Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    BUYLONGTERM's Avatar
    BUYLONGTERM is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    8,067

    Lower dosage cycle, 16 weeks vs. High dose cycle, 12 weeks...

    OK, I know there is a lot of debate on this, but today I decided to do some simple math, and wanted to know what you guys thought.

    EXAMPLE: (lets use a basic beginner cycle)

    400mg a week of test
    400mg a week of EQ

    Total 800mg of week of AS
    x that by 12 weeks
    = 9600mg of AS in a 12 week cycle

    Now lets take a low dose cycle

    250mg of Test
    300mg of EQ
    Total - 550mg a week
    x that by 16 weeks
    = 8800 mg of AS

    Even if you bump up them both up to 300mg, its still equals 9600 total mg...

    Now most people will say that that isn't enough to do anything, but I have had great success on the cycle above.

    So, I guess the question is this..How does this formula effect the body over time? Hell, I would rather go longer with a lower dosage cycle then go shorter. gains are more keepable. When I broke it down, to me your putting less AS in your body even though its over a longer period of time? What do you think? Am I I'm missing something...

  2. #2
    BASK8KACE is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,502
    Great post. I'm curious what other's will say about this. I have a ton of posts out there stating my stance on this clearly.

    My take on the subject is:
    ESPECIALLY when using long cycles, lower-doses are better. I say this only because as you raise the dose of steroids (or any medication), you increase the chances of adverse side effects. Each person responds differently to steroids, so the individual user must find through experimentation what doses, nutrition, weight lifting routine and sleep schedule works best for him/her.

    This is why I advocate using lower doses on initial 1 - 2 cycles. It gives the new steroid user the chance to see how his/her body responds to steroids. NOTE: Many, many new users start using steroids way before they should, don't eat correctly then blame the lack of growth on the dose or they start blaming their source for sending fake gear (This usually happens around week 4 or 5 of a cycle when the newbie finds that he has not yet become an intimidating mountain of muscle, and wonders why he's not HUGE [pronounced "HYOOOOGE!")--this is NOT a knock directed at you, Buylongterm; it's my observation of a trend I've noticed in newbies since I began participating on the steroid message boards.

    If you are comfortable with low-doses, stick with them until your body or your curiosity urges you to use higher doses. If higher doses work better for you, use them if you want to. I'm not opposed to high doses. I'm just opposed to seeing NEW USERS taking ridiculously high doses, and I'm also opposed to seeing newbies encouraged to add extra AS to an already outrageously large stack. Buylongterm, you're one of the lucky ones that have found that a lower-dose cycle can work for you.
    Last edited by BASK8KACE; 05-07-2003 at 12:44 AM.

  3. #3
    andy2 is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9
    Cool results, I would only think the time portion wears down receptors a lot worse than the short burst cycle.

  4. #4
    BASK8KACE is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,502
    Receptor myth: they get worn down
    Receptor reality: they constantly regenerate

    There has been a debate about this issue for a long time. Are there any doctors or med students that can comment on this receptor myth?

    Yes, a person's body can develop a tolerance to drugs, but that does not happen immeidately after just one or two cycles. Building a tolerance takes YEARS of steroid use . Meanwhile, if you've been using steroids for a while, you're probably bigger and need more AS, hard work, food and rest to continue growing at a noticable rate. This need to increase for the reasons just described does not indicate a "tolerance" or a "wearing down of receptors," rather it indicates that a person has gotten bigger and might need more steroids to get the same growth speed as a few years before.

    To those of you who have gained 30 lbs and suddenly think it's time to double or tripple your steroid dose (I'm exaggerating with tripple), you might want to carefully review and re-organize your diet first. The people who need more steroids are the guys who OVER MANY YEARS have slapped on many, many pounds of LEAN muscle mass (I'm not talking fat or water-weight).
    Last edited by BASK8KACE; 05-07-2003 at 12:38 AM.

  5. #5
    BossDJ02's Avatar
    BossDJ02 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    San Diego, Ca
    Posts
    135
    awsome thread.

  6. #6
    ossparts is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    u.s.a.
    Posts
    58
    I would go with the longer cycle with a good diet then staying with the smaller cycle at a higher dosage. Right now iam in my 3rd month of a 20 week cycle.
    Gains are wonderfull. Ive noticed that as i increase the calories, weigh goes up, strength goes up, and size goes up.
    Also the first 10 pounds are probably water and bloating after that whatever comes is muscle and fat, depending on your body type. Iam a meso/endo so i gain fat and muscle at the same time. And this is my first cycle so I have yet to see if my receptors are worn down or not, because everytime i go to the gym iam gaining weigh and today a old friend asked me if i was on roids, i guess people are seeing a huge difference!!!

    I personally think the receptor crap is bullshit thou, but then again i can be wrong. I think since people see a huge improvement in weigh in the first few weeks and gains become slower after that (then they think their receptors are worn out), there thinking its all muscle when allot of it is water. Shit your body cant keep on sucking water like a sponge forever, or else everyone would gain 50 pounds of water weigh. lol imagine walking around with 50 pounds of water!!!!

  7. #7
    BASK8KACE is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,502
    Originally posted by ossparts
    ...I am a meso/endo so i gain fat and muscle at the same time....I think since people see a huge improvement in weigh in the first few weeks and gains become slower after that (then they think their receptors are worn out), there thinking its all muscle when allot of it is water. Shit your body cant keep on sucking water like a sponge forever, or else everyone would gain 50 pounds of water weigh. lol imagine walking around with 50 pounds of water!!!!
    AMEN!

    For anyone who doesn't know the meso/ecto reference ossparts made:

    ecto = ectomorph: generally tall, thin people with marathon runner-type build who often have a hard time gaining lean muscle mass, but they get ripped like no one else can.

    endo = endomorph: generally naturally stocky people with professional football player's build or classic powerlifter's build who gain muscle AND fat weight very easily.

    meso = mesomorph: classic bodybuilder, the middle of spectrum between the extreemes of ectomorph and endomorph, possessing the best qualities of each. Gains muscle very easily, does not gain much fat, gets ripped easily.

    People are not alwasy just an ecto, meso or endo. For example some people are ecto/meso (get cut super fast but still can gain muscle fast too).
    Last edited by BASK8KACE; 05-07-2003 at 01:11 AM.

  8. #8
    johnsomebody's Avatar
    johnsomebody is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,428
    Bump fomo comment?

    Somewhere recently (sorry I can't recall where) I read that the longer the cycle, the longer the recovery time. I know different kinds of gear can effect how long recovery takes, but for any particular gear, theoretically 16 weeks of a T & EQ cycle would take longer to recover from than a 12. The gist was that the dosage wasn't as important as the length of time on. Seems like if your natural test production is zero for four weeks longer, isn't it logical that your body would be that much more used to not producing test naturally and would take longer to get it going again?

    I have no idea either way personally, but it goes back to the original question. I'm doing the same low-dose first-cycle myself but is 16 weeks too long?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •