8 week cycles are optimal?
- 08-10-2012, 02:45 PM
8 week cycles are optimal?
so i was reading a post from a well respected poster on another forum and he said cycles should be 8 weeks and no longer because the results you get from the aas, regardless of which kind i believe he said, decline after the 8th week and you should come off for a short time after (like 2-4 weeks) and repeat another 8 weeks on, so that its 'fresh' to your system again and you'll get the most out of it this way... he called it "sling-shotting" now everyone on the board agreed with him and it was actually made a sticky...
so what's all this talk about 10-12 week long cycles being recommended? are these only for advanced users? the guy said his rule applied to every steroid but doesnt deca take like 10 weeks to build up to its full effect? perhaps the best length depends on the ester...
you fellows know more than me so could you shed some light on this please?
and no i'm not about to try steroids..
- 08-11-2012, 07:01 PM
There is no science behind his statement. You also can't make a blanket statement about all steroids like that. There are too many gaping holes in his theory. Anecdotal evidence has its place but science and logic will reign supreme every time. Just remember that and you'll be fine. Let the uneducated morons screw their bodies up and/or not reach their pharmaceutically enhanced potential by listening to bro science. That is all.
- 08-12-2012, 01:58 AM
he claims its because myostatin increases after 8 weeks, which you may know limits muscle growth,
heres a quote from him referencing a study regarding testosterone and myostatin....
"Here's an article off of pubmed explaining why gains stop after 8 weeks!
The following may be the answer as this article on myostatin (a powerful muscle growth inhibitor) shows that after 8 weeks on Testoterone, myostatin levels rise significantly. When you stop the testosterone , myostatin levels go back to normal.
Measurement of myostatin concentrations in human serum: Circulating concentrations in young and older men and effects of testosterone administration.
Lakshman KM, Bhasin S, Corcoran C, Collins-Racie LA, Tchistiakova L, Forlow SB, St Ledger K, Burczynski ME, Dorner AJ, Lavallie ER.
Section of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston Medical Center, 670 Albany Street, Boston, MA 02118, United States.
Methodological problems, including binding of myostatin to plasma proteins and cross-reactivity of assay reagents with other proteins, have confounded myostatin measurements. Here we describe development of an accurate assay for measuring myostatin concentrations in humans. Monoclonal antibodies that bind to distinct regions of myostatin served as capture and detector antibodies in a sandwich ELISA that used acid treatment to dissociate myostatin from binding proteins. Serum from myostatin-deficient Belgian Blue cattle was used as matrix and recombinant human myostatin as standard. The quantitative range was 0.15-37.50 ng/mL. Intra- and inter-assay CVs in low, mid, and high range were 4.1%, 4.7%, and 7.2%, and 3.9%, 1.6%, and 5.2%, respectively. Myostatin protein was undetectable in sera of Belgian Blue cattle and myostatin knockout mice. Recovery in spiked sera approximated 100%. ActRIIB-Fc or anti-myostatin antibody MYO-029 had no effect on myostatin measurements when assayed at pH 2.5. Myostatin levels were higher in young than older men (mean+/-S.E.M. 8.0+/-0.3 ng/mL vs. 7.0+/-0.4 ng/mL, P=0.03). In men treated with graded doses of testosterone, myostatin levels were significantly higher on day 56 than baseline in both young and older men; changes in myostatin levels were significantly correlated with changes in total and free testosterone in young men. Myostatin levels were not significantly associated with lean body mass in either young or older men. CONCLUSION: Myostatin ELISA has the characteristics of a valid assay: nearly 100% recovery, excellent precision, accuracy, and sufficient sensitivity to enable measurement of myostatin concentrations in men and women.
PMID: 19356623 [PubMed - in process] "
08-12-2012, 02:35 AM
In the article, it states that after 56 days, guys who were treated with graded doses of testosterone showed increased myostatin levels. There is no data before or after that. You need more data points than that to draw a curve. The relationship most likely resembles an exponential decay model but there is no way to comment on the correlation between these two variables with this little data. The article focuses on a method to measure serum levels.
Yes, myostatin increases in response to the introduction of exogenous testosterone. That is your body's attempt at reaching homeostasis at its new equilibrium point with an external test source. It does not mean that your gains will stop. This is point where the accelerated growth patterns begin to slow down and begin to plateau NOT cease all together.
I can see how he drew that conclusion but he was very generous with his assumptions and extrapolated more than reliable statistics allow.
08-12-2012, 02:41 AM
I forgot to mention, the old rule of thumb, "time on=time off" is recommended. If your body doesn't have a chance to reestablish its natural hormonal production, you can really screw up your endocrine system.
