This is just a thought question:
Much of the "first-cycle" advice around various forums is asked by 20-25 yr olds and the answers/advice are all over the place. The internet allows for everyone to be 'right', and there are seemingly a hundred "perfect first cycles".... but aren't we ignoring the "everyone is different" mentality by doing so? Especially when talking about 40+ first-cycle folks who generally have a higher BF%/Blood pressure/stress/etc?
For example, a solid basic cycle might be Test/Arimidex/HCG, but then when you research each one of the three, you get "Arimidex is bad, blah, blah, blah, take Aromasin" and you get "HCG is perfect, unless its not perfect, then is sucks... but only take it during PCT, unless you take it during your cycle, then don't".... and on and on. How are these kids (or older guys) supposed to figure out what they tolerate? or worse yet, what they are NOT tolerating... because they stacked it with Dbol/mast/oxy and 5 different AI's... and the majority of advice usually includes some unhelpful advice like "you know nothing, keep reading", but more reading often yields more confusion.
At some point don't you just have to suggest they baby-step there way along? Why not try a Test only cycle, with a solid PCT plan? And see how you react? Not instantly jumping into AI's, add-ons, etc. (being prepared for side effects with supplies ON HAND of course).
My own answer to the above would be that a basic cycle like Test/Arimidex/HCG probably suits 75% of people, regardless of age and its a good starting place. And why risk nasty side affects in the first place? But is that the best advice?