- 08-12-2005, 12:36 AM
Short Cycles (2 weeks)/Beating Estrogen
I'm trying the 'european' form of cycling which involves multiple short cycles, and completely eliminating estrogen and aromatization.
The best steroid I can think of for this purpose would be masteron, as it is notorious for eliminating aromatization of other gear, but that could get real expensive real quick.
I read in Masteron's profile that if I was to use it for this, it would be more cost effective to use Proviron, but I've been hearing bad reviews from it.
Seeing as how the europeans use tren like we use test, my base will be tren. The goal is to make a very androgenic stack, while eliminating estrogen as much as possible, and not incorporating test.
Would arimidex be enough? Should I add in the proviron?
Edit: I think I'm thinking too hard about this. How about tren+winny with arimidex throughout the cycle?
Last edited by noctorum; 09-05-2005 at 03:29 PM.
- 08-12-2005, 12:45 AM
Arimidex or Liquidex even at a small dose should completely kill any unwanted estrogenic side effects.
Running Tren alone you may get very lethergic and your libido will be next to nothing. Keep in mind, your body will actually be circulating LESS testosterone than if you were OFF CYCLE, if you don't incorporate at least a small amount of Test.
Why are you completely trying to kill estrogen? And not wanting to use a Test-Base?My Little Site about Hair Loss & Anabolics-
hair loss from steroids dot com
- 08-12-2005, 01:02 AM
Originally Posted by CEDeoudes59
Basically, instead of packing on 20-30lbs a cycle, you go two weeks on, two weeks off with short esters. You continue cycling like that, and make consistant small gains. In the end equaling the previous, while being able to be uh..'aesthetically pleasing' throughout the entire time, as opposed to the fat commonly gained on a bulker.
It's not just estrogenic side effects I'm looking to quash. I've got a couple cycles under my belt, and I'm not very sensitive to estrogen-side effects. I'm looking to get estrogen as low as possible for water retention issues, etc.
Since I will be on for a short time, it shouldn't hit my test levels too hard. In addition, I will just add ZMA to it. This is a cutter cycle.
08-12-2005, 12:17 PM
I was actually thinking of doing something like this as well. I think I read an article on this board about that "european" style of AAS usage. They were saying that tren is the base of their cycles and test is rarely ever used. They would do 4 week cycles of tren, nandrolone phenyl prop, and maybe anavar. I was thinking of doing a couple 4 week tren cycles with some superdrol added to them.
08-12-2005, 12:19 PM
it could possibly end up taking a toll on your test levels, and being aesthetically pleasing has nothing to do with the length of your cycle, i understand what you mean by wanting to eliminate estrogen, but why not just take arimidex of l-dex if you wanna do that, if you're wanting to keep the fat off why not look into the hgh side of things
08-12-2005, 01:06 PM
this is a terrible idea for many reasons
first off two weeks on with any ester even prop isn't enough (suspensions are a different story) .. secondly neither masteron nor proviron IMO is a good choice for eliminating estrogen use an AI like a-dex, letro, or preferably aromasin .. third why would you not want test .. do you like having no sex drive and feeling like utter ass?
i don't care what you read the europeans do .. i guarantee you that you will have better gains and feel a million times better with longer (and i don't even mean long i just mean longer than 2 weeks like 8 weeks) cycles and adding test
08-12-2005, 03:41 PM
I began BBing with a trainer from Germany. In educating me, he related to me that, in his time BBing there, European BBers were relatively without American influence. Common practice called for the use of short halflife ester injectables, the variety of which was very much greater than exists today, combined with mild orals like Anavar and Winstrol and, sometimes, Dbol. Short cycles(2-4 weeks) were also the norm. Most interesting, use of test was very uncommon, and considered a horror. What was commonly used was Parabolan, what we, today, call Trenbolone. Eight week cycles were virtually unheard of, and the desire to pack on 20-40 pounds in such a short time was unthinkable. European BBers took a much more unhurried pace of growth. Young, competitive BBers were very much smaller than those found in the US, today, due to this orderly pace of growth. It was only the very rare, genetically unusual BBer who was big at a young age. Europeans simply had a different outlook and different standards.
