ed wk1-3 (frontload first day w/ 300mg)
dbol 30mg ed wk 1-3
proviron 25mg ed wk1-3
pct

3
prop 100mg ed wk 1-3 (frontload first day w/ 300mg)
fina 75mg ed wk 1-3 (never tried)
proviron 25mg ed wk 1-3
pct

4
prop 100mg ed wk 1-3 (frontload first day w/ 300mg)
var 40-80?mg ed wk 1-3
proviron 25mg ed wk 1-3
pct
why proviron cuz i want walk around w/ three legs j/k i just want to try it

thx in advance
zer_

[Pinnacle]

How much actual muscle do you think you can put on in cycles that short?

~Pinnacle~

[hulkzer]

How much actual muscle do you think you can put on in cycles that short?

~Pinnacle~

hopfully 4-10 per cycle keeps

[Tyrone_Biggums]

For a first cycle or the first cycle you have been on in more than 2 years it will be ok to do a 3 week cycle.

The first one I did was after not using steroids for 5 years....I did 400mg Test cyp for 3 weeks....I gained 15lbs....lost fat and put 30lbs on my bench. 12 weeks after I still had 100% of my gains.

[hulkzer]

For a first cycle or the first cycle you have been on in more than 2 years it will be ok to do a 3 week cycle.

The first one I did was after not using steroids for 5 years....I did 400mg Test cyp for 3 weeks....I gained 15lbs....lost fat and put 30lbs on my bench. 12 weeks after I still had 100% of my gains.

thats alot of weight for cyp in 3 wks. i finished a 15 wk bold/test cycle about 16wks ago.

[Tyrone_Biggums]

thats alot of weight for cyp in 3 wks. i finished a 15 wk bold/test cycle about 16wks ago.

Well it was the first cycle I had done in years so the muscle gain was high..

So if you have juiced in the last 8 months a 3 week cycle will not do shit.....its only good for beginners...

[hulkzer]

Well it was the first cycle I had done in years so the muscle gain was high..

So if you have juiced in the last 8 months a 3 week cycle will not do shit.....its only good for beginners...

maybe but still gunna give it a try. starting the first wk of january.

[*Alex*]

how many cycles in a year???

[j martini]

I would up the doses personally considering that you are only running it for 3 weeks.

How far above your natural limit are you, because i think 4-10 pounds of actual muscle, not water is very optimistic unless you are a beginner are returning after a long layoff.

[hulkzer]

how many cycles in a year???

depending on how the first one works 7 ,doing 3on 4off back to back

[hulkzer]

I would up the doses personally considering that you are only running it for 3 weeks.

How far above your natural limit are you, because i think 4-10 pounds of actual muscle, not water is very optimistic unless you are a beginner are returning after a long layoff.

just go off a long cycle but at the end of pct i had to go to the hospital. iv and morphine for 3day= lost all gains and 2 extra. now back up 9lbs but not close to were i was @ 203 moring weight.

[hulkzer]

i know many will still say not to do these, but i want to see what happens. which of the cycles do you think would give the most gains. someone out there is gunna say none

[Pinnacle]

You do realize we get a tolerance to anabolics don't you?Running cycles in close succession makes matters worse.


~Pinnacle~

[hulkzer]

You do realize we get a tolerance to anabolics don't you?Running cycles in close succession makes matters worse.


~Pinnacle~

do you mean after running a long cycle then a short or running short cycles back to back or both

[Pinnacle]

do you mean after running a long cycle then a short or running short cycles back to back or both

Either way you'll acquire a tolerance and need to up your doses drastically if running cycles in close succession.Not to mention your SHBG levels will be high most likely from running many cycles like this.


REDBARON said this when we were having a discussion the other evening.I'll quote him since he worded it well.

Quote Red Baron"Maybe a poor choice of word on my part, but here is what I am saying ... in the medical profession, we have many drugs at our disposal. If I prescribe medication "X" to you, I know in doing so in about 5-7 years, your body is going to catch on and quit responding to it. Does that mean that the receptors that that substance use cease to exist ... no. But what the body does with anything we put into it out of the "norm" is over time it will build a resistance.

With respect to peptides and AAS's, typically we cycle them such that we don't push the body to the point of this type of resistance and protection. In the case of the pros though, they basically have to be on just about year around, and to feed and keep 300 pounds of beef, you have to use no only enormous weights, but enormous levels of hormones and protein to keep that much muscle alive and kicking. Doing this for as long and and high of a dose as is required of them most certainly has the body doing what it can to keep at its "norm".

