Thread: Ideal Cycle Length
02-25-2004, 03:46 PM #1
Ideal Cycle Length
Now before anyone jumps in and says do a search....I have !! Some good views, the last post in Jan turned into great stories and incredible experiences of LONG cycles, I mean 60+ weeks.
However, My question is for the novice, like me who has 3-6 cycles under their belt and is weighing the advantages and benefits of a longer than typical 10-12 week cycle.
Looking more into 14-18 week cycle. I basically try and keep life simple, and am no different when it comes to my cycles... A couple or three different compounds always based with a test.
So my question is, for those who have done both I would appreciate experiences and opinions about both sides of the argument for your typical 10-12 weeker, vs 14-16 or 14-18 cycles.
My next cycle looks like this, however I am still debating the length. I have never gone past 12 weeks.
Dbol 1-4 @40 mg
Test E 1-14 @ 500
EQ 1-13 @ 400
Winny 10-16 @ 50 ED
of course PCT noval and clo
10 mg noval ED through cycle
.5 mg Ldex EOD through cycle
Thanks bro's your wisdom is a gift !!
02-25-2004, 04:06 PM #2
Well, obviously, the longer you go, the harder it is to recover. Personally for me, my first cycle I went over 14 weeks and my PCT went perfect. (though, my first cycle was a low dose, but I did raise the dosages down the road). I think you really have to know your body. I am only on my 2nd cycle and I am doing a 20+ weeks. But, I see my Dr. regularly, and I get blood work done.
02-25-2004, 04:13 PM #3
BLT pretty much hit it on the head. The cycle length you have listed is fine for someone with your experience, you may consider some using some HCG to help with recovery. If you can afford the blood work then by all means get it done, if not you'll just have to listen to your body. Good luck.
02-25-2004, 04:15 PM #4
02-25-2004, 04:23 PM #5
02-25-2004, 04:51 PM #6
others with 16 week experience ???
benefits of 12 compared to 16 ???
02-25-2004, 06:57 PM #7
hola tenequa ??
02-26-2004, 11:42 AM #8
I think there are advantages to both. I feel some cycles should be at least 12 weeks, ie. those with EQ. I don't really notice best effects until around this time with EQ. I feel longer cycles allow the body to better adjust. I also agree that longer cycles are harder on the HPTA, but with proper PCT you can still recover fine although it may still take longer. Shorter cycles may not inhibit as hard. I used to run the traditional 8 weeks on, then at least 12 weeks off. But I still gained better and held onto more when I increased the length to at least 12 weeks. There is alot of hype about shorter 2-4 on and 2-4 off with shorter acting compounds, but I haven't tried this yet. The concept is interesting in that it should allow for full recovery between cycles (with proper PCT of course). I am sure there are some good bros here that have tried this and hopefully they will chime in. I would only do this with shorter acting compounds such as orals and prop etc.
02-26-2004, 03:27 PM #9
yeah that it was I am talking about...I have used EQ before, but it was usually 10 weeks, I am thinking of going 13 or 14...might be a good idea.
02-26-2004, 04:05 PM #10
For me again, I don't see result till after 12+ weeks.
02-26-2004, 04:20 PM #11
i went 10 on my first...then 15 weeks on # two...i loved going longer...
02-26-2004, 04:23 PM #12
12 to 14 weeks works good..
02-26-2004, 05:36 PM #13
03-03-2004, 01:37 PM #14
I was debating this very same problem. My original cycle length was 10 Weeks for EQ and 11 Weeks for the Test E. Upon, more research I have decided to increase the EQ to 15 Weeks and the Test E. to 16 Weeks. BTW, I am using HCG through the cycle on the weekends at 500i.u per day. I will also run the PCT 1 week longer than with a traditional 10 weeker.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)