Thread: time on = time off...Why?
09-13-2003, 09:39 PM #1
time on = time off...Why?
Time on = time off. Is there any scientific study to support this often given advice? I am 42 and have decided that I will continue low dose test between stacked cycles. I would like to have opinions of pro versus con as to taking time off to let your body "recover".
My thought is that if your body tolerates AAS without side effects as I do then there will be no harm staying on test year round. I believe that time off only sets you back. Staying on low dose test with 500u HCG 2 X a week will let you keep all of your cycle and continue to move forward.
Some will say that the gains stop after 12 weeks and your body needs a "break". I believe gains slow as your body becomes accustomed to the extra test and anabolics but the gains do continue at a slower pace. I would compare the growth spurt and subsequent slowing to a new drug free weight trainer who sees fast development early on and then gradual development.
If by some remote chance my endogenous test levels don't return to normal when I give up AAS I'll simply go to my MD and get a script for hormone replacement therapy.
This is all conjecture but it makes sense to me. My routine will be:
1-4 50mg test prop ed
1-20 500mg test enth weekly
1-20 75mg fina ed
1-20 500mg EQ weekly
25-28 winny 50mg ed
21-28 test prop 100mg eod
HCG 500mg twice a week if/when needed
29-49 Repeat stack with test base + ???
and on, and on
09-13-2003, 09:58 PM #2
I dont understand where it came from either.
The main reason for coming off, is to restore your HTPA. About the main reason this is important is if you are younger and dont want to have to worry about HRT later in life or possible complications with children. I however dont believe that a 2 10 wk cycles with a 10wk time off between are any easier on you than a straight 30wk cycle. As long as you are getting bloodwork to monitor your other values (liver, kidney, lipids, etc) I see no harm on doing a long cycle instead of shorter ones. I dont see any harm on doing 10wk cycles with shorter breaks either. The real problem will occur after this type of cycling (not allowing full HTPA recover) is done for a longer period of time (~a year or more). This is where people run into problems of being able to recover.
Myself, I feel about 20wk cycles are best for me with about 8-12wk times in between. While following this, I notice there are loss sides (especially lipids and estrogen) as there is less disruption in the bodies homeostasis.
I realise this isnt about long or short cycles, but the point is about the amount of time on vs time spent recovering.
I think alot of people worry about recovering without even thinking about why its important they do, or if its even important at all at that time.
Bloodwork is important. This is how time off should be guaged. If a period of time has gone that you feel is long enough, start recovery and monitor it. See how well you recover. If its harder and takes longer, perhaps shorter cycles are in need. Either way, bloodwork is the only thing thats going to tell you if you are recovered or not.
I dont care for the time on = time off statement.
09-13-2003, 10:47 PM #3
"Bloodwork is important. This is how time off should be guaged."
09-14-2003, 12:22 PM #4Time on = time off. Is there any scientific study to support this often given advice?
I've always thought that the time-on time-off rule was another one of those old wives tales someone just pulled out of their ass. However, I do think it's a good thing in that it is about moderation, and for the average non-athlete, non-bb AS user health should be a high priority.
09-14-2003, 02:40 PM #5Junior Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
am i suppost to say "doc check my blood"? hehe
09-15-2003, 11:40 AM #6
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)