Thread: Question about First Cycle
09-03-2002, 05:09 PM #1New Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2002
- Upstate NY
Question about First Cycle
This is my first cycle, I have been working on this for about 2 months now and I am finally ready to say I think I will be happy with this. First let me tell you my goals so I can get the best advice.
My goal with this cycle is to get BIG. I want to gain about 30Lbs and I think with this cycle that is not asking alot. I would like to keep as much as possable so I plan on lifting and eating like a freak!!
After this cycle I plan on going on a second cycle to lean out and add some density. I am thinking winny/Anavar /arim/EQ or something along those lines, I will know more after I have done more reading on cycles for leaning out.
Ok here is what I am planing for a cycle
wks 1-10 Test Enanthate 500mg/week
wks 1-4 d-bol 40mg/ED
wks 1-10 Equipoise 500mg/Week
wks 11-15 Nolvadex 40mg/ED
wk 13 Clomid 150mg/ED
wk 14 Clomid 100mg/ED
wk 15 Clomid 50mg/ED
What do you think about runnign Arimidex @ 1mg ED from weeks 12-15
The only reason that I would like to run arim is because of gyno. I also want to make sure that I am able to keep alot of my gains so I am not sure about running Nolvadex/Clomid and Arimidex.. Please let me know what you think.
09-03-2002, 05:27 PM #2New Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
Well bro that cycle is good for a first one for sure. I would start the clomid at week 12, i never go 3 weeks, but some guys do. You can run the nolva with the clomid, that will only help and not hurt at all. The armidex would be better if you ran it all the way through the cycle. 1mg might be a tad much, but if you can afford it then go for it. I would say .5mg would be enough. You really dont need to use armi to restore test levels. But, if you have the loot you could run it the whole cycle, and all the way through clomid.
09-03-2002, 05:27 PM #3
run the test a week past the eq so they taper out at the same time. that nolva looks kinda funny where its placed in your cycle. maybe you could explain your reasoning on that one?
rest looks excellent bro........
09-03-2002, 07:50 PM #4New Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2002
- Upstate NY
I thought of running the nolva the whole cycle
for wks 1-10 it would be 20mg ED then wks 11-15 would be 40mg but after much thought on the subject I figure that the nolva will hinder any gains that I would get durring the cycle. When would you recomend puting the Nolva in??
09-03-2002, 08:26 PM #5Originally posted by WanaKnowMore
When would you recomend puting the Nolva in??
09-04-2002, 10:27 AM #6
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Blog Entries
bump...anyone else have an opinion on this??
09-04-2002, 10:31 AM #7
Estrogen is bad.....PERIOD.....an anti E of some sort should be run the ENTIRE CYCLE and post cycle with clomid. I will dig up the old post that explains why and link it here. If all you have is nolva, 20mg ed throughout the cycle AND through clomid therapy.
09-04-2002, 10:33 AM #8
By the way the ONLY gains nolva inhibits is fat gains and water retention due to the estrogen suppression....if you like being fat and bloated, then skip the nolva. Although it is shown to decrease igf1 levels though, so SOME lean mass may be compromised now that I think of it. Best choice is femara then anastrozle, but if it were me I would STILL run the nolva if neither of the other two were available.
09-04-2002, 12:59 PM #9
Took forever, to only find it wasn't posted here it was on another board, where it was deleted in a transfer, so back to the original source....from animals board this post is from A himself (gotta give credit where credit is due)
you've been duped into believing or at least, have entertained the idea is that E is necessary for protein synthesis and/or E makes a cycle much better. You will see how that is absolutely and totally wrong.
Estrogen suppression in males: metabolic effects.
Mauras N, O'Brien KO, Klein KO, Hayes V.
Nemours Research Programs at the Nemours Children's Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida 32207, USA. firstname.lastname@example.org
We have shown that testosterone (T) deficiency per se is associated with marked catabolic effects on protein, calcium metabolism, and body composition in men independent of changes in GH or insulin -like growth factor I production.
It is not clear,however, whether estrogens have a major role in whole body anabolism in males. We investigated the metabolic effects of selective estrogen suppression in the male using a potent aromatase inhibitor, Arimidex (Anastrozole).
