thinking about the pct time on time off

[mixedup]

I was just thinking about this and was beginning to wonder if this should even apply to the new cycles. What I am meaning is the time on time off protocol has been around for many years but in the old days when a cycle was usually not less than 8 weeks and usually in the 12 week range if you did time on = pct = time off you'd get a minimum of about 12 weeks or sometimes 16 weeks or longer in between with all these new 3 and 4 week cycles is time off really long enough. I mean if you did a 3 week cycle and 4 week pct then you'd jump back on in less than two months maybe the length of time off needs to be thought past the old time on = time off due to shorter cycles.


Thoughts?

 

[Trauma1]

I was just thinking about this and was beginning to wonder if this should even apply to the new cycles. What I am meaning is the time on time off protocol has been around for many years but in the old days when a cycle was usually not less than 8 weeks and usually in the 12 week range if you did time on = pct = time off you'd get a minimum of about 12 weeks or sometimes 16 weeks or longer in between with all these new 3 and 4 week cycles is time off really long enough. I mean if you did a 3 week cycle and 4 week pct then you'd jump back on in less than two months maybe the length of time off needs to be thought past the old time on = time off due to shorter cycles.


Thoughts?

In all reality (and from a medical standpoint), the whole (time on = time off) theory doesn't mean squat. The only way to truly discern if you're recovered from a given cycle is though blood work. Hormonal recovery in situations like this will vary greatly not only among people (for a multitude of reasons alone), but also with what they're taking, how much they're taking, and for how long they're taking it. In other words - the unknowns can often be daunting and endless.

There is no substitute for blood work in this regard.

 

[mixedup]

In all reality (and from a medical standpoint), the whole (time on = time off) theory doesn't mean squat. The only way to truly discern if you're recovered from a given cycle is though blood work. Hormonal recovery in situations like this will vary greatly not only among people (for a multitude of reasons alone), but also with what they're taking, how much they're taking, and for how long they're taking it. In other words - the unknowns can often be daunting and endless.

There is no substitute for blood work in this regard.

Yes i totally agree no subsitute for bloodwork but in the abscence of that my feeling is that too many people are going by what was "safer" from an old school perspective and applying it to new school short cycles.

In the old days when you went natural off a 12 week cycle you had a minimum of 16 weeks in between sometimes longer now with the short 3-4 week cycles people are only getting 7-8 weeks inbetween and thinking that it is sufficient. I'm sure we can agree that even on a heavy cycle after 16 weeks our much more likely to be back up than 8.

 

[Trauma1]

Yes i totally agree no subsitute for bloodwork but in the abscence of that my feeling is that too many people are going by what was "safer" from an old school perspective and applying it to new school short cycles.

In the old days when you went natural off a 12 week cycle you had a minimum of 16 weeks in between sometimes longer now with the short 3-4 week cycles people are only getting 7-8 weeks inbetween and thinking that it is sufficient. I'm sure we can agree that even on a heavy cycle after 16 weeks our much more likely to be back up than 8.

I definitely agree that more time of is better in general. Many people attempt to run WAY TOO many cycles in a years time.