+1
Toren I was thinking about short oral only cycles ie.: dbol 30mg, or tbol 40mg, 4 to 6 weeks with a serm, preferably clomid 25mg ed or eod. Now most probably this wouldn't lead to suppression and gains of 1 to 4 kg could be made for folks that arent that big and experienced aas users yet. What do you think, is it better to not get suppressed for the duration of the 6 weeks or to not use a serm and get suppressed more or shuttdown?
First off, let me say that I do not believe that using a SERM during any reasonably-lengthed AAS cycle will stop suppression from happening.
Suppression is when a "measured level" is
suppressed (by a forced stimulus) below baseline for a given period of time, taking into account natural fluctuations. Shutdown is when your body is no longer producing measureable levels of hormones that are a pre-requisite to Testosterone production. The amount of measured Testosterone still available depends entirely on the duration of suppression and shutdown and how long it was allowed to affect T levels. Some people like to argue that "suppression is suppression", and it is, but it's not the same thing as being "shutdown", it just isn't, and there certainly are degrees to suppression.
In regrads to short, mild cycles, I think they're great in trying to mitigate some of the suppression one could potentially see. Certainly the gains will be less with a shorter duration cycle, but if the training is truly on point, which it likely isn't for a lot of AAS users (hard truth), then gains can be made and mostly maintained with less suppression than what would typically be seen with longer duration, more heavily-dosed cycles. The more years I get away from my first experience with anabolics, and the older I get, the stronger have become an advocate for safer cycling in the form of 1 reasonable length mildish cycle per year to perfect what you were working on for the rest of the year. Having said that, we all have different starting points and visions of where we'd like to end up, and that certainly changes the risks we choose to take.
You asked a really good question, unfortunately I don't think there a definitive answer that can apply to anyone in particular without first considering all of the factors. I think using a SERM during a short, mild 4-6 week cycle will likely mitigate some suppression. I've experimented with this myself over the last 2 years and the results (short of bloodwork) indicate that there is indeed some testicular stimulation going on, despite the exogenous anabolic. I think the potential is also there for a SERM to mitigate
some suppression during a longer, very mild cycle (currently experimenting with good results).
I think the real question one needs to ask themselves is do they feel comfortable with their SERM usage? On a one-off cycle, mild in nature as you laid out, I don't necessarily see a problem with adding in a SERM for the duration of the cycle in order to mitigate some suppression and with the hope that it will also lead to a smoother recovery during PCT. The real dilemma comes when we acknowledge that most "advanced" users would probably run a short cycle like this (4-6 weeks)
3 times per year; and that's where the problem potentially arises. I would advise, if using a SERM on cycle, that the SERM is started at least 7 days before beginning the anabolic so that blood plasma levels can be saturated. So, assuming a middling 5 week cycle, with the SERM being used for 6, plus 3-4 weeks of the SERM during PCT, that would make for 9-10 weeks of the SERM. Multiply that by 3 cycles per year, which most would assume is "fine" because they believe there is less suppression going on, and now you have potentially 30 weeks of unmonitored, off-label SERM usage out of a 52 week year. People need to decide for themselves if they believe that is safe or not. The real deciding factor, for the amount of PCT drugs necessary to "recover" would come from bloodwork at the same time of cessation of the anabolic. If that test revealed minimal suppression, one might be able to cut their 4-week PCT down to a milder one with a shortened duration of say 2-3 weeks.
Is using the SERM safer than allowing increased suppression during this mild cycle? That's a tough one. The SERM may be the lesser of the two evils in the short-term but the larger of them in the long run. I do firmly believe that cycling 2, 3, 4 times per year will lead to some degree of HPTA impairment no matter what you do to try and mitigate the suppression. The body is adept at learning, and if you repeatedly teach it that it can slow down it's production of hormones, it will eventually do so, and at an accelerated rate to what mother-nature might do under "normal" conditions. A true measure of recent experiments will be where all of the experimenters end up a few years from now. My guess is HRT or blasting and cruising. And if that's the case, what was the purpose in the first place?
On mild cycles I do use a SERM, and it's benefits for me outweigh the potential negatives, for now. I would never allow myself to be on a SERM for upwards of 60-70% of a year, though.
There is potentially another option, hCG. Yes, it can cause some suppression, but that suppression would
likely be minimal under a 200iu @ 2x per week protocol, and when E2 is kept in cheque with a mild dose of an AI. That dose would be enough to stimulate the testes and at the same time boost Test levels. I do believe that using hCG is also likely safer than using a SERM for the same purpose. The potential aside for suppression of your own LH, the hCG would keep the testes fully responsive until you transition into PCT. I'm not sure that it's a
better option but it is something else to consider.
I might also suggest adding in some taurine @ 5g per day for the
potential benefits to, or the protection of the testes during AAS usage. Then I would look at adding in a tocotrienol supplement for the
potential that it might increase sensitivity of the leydig cells to LH and thus Testosterone production, especially when
combined with hCG. The last study I linked tested Vitamin E but that study was 30+ years ago and I believe there is a newer study that showed the tocotrienol forms of vitamin E are the important factors here, not the tocopherol variants, in this regard anyway. I no longer have access to that study, though. One might also consider adding in a PDE5 inhibitor to the mix, at a low dose. This slightly skews the safety line a little bit, as it a Rx drug, but it's less time on a SERM and has other potential benefits as well.
PDE5 inhibitors have been shown to be present in the leydig cell (of mice and humans) and inhibition of that particular enzyme led to increases in Testosterone expression in the leydig cell and in measured total Testosterone levels in the body. There are numerous studies that show Tadalafil can boost TT production as well.
CLIFFS NOTES:
I think a SERM,
if it can
measurably reduce the degree of suppression from an AAS/SARM cycle, when used together, is potentially a good idea. That might change if using that protocol 3x per year. I'd start the SERM at least 1 week prior to the anabolic.
A more
natural option, if one doesn't want to use a SERM for extended periods of time, might be the combination of taurine, tocotrienols, tribulus, and tadalafil (not natural). I'm not going to suggest it will work as well as a SERM, I don't think it will. Maybe the combination of them with a low dose of a SERM might be better than higher doses of the SERM itself.
After all that typing, I'd still prefer to use the SERM on a mild cycle, as part of an overall plan of cycling once or twice per year. I'd prefer to have testicular function optimized, as much as it can, during times of potential suppression. Longer cycles need hCG, and I'd combine taurine and tocotrienols with hCG as well.
High TT has nothing to do with aromasin. Aromasin elevates Free T not TT.