Early on, my trainer lamented the situation he found in the US: heavy dependance upon test, long halflife esters used in long cycles, gross overeating, poor estrogen suppression, acceptance of high bodyfat percentages, and excessive lbm development in short timespans. He was horrified at what he envisioned would be the longterm consequences of widespread use of these practices. He was associated with IFBB pros, like Zhur, el Sonbaty, Schlierkamp, and Ruhl, while in Europe. He was well aware of the health complications associated with extreme muscularity. He kept reiterating "BBing is a sport for life".
While still a natural, I began to examine how an entire philosphy of AAS use might be developed, based upon the European experience. By the time it was appropriate for me to begin AAS, years later, I already had a plan. Initially, I quietly used myself as a lab rat. The results became quite visible, and, before too long, questions followed. My trainer asked that we work together, to develop a new way for his athletes to grow. And here we are.....
Characteristics of AAS:
There are two clearly discernable characteristics of interest to BBers. Anabolic: muscle growth/hypertrophy. and Androgenic: strength, aggression, fat burning. Most AAS possess these two characteristics in varying ratios, and in various strengths. For example, Halotestin may be seen to produce a pure androgenic response, but no anabolic response. Deca, on the other hand, will produce anabolism with no significant androgenic response. Test produces roughly a 50 percent anabolic response, and 50 percent androgenic response. Then there is strength of response. Winstrol is a moderate, pure anabolic. Anavar is a moderate, pure androgen. Trenbolone is a very powerful androgen(80 percent of total response), much more powerful than the androgenic characteristics of test. Tren's anabolic characteristic(20 percent of total response), is weaker than that of test. And so on. I have built a complete table of response characteristics of all the AAS components we use.
Site injection and localized growth:
Time and time again, we have seen localized growth response to site injected, esterless and short halflife AAS. I no longer accept that a positive response is anecdotal. It's just too commonplace, in my own work. Consequently, we no longer waste gear in glutes and quads. We identify and then site inject any and all lagging bodyparts, in a rotating injection program. And we have seen some startling responses. In nearly every case, we prefer tren and an esterless AAS, for the most powerful response. There must be weak-, or non-responders, but I have yet to find any. I owe much, in this particular area, to the work of Paul Borreson.
Cycles are assembled by, first, determining the end response characteristics desired, and assembling components whose AAS characteristics interlock together to produce that end response with a minimum of overlap, over the cycle timespan desired. Consider this cycle: Nandrolone phenylpropionate(EOD), tren(EOD), Winstrol depot((ED), optional Anavar(ED). I've remarked, elsewhere, on the desireability of pairing tren with Winstrol. We require the use of a pure androgen for EVERY cycle, to insure strength, onging muscle definition, density, and post cycle androgenicity, so Anavar is our choice for this cycle. Here, Tren is our primary androgen, and nandrolone our primary anabolic. All of these agents are selected for their lack of water retention. All are either short acting or esterless, so that meets our requirements for site injection. And, yes, we do site inject it all. We begin by frontloading the estered injectables, up to three days before cycle day zero, and add the orals and esterless injectables at cycle day minus one. On cycle day zero, the AAS is already active, with blood levels increasing. We end the injectables and orals, suitably in advance of the end of the cycle, so that, on cycle day 15, the AAS is non-inhibitory, and HTPA recovery begins immediately. Add on 14 days further system recovery, and then a cycle can begin anew. Seven weeks, total. Over a year, this might be acccomplished seven times. When HCG, and an anti-e at suitable dosage, are added to the Clomid, the HTPA may be recovered in only 2 weeks. This shortens the next cycle availability point by one week.
Yes, it's a lot of injections. And the Winstrol hurts.