We can call this whatever we like ... The receptors still exist certainly and are constantly renewed ... but substance "X" is not going to have the same effect with massive use over long periods of time, and that holds true for whatever you wish to talk about ... anabolics, peptides, pain medications, sleeping pills, anti-inflamatories, reflux meds, diabetes meds, anti-biotics, etc., etc." End Quote

[Tyrone_Biggums]

do you mean after running a long cycle then a short or running short cycles back to back or both

No such thing as building up a tolerance to steroids.....that is 1980 steroid logic and 100% false. You will however find it more difficult each cycle to build up as fast on the same dose and type of drug.....thats just basic common sense.....the bigger you get the harder it is to keep growing. It has absolutely nothing to do with building up a tolerance..same with training natural....the bigger you get the slower the gains.

[j martini]

No such thing as building up a tolerance to steroids.....that is 1980 steroid logic and 100% false. You will however find it more difficult each cycle to build up as fast on the same dose and type of drug.....thats just basic common sense.....the bigger you get the harder it is to keep growing. It has absolutely nothing to do with building up a tolerance..same with training natural....the bigger you get the slower the gains.

True, but i believe this is due to your body wanting to be in homeostasis, in other words your body doesnt want all that muscle and certainly does not want to get any bigger. So it finds a way of making all the anabolic hormones etc that you are using and making them less effective. If somehow we could find a way to manipulate the body to keep growing instead of just increasing the dose it would make our quest to get huge so much easier and a lot less expensive.

[Pinnacle]

No such thing as building up a tolerance to steroids.....that is 1980 steroid logic and 100% false. You will however find it more difficult each cycle to build up as fast on the same dose and type of drug.....thats just basic common sense.....the bigger you get the harder it is to keep growing. It has absolutely nothing to do with building up a tolerance..same with training natural....the bigger you get the slower the gains.

Show me links/studies to back your statement please.


I'll be waiting patiently for the links/studies to support your claim.


~Pinnacle~

[hulkzer]

Either way you'll acquire a tolerance and need to up your doses drastically if running cycles in close succession.Not to mention your SHBG levels will be high most likely from running many cycles like this.


REDBARON said this when we were having a discussion the other evening.I'll quote him since he worded it well.

Quote Red Baron"Maybe a poor choice of word on my part, but here is what I am saying ... in the medical profession, we have many drugs at our disposal. If I prescribe medication "X" to you, I know in doing so in about 5-7 years, your body is going to catch on and quit responding to it. Does that mean that the receptors that that substance use cease to exist ... no. But what the body does with anything we put into it out of the "norm" is over time it will build a resistance.

With respect to peptides and AAS's, typically we cycle them such that we don't push the body to the point of this type of resistance and protection. In the case of the pros though, they basically have to be on just about year around, and to feed and keep 300 pounds of beef, you have to use no only enormous weights, but enormous levels of hormones and protein to keep that much muscle alive and kicking. Doing this for as long and and high of a dose as is required of them most certainly has the body doing what it can to keep at its "norm".

We can call this whatever we like ... The receptors still exist certainly and are constantly renewed ... but substance "X" is not going to have the same effect with massive use over long periods of time, and that holds true for whatever you wish to talk about ... anabolics, peptides, pain medications, sleeping pills, anti-inflamatories, reflux meds, diabetes meds, anti-biotics, etc., etc." End Quote

this does seam to make sence, but just like benadryl clears receptors for clen . is there something to clear receptors after gear

[Tyrone_Biggums]

Show me links/studies to back your statement please.


I'll be waiting patiently for the links/studies to support your claim.


~Pinnacle~

Look kid, you can't find one scientific study to support your old school beliefs.....and I don't care.....

Go flame someone else....you are wrong so deal with it....or prove me wrong.
No body building BS studies kid, only real medical research.

I will wait but you will not come up with any legit studies....LMAO
You flame me so be a man and prove your point

[testosterona]

Either way you'll acquire a tolerance and need to up your doses drastically if running cycles in close succession.Not to mention your SHBG levels will be high most likely from running many cycles like this.


REDBARON said this when we were having a discussion the other evening.I'll quote him since he worded it well.

Quote Red Baron"Maybe a poor choice of word on my part, but here is what I am saying ... in the medical profession, we have many drugs at our disposal. If I prescribe medication "X" to you, I know in doing so in about 5-7 years, your body is going to catch on and quit responding to it. Does that mean that the receptors that that substance use cease to exist ... no. But what the body does with anything we put into it out of the "norm" is over time it will build a resistance.

