1st Cycle. Test Prop.

[bluestone10]

You need to build more of a foundation naturally because at 158lbs you can build alot more without steroids and if you do you will be in a far better position to build and maintain muscle tissue after the cycle.

yes i understand what you are saying but it seems you are fixd on the number instead of the quality of that number.

If I weighed 158.5 @ 12% i would agree. hell even 10%. but this is not 12%. this is ripped and depleted 158.5

This is what happens when one diets natty and has tiny bone structure.

When im 12%+ bf i weigh well above 180lbs.

[marcus300]

yes i understand what you are saying but it seems you are to fixd on the number instead of the quality of that number.

If I weighed 158.5 @ 12% i would agree. hell even 10%. but this is not 12%. this is ripped and depleted 158.5

This is what happens when one diets natty and has tiny bone structure.

When im 12%+ bf i weigh well above 180lbs.

You look alot better 20lbs heavier at 8% and this would be a far better position than were you are now to start a cycle, why start a cycle to only end up were you could be naturally.

Thats my advice take it or leave it, best of luck

[bluestone10]

You look alot better 20lbs heavier at 8% and this would be a far better position than were you are now to start a cycle, why start a cycle to only end up were you could be naturally.

Thats my advice take it or leave it, best of luck

ok, but just to make it clear. Getting back to 175lbs@8% would take me less than 3 weeks. The difference between the two is that one is depleted as fukk on sub 100g carbs/day at lower bodyfat without any anti catabolic substances (no clen, no eca. nothing). the other is on 500 g carbs/day, glycogen filled to the max.

I appreciate your advice but im just saying; Im more or less at the same place in all of the pictures.

So, with all this being said; any advice on the cycle??

[The Bear 79]

ok, but just to make it clear. Getting back to 175lbs@8% would take me less than 3 weeks. The difference between the two is that one is depleted as fukk on sub 100g carbs/day at lower bodyfat without any anti catabolic substances (no clen, no eca. nothing). the other is on 500 g carbs/day, glycogen filled to the max.

I appreciate your advice but im just saying; Im more or less at the same place in all of the pictures.

So, with all this being said; any advice on the cycle??

I'd like 2 hav a look @ ur diet, post it here (in detail) would ya.

[bluestone10]

I'd like 2 hav a look @ ur diet, post it here (in detail) would ya.

when bulking natty:

3700 kcal/day, ratio: 30%P,55%C,15%F

[The Bear 79]

when bulking natty:

3700 kcal/day, ratio: 30%P,55%C,15%F

HA!! OK, that's NOT "in detail" bro..............

[bluestone10]

cycle looks good
i dont think you need the HCG until a couple weeks in

why not? From what i've read you should run it from the start

HA!! OK, that's NOT "in detail" bro..............

how is that not detailed lol. Ive given you my exact calories and macros. but ok, I see what you're after;

I dont have a set diet when bulking. Im currently in college which gives me alot of spare time inbetween classes; and since I live only 500 yds from school I head home and prepare my meal on the spot every time.

I basically spread those 3700 kcal over 4-5 meals. The first 3-4 meals are aprox 700-1000 kcal a piece and then i adjust the last meal of the day so that i hit my cals and macros on the dot.

A typical meal:

150-200g tuna/chicken/turkey/ground beef/cottage cheese etc...
150-200g brown rice/whole wheat pasta/oats etc...
+ fat source; olive oil/avocado/cashews
+ veggies or fruit
+ dill

Ive found meal timing/portion size/carb timing/seperating carbs and fats etc to be of lesser significance. It has never made any difference for me when i work out. The only thing that makes a difference for me is how carb loaded i am when i hit the gym. If my glycogen isnt maxed i regress.

[dec11]

ok, but just to make it clear. Getting back to 175lbs@8% would take me less than 3 weeks. The difference between the two is that one is depleted as fukk on sub 100g carbs/day at lower bodyfat without any anti catabolic substances (no clen, no eca. nothing). the other is on 500 g carbs/day, glycogen filled to the max.

I appreciate your advice but im just saying; Im more or less at the same place in all of the pictures.

So, with all this being said; any advice on the cycle??

that certainly would not be muscle, it would be water.

the more i read from you, the more misinformed you sound mate, no offence

[bluestone10]

that certainly would be muscle, it would be water

EXACTLY. thats what im saying. I have the muscle to be 175lbs@8%bf when not carb depleted.

[dec11]

EXACTLY. thats what im saying. I have the muscle to be 175lbs@8%bf when not carb depleted.

errr, no, read again, i left out the word ''not'', it has been edited. i dont know where you've heard all this bs from, but i'll assure you muscle doesnt go up and down that fast and i dont care if you can put on 50lbs water, it makes no diff, you still havent got alot muscle

[bluestone10]

errr, no, read again, i left out the word ''not'', it has been edited. i dont know where you've heard all this bs from, but i'll assure you muscle doesnt go up and down that fast and i dont care if you can put on 50lbs water, it makes no diff, you still havent got alot muscle

Have you read the thread? Post #3 is a picture of me 174lbs@8% bf. And that is where I was at just a few short weeks ago. 174lbs@8% is 180lbs@10%.

I can I explain it clearer? This is the 10th time i say. it