What might be expected, in the way of results? Bulking, we have seen as much as 10 pounds lbm. Average is five pounds. Over a year, that's 35 pounds. You say, "Hell, I can grow that much in 8 weeks". I say, let's see how many times a year you can accomplish that, and over how many years do you think you will continue to accomplish that? We have this steady, measured growing, going on and on. My guess is that this approach, using only a modest bulking diet, rather than the typical American pig-out bulking diet, can be accomplished for years and years. Due to short cycle length and rational diet design, there is very little fat gain. No pressing need to cut. No need to look like the typical big, smooth BBer, who only looks cut once a year. Our people are lean, defined, and feel healthy, all the time. They only spend two weeks out of seven(or six), cycling. And, since they get normalized quickly, they can train and grow natural, more quickly, because there is none of the weeks and weeks of getting that slow AAS out of their systems. The BBer doing the typical 8 week long acting ester cycle, exists for weeks in a kind of limbo, where the blood levels are not high enough for anabolism, but are still inhibitory, and he must wait all that extra time. My people are off, longer than they are on. Their bodies, free of drugs.
We tend to avoid test. Not completely; just most of the time. What we found is that, anytime you use test, it magnifies the sides of whatever you use with it. Tren, used in rational dosages, is relatively free of sides, and causes fewer overall sides during cycles. We use tren, like the typical BBer uses test. With tren, you get much more response, with much lower dosages, with greater androgenic intensity. Someone once wrote that tren was "the gear of the gods". Indeed, the Europeans brought to BBing AAS, a very great gift. We do use test, but only for very specialized purposes.
We only use one type of eight week bulk cycle. That for Boldenone, which now can only be obtained in a very long halflife ester. We are working with a supplier, and are patiently awaiting him to provide us with our first esterless Boldenone. Testing will begin immediately afterwords, to develop new dosage and protocols, following which, we expect to end our use of nandrolone phenylpropionate. Too many of our clients exhibit some degree of bloat from progesterone aromatization, emerging from the nandrolone. We consider any bloat, from any origin, entirely unacceptable, on health and esthetic grounds.
Bodyfat gain on cycles:
Ever notice how productive of muscle, a cycle usually is, during the first four weeks, and how it slows down and bodyfat accumulates, during the second four weeks? You end up eating more, in the attempt to return things to the former rate. More bodyfat. Finally, the whole process slows down for good. What's going on? The common explanation is that you are getting bigger, so that requires more nutrition. We say no. We say the body realizes what is going on, it exhausts and compensates, and body metabolism and developmental processes simply will no longer support this process. But you continue to eat. And that food has got no place else to go, but be turned into fat, with unproductive lbm production.
Our short cycle designs, whether for 2, 3, or 4 weeks features tren, as a foundation, which is a potent fat burner, due to powerful androgenicity, and will not aromatize to estrogen. And a diet, which is clean, and appropriately sized for rational lbm gain, while minimizing conversion to fat. Later, the body is clean of AAS, and primed for most sensitive and effective response, before the cycle begins. The conversion from nutrition to muscle takes place under optimum conditions, at low bodyfat levels. The AAS ramp-up is swift and full, and the cycle ends before the system can de-sensitize and cause spillover of nutrition to bodyfat.
Estrogen pileup is another cause of bodyfat accumulation, during the typical 8 week, long halflife ester cycle. I suggest that readers visit the AE zine Issue 46, and download the blood concentration calculator from the excellent article on blood concentration of various halflife esters of AAS. Then, plug in your long halflife ester cycle components, and witness the startling blood level concentrations of what you are injecting, late in the cycle. Using the typical paltry anti-e dosages of the typical BBer, is it any wonder that, late in the cycle, estrogen levels build up out of control, and bodyfat follows?