With respect to peptides and AAS's, typically we cycle them such that we don't push the body to the point of this type of resistance and protection. In the case of the pros though, they basically have to be on just about year around, and to feed and keep 300 pounds of beef, you have to use no only enormous weights, but enormous levels of hormones and protein to keep that much muscle alive and kicking. Doing this for as long and and high of a dose as is required of them most certainly has the body doing what it can to keep at its "norm".

We can call this whatever we like ... The receptors still exist certainly and are constantly renewed ... but substance "X" is not going to have the same effect with massive use over long periods of time, and that holds true for whatever you wish to talk about ... anabolics, peptides, pain medications, sleeping pills, anti-inflamatories, reflux meds, diabetes meds, anti-biotics, etc., etc." End Quote

this is very well said. and from what iv read/heard, 100% true

[j martini]

Your androgen receptors dont clog up with AAS use, in fact your body is constantly producing new receptors.

[testosterona]

Show me links/studies to back your statement please.


I'll be waiting patiently for the links/studies to support your claim.


~Pinnacle~

and waiting..................

[Pinnacle]

Look kid, you can't find one scientific study to support your old school beliefs.....and I don't care.....

Go flame someone else....you are wrong so deal with it....or prove me wrong.
No body building BS studies kid, only real medical research.

I will wait but you will not come up with any legit studies....LMAO
You flame me so be a man and prove your point

Kid?How am I a kid at 37 yrs old.

How am I flaming you?I simply asked you to back your statement,which you can't do.

But you are good at runinng your mouth though,aren't you?

You have such a wonderful attitude.You truly are a great asset to this board.

~Pinnacle~

[Tyrone_Biggums]

Kid?How am I a kid at 37 yrs old.

How am I flaming you?I simply asked you to back your statement,which you can't do.

But you are good at runinng your mouth though,aren't you?

You have such a wonderful attitude.You truly are a great asset to this board.

~Pinnacle~

Look bro if you want to call me out then put forth some facts......
It's easy to say post the studies....but if you disagree then post yours first to prove your point.......if you can...

My attitude???? Look at yourself bro......you attack with 0 facts every time a person here is not on your team...LMAO.....just like a 9 year old kid.

[testosterona]

iv been around here for a while now. this board was virtually flame free untill tyrone joined. give it a rest bro. its called respect

[Pinnacle]

Look bro if you want to call me out then put forth some facts......
It's easy to say post the studies....but if you disagree then post yours first to prove your point.......if you can...

My attitude???? Look at yourself bro......you attack with 0 facts every time a person here is not on your team...LMAO.....just like a 9 year old kid.

Zero facts?

Attack?

If it's easy to post studies,then why haven't you to suport you claim?

Here's mine...show me yours.....

Specific papers often cited to support downregulation of the AR
Endocrinology (1981) 104 4 1431. This paper compares the normal state of the rat to the castrated state, and the muscle cytosol AR concentrations of the female rat to the intact (sham-operated) male rat.
Objections to this study include the fact that the effect of supraphysiological levels of androgen was not studied; that cytosolic measurements of AR are unreliable since varying percentages of ARs may concentrate in the nuclear region, and these are more indicative of activity; and that castration of rats is notorious for producing false conclusions. The cells, and indeed the entire system of the animal, undergo qualitative change (e.g., cessation of growth) from the castration relative to the sham-operated animals. Testosterone levels are not the only thing which change upon castration. Another objection is that estrogen was not controlled and the effects of estrogen were not determined or accounted for. Estrogen levels certainly were not constant in this experiment.
Molecular Endocrinology (1990) 4 22. AR mRNA level, in vitro, was seen to increase as androgen levels were reduced below normal. Supraphysiological levels were not tested. Northern blot analysis was used. AR levels were not measured.
Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology (1991) 76 79. In human prostate carcinoma cells, in vitro, androgen resulted in downregulation of AR mRNA relative to zero androgen levels. Levels of androgen receptor, however, increased, relative to when androgen level was zero, by a factor of two. The researchers noted, "At 49 hours, androgen receptor protein increased 30% as assayed by immunoblots and 79% as assayed by ligand binding" [the later method is the more reliable and indicative of biological effect.]
Molecular Endocrinology (1993) 7 924. In vitro, it was determined by Northern blot analysis that mRNA levels decreased when supraphysiological levels of androgen were compared to zero androgen in cancer cells. Levels of ARs were measured, and there was no observed decrease despite the observed decrease in mRNA level (as measured by Northern blot.)
Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology (1995) 115 177. COS 1 cells were transfected with human AR DNA with the CMV promoter. The authors state that the DNA sequence responsible for downregulation of the AR is encoded within the AR DNA, not the promoter region. Dexamethasone [a glucocorticoid drug similar to cortisol] was observed to result in downregulation of AR mRNA relative to zero dexamethasone level. Androgen also had this effect, but did not result in lower levels of androgen receptors. This was attributed to increase in androgen receptor half life caused by androgen administration. The observed androgen downregulation effect relative to zero androgen ended at a concentration of 0.1 nanomolar of androgen (methyltrienolone) – higher doses, to 100 nanomolar, resulted in no further downregulation of AR mRNA production.