08-12-2012, 02:48 PM
yes this was the point he was making and argued that while gains wont stop as myostatin increases, they will slow down and you will have to up the dosage for the same effect, basicly the goal of his system is to get the most 'bang for your buck' out of your cycles, taking advantage of that area of time where the introduction of AAS shocks your body and responds the most dramatically.he also advocated protein cycling in the OFF phase, combined with very low volume training to 'enhance' this shock to your system of high intensity
heres a quote from him about the time on=time off.. to be clear he is not against it
"In regards to time on= time off. Thats is fine but you will be in a constant state of gaining muscle then losing muscle. It's called YO-YOING! You cannot come off of all drugs for that length of time and expect to maintain your gains. I have learned that the body will hold onto all of it's size (minus water weight) for about 2 weeks."
to be honest it makes sense to me, and while maybe it's not the only way to make great gains, it seems like a good way to get the most out of cycles without having to increase the dosage for the same effect
if you want i think i can link you the post if you PM me
08-12-2012, 03:53 PM
Well, it looks like you've already made up your mind. The general consensus (a vast majority of AAS users) advocate 12 weeks for simple testosterone esters based cycles. It's been established over the past 50 years anecdotally and scientifically. PCT is to help recover HPTA function. This is MUCH more difficult using the "sling shot" method you described. Oscillations in hormonal levels in between the types of cycles you propose are an abomination to estrogen levels, emotions, cardiovascular system, lipid profiles and general well-being. Ask an endocrinologist...please. Don't take my word for it or a self proclaimed expert referencing vague pub med articles.
08-12-2012, 07:10 PM
i havent made up my mind about it and thats why i wanted to hear your reaction to it,
this isn't me saying your methods are wrong, it's me trying to learn and that involves challenging the answers you give me, assuming your willing to answer my questions and i will definitely rep you for helping me out..
i think its obvious that you have cycled before and i suppose maybe a typical cycle of yours would be 12 weeks long starting with test as your base w/ maybe 1 or 2 other agents and most likely increasing the dosage/adding new agents every 3-4 weeks?
now sometime during those 12 weeks you will have to up the dosage in order for your progress to remain somewhat linear?, now i understand with increased dosage comes the increased risk of side effects. this is why i like the slingshot approach, because it would make sense to me that the longer you're ON and the greater the dose, then the more difficulty your body is going to have when it has to begin producing its own hormones and during that time it may catabolize itself MORE or LESS aggressively depending how long the ON period was. is this correct?
perhaps you could outline 1 of your cycles and explain to me why you feel this is best for you?
how would i go about finding an endocrinologist willing to answer my questions about steroids?
08-12-2012, 07:21 PM
Look at all these little kids takin' care of the music biz don't their bus'ness take good care of me...
08-12-2012, 07:51 PM
08-12-2012, 10:00 PM
Interesting thought process in the link.
As far as endocrinologists go, it took some time but I found one who will discuss openly and without judgement, topics of this nature. Yes, you will pay for it, but it is so worth it. Coupled with the fact that one of my best friends is a pharmacist, I have a lot of information at my disposal...I am lucky.
Also, I would recommend picking up an intro to endocrinology textbook from Amazon. I have a PhD in chemical engineering which helps me in deciphering the medical textbook lingo. When I don't understand something, I take it to the endo. Knowledge is power my friend. The only problem is that the more you learn, you realize how much you don't know. It's an addictive paradox for me.
I'll post more later on cycle theory. My thumbs are getting fatigued on this wretched iPhone.
08-12-2012, 10:43 PM
Email me for free prodigy samples
08-13-2012, 12:50 AM
So you're saying EQ is best cut short about the week it starts to kick in? Cycle length is dependent on individual gains and blood work. Some people stop gaining way before others
08-13-2012, 01:30 AM
im not saying that, although if you read the links posted here you'll see a lot of people are saying things similar to it
08-13-2012, 04:26 AM
I would personally like to see a study done on this aspect, maybe two people volunteer to do a year long study (blood work done, lipids, etc) and have their diets in check and reported etc.
Obviously compounds would need to be close to the same as well, If anyone else would like to partake in a study of this sort I will be a subject and log everything for a full year (I am kind of addicted to logging progress)
Similar Forum Threads
- By enoc09 in forum IGF-1/GHReplies: 3Last Post: 12-21-2011, 01:01 PM
- By NevrEnuf in forum AnabolicsReplies: 18Last Post: 03-29-2005, 06:46 PM
- By kranden in forum Cycle InfoReplies: 18Last Post: 05-21-2003, 04:08 PM
- By poi boy in forum Cycle InfoReplies: 2Last Post: 01-27-2003, 10:48 PM
- By aeoliantru in forum Cycle InfoReplies: 3Last Post: 12-04-2002, 10:52 AM