Estrogen and anti-e:
It is an obsolete belief that estrogen is necessary in any cycle. Indeed, ANY amount of estrogen is BAD in any cycle! There is not one study which supports the notion. But the idea lived on in yet another obsolete notion; that water weight is good weight, in a cycle. That, water introduced into the muscle, causes increased lifts, and by lifting heavier, greater growth is obtained. The experts would purposely advise minimal amounts of anti-estrogen drugs, only to minimize the chance of gyno, but to insure lots of this, supposedly, desireable water weight. On the AE boards, I have witnessed these experts advising NO anti-e's, but only to have some Nolvadex at hand, to deal with gyno, should it appear. Not only do you end up with fake strength and fake muscle size, but, at the same time, the estrogen buildup causes high blood pressure, electrolyte imbalance, and a host of health issues. There is water buildup in the lower back to the extent that posts frequently document BBers in pain, cramps, and difficulty, attempting deads. The champions of this approach say "Oh just take some ibuprofen, and you will be just fine". Try asking your liver what it thinks about that approach. Following the cycle, the water disappears, along with the strength and size it fooled the user into believing was real muscle. This often causes depression, and chases the user into a course of Creatine, to re-introduce that fake size and strength. The muscle character appears smooth, and the density is poor. When the BBer diets down, all this is lost, and the truth is seen. It's no wonder that certain other experts advise that BBers never come off AAS, so this scenario may never be exposed for what it is: a rollercoaster of reality versus water weight. I agree with them. It is not healthy to run back and forth between lost size and fullness caused by water weight. But it also is not a good thing to stay on AAS, all the time, either. This is a totally brain dead approach to AAS use. And the BBer who engages in it never attains the quality, defined physique he deserves. It's just alot of smooth water weight and high bodyfat.
And bodyfat. Everyone should know that the presence of excess estrogen causes fat deposition. The greater and the longer the exposure to elevated levels of estrogen, the greater the bodyfat accumulation. Endos, listen up; stay away from any situation which creates elevated estrogen levels. Everyone, listen up; it is OBSOLETE cycle technology to enable anything but minimal levels of estrogen, at any time. Estrogen is evil, and it is NOT your friend. Using anti-e's cannot reduce estrogen to levels below which the male body cannot function properly. It requires very little estrogen to function, and no anti-e removes it all.
What to do? Begin, with an entirely different approach. Say that ANY water weight is BAD weight. That estrogen must be banished, to the fullest rational extent. And that the muscle you grow and see is, in fact, muscle, and not water. That the muscle produced will be dense and well defined. A quality physique. How, then does one obtain that increased strength, which the water provided, to enhance growth during the cycle? As stated, we first kill off the estrogen and bloat. Second, we emphasize the introduction of powerful androgens into the cycle structure. I am speaking, once again, of tren and anavar. Together, these components make you VERY strong. And with NO bloat or estrogen required. The concentrated androgenicity encourages intense, aggressive workouts, while also encouraging fat burning. It is very commonplace to observe body recompositions during such cycles. In other words, you get big and lose bodyfat, simultaneously. The androgenicity also produces significantly increased muscle density and definition. At cycle end, what you end up with, is the real deal. Solid muscle, growth, and increased definition. No need to rush to the nearest container of creatine to stem your losses. And that strength is yours, to keep. And no test.....
Now, go back to that blood concentration calculator, and compare the blood concentrations of the typical 75 mg EOD of tren, to what you were subjecting yourself to, with that long halflife ester cycle. No stress caused by estrogen pileup, either. Now, you tell me which alternative is better.
What do we use to suppress Estrogen? Well, we formerly used grams of Arimidex per day. Arimidex is now an antique for us. We use Femara. We prefer one 2.5 mg tab ED. Our clients are kept dry as a bone. We will begin to study Aromasin, in mid-September. Aromasin utilizes a different approach to Estrogen control, which promises to be even more powerful than Femara. But research indicates that IGF-1 production is not suppressed by Femara, but may, in fact, be enhanced by it. We do not see that with Aromasin. Time and experimentation will tell.