[Tyrone_Biggums]

Zero facts?

Attack?

If it's easy to post studies,then why haven't you to suport you claim?

Here's mine...show me yours.....

Specific papers often cited to support downregulation of the AR
Endocrinology (1981) 104 4 1431. This paper compares the normal state of the rat to the castrated state, and the muscle cytosol AR concentrations of the female rat to the intact (sham-operated) male rat.
Objections to this study include the fact that the effect of supraphysiological levels of androgen was not studied; that cytosolic measurements of AR are unreliable since varying percentages of ARs may concentrate in the nuclear region, and these are more indicative of activity; and that castration of rats is notorious for producing false conclusions. The cells, and indeed the entire system of the animal, undergo qualitative change (e.g., cessation of growth) from the castration relative to the sham-operated animals. Testosterone levels are not the only thing which change upon castration. Another objection is that estrogen was not controlled and the effects of estrogen were not determined or accounted for. Estrogen levels certainly were not constant in this experiment.
Molecular Endocrinology (1990) 4 22. AR mRNA level, in vitro, was seen to increase as androgen levels were reduced below normal. Supraphysiological levels were not tested. Northern blot analysis was used. AR levels were not measured.
Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology (1991) 76 79. In human prostate carcinoma cells, in vitro, androgen resulted in downregulation of AR mRNA relative to zero androgen levels. Levels of androgen receptor, however, increased, relative to when androgen level was zero, by a factor of two. The researchers noted, "At 49 hours, androgen receptor protein increased 30% as assayed by immunoblots and 79% as assayed by ligand binding" [the later method is the more reliable and indicative of biological effect.]
Molecular Endocrinology (1993) 7 924. In vitro, it was determined by Northern blot analysis that mRNA levels decreased when supraphysiological levels of androgen were compared to zero androgen in cancer cells. Levels of ARs were measured, and there was no observed decrease despite the observed decrease in mRNA level (as measured by Northern blot.)
Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology (1995) 115 177. COS 1 cells were transfected with human AR DNA with the CMV promoter. The authors state that the DNA sequence responsible for downregulation of the AR is encoded within the AR DNA, not the promoter region. Dexamethasone [a glucocorticoid drug similar to cortisol] was observed to result in downregulation of AR mRNA relative to zero dexamethasone level. Androgen also had this effect, but did not result in lower levels of androgen receptors. This was attributed to increase in androgen receptor half life caused by androgen administration. The observed androgen downregulation effect relative to zero androgen ended at a concentration of 0.1 nanomolar of androgen (methyltrienolone) – higher doses, to 100 nanomolar, resulted in no further downregulation of AR mRNA production.

Don't post excrement.....post links, references and the Doctors involved in the studies...

Crap from Muscle and Fitness holds no weight here bro...LMAO


And try to find something from this century kid......LMFAO

And none of that supports your wild beliefs.....pathetic

[Pinnacle]

Don't post excrement.....post links, refrences and the Doctors involved in the studies...

Crap from Muscle and Fitness holds no weight here bro...LMAO


And try to find something from this century kid

Rather easy to find the studies I posted.Is that you excuse now?

Muscle and fitness?Try Pubmed..oh..you never heard of that have you?

Keep running your mouth.That's fine.You've yet to produce anything to back your claim,but you are good at attempting to discredit ppl.Only person you've discredited here so far has been YOURSELF.

[testosterona]

i love too try and discredit people who prove me wrong......LMFAO

it makes me feel better about myself and the 20lbs iv gained from all 15 cycles.....pathetic

[Tyrone_Biggums]

Rather easy to find the studies I posted.Is that you excuse now?

