Can we settle the d-bol debate?
It seems to me that kickstarting a cycle with d-bol is often suggested as a knee-jerk reaction, with all due respect to those that advise this, in a manner really no different than one might suggest (and i say this tongue-in-cheek) eating carrots to improve one's eyesight; simply because it is believed to be true. Now, I understand that more than a few knowledgeable bros on this board advocate this, having used it themselves with great success. However, my question is this: given that hardly anyone advocates d-bol only cycles (outside of its use as a bridger in more ambitious users), how are we to know whether the cycle would have been better or worse without the addition of d-bol? Could it be that a number of people employ the use of d-bol simply as a psychological kicker while waiting for the test and (insert accessory steroid here) to kick in? Or, might it be possible that the initial strength gains seen from the d-bol actually paves the way for the test and accessories to to kick in at an elevated plane, thus enhancing the cycle as a whole?
Given that no one can do a cycle with d-bol at the beginning, then go back in time and redo the same cycle in the same conditions without to compare results, can we attempt to settle whether or not this is an efficient and intelligent way to begin a cycle. I'm quite interested in this because I myself am looking at a deca/test enan cycle as my first, and am receiving conflicting "reports" as to whether d-bol should be included for the first four weeks. Additionally, i think it'd be useful to others...much like the deca/eq converstations/debates of a few months back.