Most importantly, we keep our people on anti-e, post cycle, during the HTPA recovery process, and later. This both speeds recovery of the HTPA, as well as minimizing fat buildup, while hormone levels fluctuate wildly.
Androgenicity and quality:
BBers commonly justify their long cycles by saying that they need the long cycle to enable "consolidation". They observe that this effect only occurs late in the cycle. Why is this? It's because the androgen level of the Sustanon test, typically used, takes that long to pile up and affect the muscularity of the BBer. But what about Trenbolone? Almost without fail, users commonly report density and hardening to appear within a few weeks. Why is this? Because the androgenic response of tren is so much more powerful than that of test. You can get this response to produce quality muscle at dosages of only 75 mg EOD, in less than a month. In a Sustanon test, it takes many weeks to accumulate an immense blood concentration, to achieve the same result. It is commonplace to observe tren users burning fat, while they cycle. Sust users never report this effect. Why? Once again, the androgenic response of tren is so much greater than that of test. Intense androgenicity induces fat burning. If Anavar is added, the androgenicity effect is intensified, still further.
Ever hear of the term "muscle maturity"? It describes muscle which is dense and defined. The commonly accepted belief is that it takes years and years to acquire this muscle characteristic. But why? Because, using test, the exposure to the muscle hardening androgenicity only occurs for about two weeks in the typical long cycle. And that cycle can only be repeated a few times a year. In the tren/anavar-based short cycle, the exposure to muscle hardening androgenicity occurs for longer periods, and the cycle can be repeated many times a year. "Muscle maturity", and quality, appears with rapidity, and not with years and years. I see muscle quality in only one year of regular short cycling, which I never see in the typical long cycle BBer, unless it occurs for years. Which would you prefer?
The issue of health:
There are those who say the typical American method of cycling, using long acting ester cycles, for 8 weeks or more, and eating 7-10,000 calories per day, for all that time, is no danger to health. To that, I say this: in the millions of years of human evolution, at no time, ever, has the male of our species been exposed to the barrage of hormonal, metabolic, and developmental pressure and manipulation, as occurs during the long acting ester eight week cycle. Do you really believe our bodies were engineered and evolved to deal with this attack, as well as the stress of being forced to add 20-40 pounds of lbm and bodyfat in this same timespan, over and over, again? Don't be a fool. If you believe so, then you are whistling past the cemetery. And there are additional fools, who would have you believe that staying on this course, continuously, can do you no harm. This is, currently, an unprecedented, uncontrolled lab experiment, taking place all over the world, with thousands of men as lab rats. The long term outcome cannot be predicted by anyone, today. True, every single one of us will die, someday. My people and I have no intention of hastening the arrival of that inevitable day, just to look big in a coffin, as we are laid to our eternal rest. What the hell is YOUR hurry? And, what if you don't die? What if you are forced to leave your beloved sport, and spend the rest of your days, living with hypertension and heart damage due to tachycardia. And kidney damage caused by the hypertension. And still other health issue possibilities. Is this any way to live? It's a personal value judgement and risk assessment process. Step back for a moment, and re-evaluate your position and priorities.
The end game:
One other matter, which few consider. Everyone has a genetically pre-programmed maximum of lbm, which their body will suppport, regardless of whether you reach it, via AAS. The faster you approach it, the sooner your gains will decline, no matter how much juice you cycle, and how often you cycle it. You will end up spending money, juicing larger quantities of gear, and stressing your body, for diminishing returns. Finally, you are tapped out. All the slin, growth hormone, IGF-1, and whatever else you toss at it, will never get you past that limit. In a minority of individuals, they will attain immense lbm gains, over time. The rest of us, face the remainder of our BBing careers, re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. All we accomplish is staying right where we are, until we leave the sport in frustration.
