The implications of a (relatively) long cycle as your first...

[BigGreen]

As some of you have seen (http://anabolicreview.com/vbulletin/...threadid=48532), I'm quite torn at the present between two variations of what is essentially the same (foundational) cycle. I'll get to the point, as I know i can ramble and go off on all sorts of tangents. I have a great amount of faith in my research (which, unfortunately, has to be largely anecdotal given the nature of what we're doing here) and believe my reasoning behind a 17-18 weeker as a first cycle (not all of the same make-up, but rather more like two smaller cycles piggybacked) is, more or less, sound.

However, the 64,000 dollar question (the answer to which will largely determine my decision) is this: Does undertaking a relatively long (by comparison to the normal first cycle) cycle as your first "paint you into a corner"? In other words, should your first cycle be of this length, will the efficacy of 10-12 weekers in the future become necessarily diminished as a result? I'd hate to shut the door on cycles of that length right from the start...

Any input, speculation, anecdotes, etc are appreciated. However, I don't think anyone will fault me for putting more faith in the personal experience variety of answers. So far, though he has yet to deal with the entirety of post cycle recovery, let alone what it'll be like several months down the road, I'm turning to majorpecs' experience as my supportive barometer...and I don't think too many on this board would argue his cycle has been anything but successful, in terms of what it was meant to accomplish, and, in talking with him, his overall health. So, away we go.

[Rickson]

No any one cycle should not change the effectiveness of any other cycle. Only your weight gain beyond set point and towards or past genetic potential will determine amounts and lengths.

[painintheazz]

Fully agree with rickson.

Pain