Printable View
10 weeks? my 9th-10th week is usually when i start to gain the most weight. I put more mass on in the 13-14th week than i do in the 6th week. I think it's a waste to not do at least a 14 week cycle. You have to use the same amount of PCT so why not go longer... :scratch:
Jdog55
[email protected]
I think lenght goes with cycle history and what's being ran. My first cycle I ran for 13 weeks my second isn't going to much longer than that.
im doing 14 ;)
I think for the first few cycles a short one is best to know what its all about. I spent the last couple years doing short 10-14 week cycles. Now I'm planning a long 6-12 month cycle. But for someone who doesn't know how their body is going to react longer than 12 weeks is not advisable IMO.
I definitely agree with RON. Short cycles until your body lets you know it's ready for the 'next step'.Quote:
Originally Posted by RON
9
Good advise IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by RON
I ran 8-12 week cycles, for the first 2 years of AS..Trying out different compounds and such.
I am now getting ready for my next 16-20 week cycle. I found that My body does really start to develope the longer I am on. Then I will be looking into 6 months cycles I am sure ...WEEEEEE!
I've been on for months. I don't plan on coming off for at least a year. Don't really see the point.
The one thing that I discovered on my first cycle is that it wasn't so much how my body reacted while on. Rather, it was how my body recovered. You need to know exactly how you body handles recovery and what steps you need to do to facilitate the correct recovery. I would think that gradually building up to longer cycles will allow for proper recovery, utilizing the various anti-e's available.
I am a bit skeptical of doing a cycle longer than 12 weeks on all together. However, my next cycle is going to 14 weeks. I'll let you know how it turns out 5-6 months from now. :)
I like longer cycles as well. for those who have little or no AS experience, short cycles are advisable. also, some people dont have their lives' routine planned out and stable for more than 2-3 months at a time, and shorter cycles help to avoid the conflicts that may arise from instability in lifestyle... i.e. - college, vacation, etc...
I agree, I think that for a beginner they should stick with short cycles, to learn how your body reacts, and to ease into cycling so to speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by RON
My Opinion is that your first few cycles should be short. Then do long Cycles 14 weeks.
I hope most of you are keeping track of your body fat. For those that follow the action/reaction factors that Arthur Rea talks about you know that passed a certain point your body is actually going to habituate and start working against you. Once you go off it takes significantly longer to recover and the more muscle you will lose post cycle.
A short cycle is 2-4 weeks with short acting esters like tren, test prop, d-bol, winstrol, etc. These are a ideal for the beginner to add a quick 5-15lbs of lean mass, to come off, and recover again. Once you recover you can then keep making gains naturally. The shorter the cycle, the more often you can go on cycles. Dante aka Doggcrap really pushes this idea with 2 on 2 off cycles. He has produced a TON of 280-300+lbs bodybuilders in the last few years.
Since i've done both long and short I'm hooked on the short method. I keep my gains post cycle, I cycle more frequently, I don't have to use an over abundant amount of gear to get results, and my side effects are next to nil.
what do you mean by 2 on 2 off cycles?
Dante cycles year round. He just goes low dose for 2 weeks after a month of blasting, but he's still on year round.
what happens if you do a cycle for a year straight without stopping? would your natural testosterone production be permanently shut down, can't ever get it up again?
Many people have come back from cycles that lasted several years.