BBing is a sport for life. Why exhaust yourself and your body, in a hurry to arrive at the end of the journey, earlier than you need to? I'm 48 years old, and I look forward to growing and growing, for as long as I remain in the sport. We have a 65 year old client, who last competed 11 years ago. We did a few short cycles with him, dieted and prepped him, and he walked away with a second prize trophy, healthy and happy. Have any of you ever considered that you might still be able to lift and compete at that age? You better forget it, if all you can think of is slamming on endless pounds, today and tomorrow. Your time in BBing will either end in poor health, or the frustration of having reached your limit, and going no further.
I have presented, above, only the most basic introduction to my philosophy and approach to short cycling, and offered only a simple example out of a program which I spent years developing. I have devised an entire series of special-purpose cycles, each of which embody most, if not all of the above principles.
The purpose of the short cycle is to employ moderate dosages of short halflife ester and esterless injectable and oral AAS, combined with moderate and healthy diet, to promote moderate stress anabolic growth, over time. This same process results in very high quality muscle production, which only increases with each cycle, and minimal health impact. It assumes a long term outlook. It is intended for the mature and rational BBer, who expects to remain in the sport for the rest of his life. If you truly love BBing, you never want to leave, and you want to keep your interest and grow, then consider how the short cycle might be what you need for your future in our beloved sport.
I want to take the time to publically thank my very special friends and clients, who put their faith in me, and assisted me by using my protocols. Through their invaluable feedback and experience, they enabled me to refine and perfect my overall program. Without them, this all would be nothing but theory. Some are former and present members of this fine board.
And thank you, for taking the time to read all these words. I hope they help you in your journey, as BBers
08-12-2005, 04:32 PM
08-12-2005, 05:35 PM
08-12-2005, 07:47 PM
08-13-2005, 05:40 PM
I've run tren alone and while I made great gains, I will never do it again. It was like having whiskey dick while sober.... EMBARASSING
08-14-2005, 01:05 AM
Alright, I'll *consider* conceding too. What would be the *minimum* amount of test (prop) that would be required to maintain my favorite appendage?
08-14-2005, 06:04 PM
it will vary from individual to individual but i wouldn't run less than 100mg eod
and trust me you won't be happy with 2 weeks on 2 weeks off
08-14-2005, 09:41 PM
08-15-2005, 12:06 AM
wrong .. 2 weeks is still long enough to shut you down ESPECIALLY with tren .. and 2 weeks of is NOT enough time to recover so doing this for a while you could definitely **** up your HPTAOriginally Posted by noctorum
08-15-2005, 12:09 AM
Pull up your blood-level calc. It's out quicker than you think at 75mg EODOriginally Posted by glenihan
Wouldn't it make sense that adding in test to the mix would mess with the HPTA even moreso?
The goal here is to gain strength, and a mild amount of muscle over an extended period of time, with minimal damage to the HPTA to allow for quick recovery. I'm not trying to go on a huge bulker or cutter here, it's just an experiment into this type of cycle.
If adding test would minimize the damage to the HPTA, then I'll gladly throw it in. Otherwise I'm keeping the esters short, and keeping the total amount down. 75mg tren-a eod/50mg winny ed
08-15-2005, 12:48 AM
man .. no offense .. but you don't know what your talking about ..
tren is a nandrolone derivative and will SHUT YOU DOWN HARD .. 2 weeks is NOT LONG ENOUGH to recover .. so 2 weeks of tren will give you basically no gains because 2 weeks isn't long enough even with the acetate ester BUT it is plenty long to shut down your HPTA .. 2 weeks is NOT ENOUGH time to recover i don't care what your PCT during those 2 weeks is
adding test is to make you feel better and keep the libido up as well as adding to the gains .. run an 8 weeks cycle with at least 8 weeks off afterwards
08-15-2005, 12:53 AM
.When HCG, and an anti-e at suitable dosage, are added to the Clomid, the HTPA may be recovered in only 2 weeks. This shortens the next cycle availability point by one week.
