Shorter Cycles or Longer Cycles?

**verdeda** · 02-10-2002, 07:59 AM

I`ve been talking to a few gurus in my area about the length of cycles. All of them are telling me that shorter more frequent cycles are better for muscle retention provided that you come off of a cycle with a more faster acting steroid like Winstrol , Prop etc.. Also with the shorter cycles the receptors are not pounded that hard and are able to recup in a shorter length of time as opposed to a 12 to 16 wk. cycle. I just want to get some vets veiws on this. Peace.

**iron4life79** · 02-10-2002, 08:25 AM

well,
my cycles have always been of the longer variety, 10,12,16 weeks. i have done a few short winny only cycles back in the early days. i can see where the issue of shorter is better would make sense though, as long as you do it right. i might have to give this a try in the upcoming year, and see if results differ greatly from the pattern ive been using.

nice post.

peace bb79

**testprop** · 02-10-2002, 08:29 AM

Im for long cycles

**BIGTEX** · 02-10-2002, 09:57 AM

your on the right track bro... Shorter cycles with shorter rest does help the receptors recoup and alow for greater uptake within them... ITs the way I go and it works great

**kizer_soce** · 02-10-2002, 01:00 PM

shorties. I put on and kept 18lbs in 6weeks on my last one. no need to put your body through the stress if you don't have to.

**jersey juice** · 02-10-2002, 01:32 PM

I've always done 10-15 week cycles, but as I'm progressing and have gotten some great size I'm in total agreement with short cycles. Long cycles are good for sust, deca , EQ, enanthate ...for short cycles you'd have to hit tren , winny prop or suspension. To me a short cycle is 6 weeks, I think that's enough time to see results, someone correct me if I'm wrong. I agree, long cycles definitley stress your body alot more.

**G Child** · 02-10-2002, 02:55 PM

Bump, anyone else, this is pretty interesting.

I remember reading in one of those magazines, MuscleMag or something that short cycles would stress your body less and you would recoup better and faster, but I just don't like those mags. All their cycles in them seem a bit outdated.

**G Child** · 02-12-2002, 10:15 PM

Well I'm interested if anyone has done something to the effect of a 3 week on 3 week off cycle.

**ironfist** · 02-13-2002, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by barbells79
well,
my cycles have always been of the longer variety, 10,12,16 weeks. i have done a few short winny only cycles back in the early days. i can see where the issue of shorter is better would make sense though, as long as you do it right. i might have to give this a try in the upcoming year, and see if results differ greatly from the pattern ive been using.

nice post.

That aslo seems to work best for me...I usually get most of my gains towards the end...

peace bb79