Muscle and fitness?Try Pubmed..oh..you never heard of that have you?

Keep running your mouth.That's fine.You've yet to produce anything to back your claim,but you are good at attempting to discredit ppl.Only person you've discredited here so far has been YOURSELF.

Rat's and castrated rat's....mRNA....cancer cells, have nothing to do with this conversation......you really have 0 facts to back up your bull sh1t do you???

Lets see the studies on humans and steroid use kid......and please post the links......if you can....and we all know you can't...LMAO

That post was one of the most pathetic I have ever seen......you really have ego issues kid!

[Tyrone_Biggums]

[/B]

Nice miss quote Jr......thats funny and all you have to offer here....lies and flaming..

[Pinnacle]

Rat's and castrated rat's....mRNA....cancer cells, have nothing to do with this conversation......you really have 0 facts to back up your bull sh1t do you???

Lets see the studies on humans and steroid use kid......and please post the links......if you can....and we all know you can't...LMAO

That post was one of the most pathetic I have ever seen......you really have ego issues kid!

You apparently know nothing about science do you little pee wee punk?

Where's your studies to back your claims little boy?You do know how to read a scientific study to see what it suggests,don't you?I doubt you do.Your interests lay in making a complete fool of yourself.You do that rather well.


Pathetic?...yes you are.

See ya round little boy!


~Pinnacle~

[Tyrone_Biggums]

You apparently know nothing about science do you little pee wee punk?

Where's your studies to back your claims little boy?You do know how to read a scientific study to see what it suggests,don't you?I doubt you do.Your interests lay in making a complete fool of yourself.You do that rather well.


Pathetic?...yes you are.

See ya round little boy!


~Pinnacle~

I see you still have nothing to offer as far as medical research....sad but expected. Here is a taste brother.....more to come, I don't want to waste all my time tonight on a kid like you who has 0 research to back up his 1980 superstitions.

http://www.mesomorphosis.com/article...regulation.htm

a link...wow...you might try that Jr.

[Montgomery]

hey man, I like the idea of a shorter cycle too; way easier on your body. Although a 3 or 4 weeker will likely shut you down fully, you don't get the atrophy of your endocrine system that you would with a 12 weeker. My only suggestion would be to do 4 weeks instead of 3, and maybe front load your prop for 2 days instead of just 1.

Just MO

Montgomery

[hulkzer]

hey man, I like the idea of a shorter cycle too; way easier on your body. Although a 3 or 4 weeker will likely shut you down fully, you don't get the atrophy of your endocrine system that you would with a 12 weeker. My only suggestion would be to do 4 weeks instead of 3, and maybe front load your prop for 2 days instead of just 1.

Just MO

Montgomery

allright i finally got some info. anyone else

[hulkzer]

i know alot of people on this board say that short cycles don't work. im not looking to gain 20 lbs in 3 wks. im looking for small steady keapable gains, with minimal sides and pct. i have heard of good results from similar cycles on other boards. so only one way to find out. if they don't work then i only lost 7wks including pct and a littler $.these are some cycles i thought of.

1
prop 100mg ed wk1-3 (frontload first day w/ 300mg)
drol 75mg ed wk1-3 (never tried)
proviron 25mg ed wk 1-3
pct

2
prop 100mg ed wk1-3 (frontload first day w/ 300mg)
dbol 30mg ed wk 1-3
proviron 25mg ed wk1-3
pct

3
prop 100mg ed wk 1-3 (frontload first day w/ 300mg)
fina 75mg ed wk 1-3 (never tried)
proviron 25mg ed wk 1-3
pct

4
prop 100mg ed wk 1-3 (frontload first day w/ 300mg)
var 40-80?mg ed wk 1-3
proviron 25mg ed wk 1-3
pct
why proviron cuz i want walk around w/ three legs j/k i just want to try it

thx in advance
zer_

so everyone said to extend the cycles if i extend any one of these cycles to 6wks. do you think i should stay with the same mg's a day/wk.
thx again still learning
zer_

[PaulieM.]

i smoke rocks

[zircon]

I dunno. I say either run 2 weeks or 6 weeks. There is a theory that the hpta axis only gets supressed around day 14. So if you do 4 weeks or 6, suppression diff might be very little if any.

I did 2 weekers and they worked well. Only thing is I got acne from them. Coudla been tren though, I still dont know.,

[Tedbear981]

i smoke rocks

By that stupid comment im sure he meant c*cks