First, a dose-response study of 12 males (mean age, 16.1 +/- 0.3 yr) was conducted, and blood withdrawn at baseline and after 10 days of oral Arimidex given as two different doses (either 0.5 or 1 mg) in random order with a 14-day washout in between. A sensitive estradiol (E2) assay showed an approximately 50% decrease in E2 concentrations with either of the two doses; hence, a 1-mg dose was selected for other studies. Subsequently, eight males (aged 15-22 yr; four adults and four late pubertal) had isotopic infusions of [(13)C]leucine and (42)Ca/(44)Ca, indirect calorimetry, dual energy x-ray absorptiometry, isokinetic dynamometry, and growth factors measurements performed before and after 10 weeks of daily doses of Arimidex. Contrary to the effects of T withdrawal, there were no significant changes in body composition (body mass index, fat mass, and fat-free mass) after estrogen suppression or in rates of protein synthesis or degradation; carbohydrate, lipid, or protein oxidation; muscle strength; calcium kinetics; or bone growth factors concentrations. However, E2 concentrations decreased 48% (P = 0.006), with no significant change in mean and peak GH concentrations, but with an 18% decrease in plasma insulin-like growth factor I concentrations. There was a 58% increase in serum T (P = 0.0001), sex hormone-binding globulin did not change, whereas LH and FSH concentrations increased (P < 0.02, both). Serum bone markers, osteocalcin and bone alkaline phosphatase concentrations, and rates of bone calcium deposition and resorption did not change. In conclusion, these data suggest that in the male 1) estrogens do not contribute significantly to the changes in body composition and protein synthesis observed with changing androgen levels; 2) estrogen is a main regulator of the gonadal-pituitary feedback for the gonadotropin axis; and 3) this level of aromatase inhibition does not negatively impact either kinetically measured rates of bone calcium turnover or indirect markers of bone calcium turnover, at least in the short term. Further studies will provide valuable information on whether timed aromatase inhibition can be useful in increasing the height potential of pubertal boys with profound growth retardation without the confounding negative effects of gonadal androgen suppression.
Let's first look elsewhere at another mechanism where we have an insulin rise after a workout from recovery drinks causing a DECREASE in blood levels of Testosterone .
Does that mean that the drink or workout is causing LOWER testosterone levels ?
Hell NO! The insulin causes the T to clear from the blood faster after the workout and the very same could be true of the supposed drop in I with anastrozol use above!
Damn if it doesn't look like we can throw a lot of animal studies out as it's not so much contradictory about what hormone does what but it is well known that T causes a rise in H and T and T3 and H are closely related, too, so to say that 'androgens in animals' caused a lowering or rising of one thing or another CANNOT be extrapolated to humans.
So we don't know if the I is being used better or not, but it seems that IT MOST CERTAINLY IS because if H is the same, and I is going down in the blood, is the H not being converted to I any longer by the liver? I would say SAID scenario is not the case plainly if nothing more than because more H floating around would cause a REDUCTION in H production and we didn't see that, either.
And anyone will tell you that certain hormones make you incredibly hungry and when they try I, they found the same 'hunger'.
And in fact this study PROOVED that E is not needed for protein synthesis and the elimination of E did NOT show a reduction in protein synthesis, at all even with less E!
The presence of E causes addition of fat not only subq, organ, interorgan, but also intramuscularly! So that great bulking hormone you are taking which is adding so much muscle is just adding fat INTO the muscle and when you diet, that fat will be the first to go. That's why a user would believe they are getting bigger 'muscle' on 'bulking AS'.
The fat from the E is going to go around the waist, too which is the most detrimental and difficult to get rid of and all too many are forgetting about. In fact, there was a study in the paper telling of how many more people with 'waste' fat are substantially more likely to have health problems.
Ahh but what the hell, who wouldn't love to look like the worlds strongest man chief iron bear, right? Nothing like having a huge beer gut and you don't even get to drink the beer!
Again it's your choice, but there's a reason that as males age, they get fatter around the waist and it's due to lower Hgh and increased aromatization, so enjoy that E.
Yes, T definitely makes a difference as the study illustrated in the first paragraph, but less E didn't decrease protein synthesis. Now, if extra T is added as in a cycle and more T is produced, is the E coming from aromatization going to cause a NOTED amount of protein synthesis or is that E just going towards the addition of intramuscular fat? It's perception by the user if they think that is a good thing.
And as for the ho's, any woman can look like a man with proper amounts of T and hGH and they will then have the same fat distribution problems when they are done and you can look at Chyna now that she is off the circuit. Anybody see her on any of the talk shows lately? Makes me want all the E I could get!
Again, I'd say that if E were so great, it's promoters would be using and suggesting amounts of E to take during any AS cycle and they don't as we know full (fool?) well that the main side which is gyno can be blocked with nolvadex and/or clomid, right? So E it up?
The problem then becomes that Nolv blocks IGF-1 production which would reduce REAL protein synthesis, so do you want a 'suspected' increase in E protein synthesis at the loss of IGF-1 which is proven to work?
In the end it's going to be your choice on what you believe the mechanism to be, but if addition of fat in the muscle is going to make you feel and think you are bigger, then get all the E you can.
I again call you back to the study with arimidex and what the 'authors' of posts and mag articles don't tell you because they know nearly NOTHING!
Harper Biochemistry pg 544.
Estrogen causes a rise in SHBG! Bing-fucking-O!
Do you see it, yet?
The reason there is a rise in blood levels of T in the study subjects is because there is less E and therefore less SHBG!
You see, you gotta know more and look farther than just the abstract you are looking at.
SHBG is also increased by a state of hyperthyroidism also read as lots of T3.
SHBG is decreased by ANDROGENS and that is why people add different AS or stacks!
I don't know to what levels SHBG can rise, but the reason given levels of AS cease to work being due to SHBG rising as the body sees so much free T around is a very plausible scenario and I've written on that before. Women have 2x the SHBG as men, so male levels can go up at least that much farther.
Therefore, if you want your cycle to end quicker and you want to make your T less effective and waste your money and injections, then you get all that E you can!
09-04-2002, 01:14 PM #10
that about sums it up..............
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)