Thread: Time of vs. time off
01-24-2004, 09:37 PM #1
Time of vs. time off
My understanding is that the general rule for most is time on equals time off for cycling. I was wondering if anyone knows the logic behind this. Is it to allow your own body functions time to recover fully and get back to normal before we hammer them again. Is it a receptor issue or something else, safety ect. Is this still the accepted standard? If your body recovers quickly and things get back to normal in 3 weeks or so do you still have to wait as long?
01-25-2004, 02:05 PM #2
Any more thoughts of a factual nature?
01-25-2004, 02:08 PM #3
here's one of those questions that can only be answered by opinion, not too much scientific evidence to back up any argument on the subject, personally, i don't believe in time on/ time off
01-25-2004, 02:24 PM #4
The idea behind time on=time off is to allow your body to recover natural function but the reality is that you should take as much time off as is necessary. How will you know? Get blood work done both pre and post cycle so that you know recovery has occurred.
01-25-2004, 03:17 PM #5
I think it is just plain smart to take the time off.
01-25-2004, 04:44 PM #6
I agree witht the time on/time off..............but that does not mean I do it, I take time on/ 3/4 time off.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)