08-15-2005, 12:57 AM
show me ONE just ONE study to support that! .. you won't be able to because its horse****
i don't know where you got that article or who wrote it but its not based on anything remotely scientific .. i'm TELLING you why this is a terrible idea and you refuse to listen ..
08-15-2005, 01:05 AM
I'm not trying to sound indigent or anything, I'm plenty open to reason and other peoples opinion. Nothing wrong with poking a bit, is there?
You seem to be against the idea of short cycles altogether. Have you ever tried one, or seen a log? Just because it's not the general way to do it doesn't mean that it's wrong, or 'horse ****'. As the article says, BB'ing is a sport for life, and the short cycle idea seems to be a way to consistantly maintain it.
Yes, it's not the 'optimal' way to pack on huge amounts of muscle, but thats not what everyone is going for. I'm not arguing that in any way shape or form. I'd be happy to try it anyway just to see if it works or not, seeing as this article has been floating around the net for awhile now.
What they are saying is sound. There is no reason why a short-cycle with fast-acting esters would not work. It would be repeatable throughout the year, as opposed to one long cycle.
I'm not sure if you read the article. I'll quote a few of the more significant portions;
There are those who say the typical American method of cycling, using long acting ester cycles, for 8 weeks or more, and eating 7-10,000 calories per day, for all that time, is no danger to health. To that, I say this: in the millions of years of human evolution, at no time, ever, has the male of our species been exposed to the barrage of hormonal, metabolic, and developmental pressure and manipulation, as occurs during the long acting ester eight week cycle. Do you really believe our bodies were engineered and evolved to deal with this attack, as well as the stress of being forced to add 20-40 pounds of lbm and bodyfat in this same timespan, over and over, again? Don't be a fool. If you believe so, then you are whistling past the cemetery. And there are additional fools, who would have you believe that staying on this course, continuously, can do you no harm.I'm looking at the long game right now. I don't feel the need to add on a large amount of mass quickly. A boost to my normal gains is what this is for to me.The purpose of the short cycle is to employ moderate dosages of short halflife ester and esterless injectable and oral AAS, combined with moderate and healthy diet, to promote moderate stress anabolic growth, over time. This same process results in very high quality muscle production, which only increases with each cycle, and minimal health impact. It assumes a long term outlook. It is intended for the mature and rational BBer, who expects to remain in the sport for the rest of his life.
08-15-2005, 01:08 AM
Oh, and there really aren't many studies done out there for anabolic usage on humans for purely muscular and strength gain. The few that are primarily for those with wasting diseases. Not exactly the best test subjects for healthy males using them for BB'ing.
Note: I am not saying none of have been performed. Just that there really isn't much out there in the manner of it.
08-15-2005, 01:11 AM
actually there are a lot of studies with HCG and other compounds and their affect on test levels and raising them
i'm not even talking about packing on muscle .. i'm tlaking about this being a terrible idea because you never recover AND you won't pack on muscle .. but do whatever you want .. i just don't see why you wouldn't run an 8 week cycle with test prop and tren ace (and by the way that is a short cyle i consider anything under 12 weeks to be a short cycle)
08-15-2005, 01:22 AM
Well. A pubmed search for "HCG testosterone HPTA" turns up nothing. Just "HCG testosterone" shows plenty of studies...on mice and those with leydig cell deficiencies, etc. There was one or two hits though.Originally Posted by glenihan
"Clomid testosterone" turned up something at least relevant. But it didn't tell me anything we didn't know already.
PMID: 12904801A total of 178 men with secondary hypogonadism and ED received clomiphene citrate for 4 months. Sexual function improved in 75%, with no change in 25%, while significant increases in luteinizing hormone (P<0.001) and free testosterone (P<0.001) occurred in all patients.
PMID: 12524089This represents the first case report of the successful use of clomiphene to restore T levels and the pituitary-gonadal axis in a male patient. The axis was previously shut off with multiple anabolic steroid abuse.
PMID: 11344554Treatment with human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) increased levels of plasma testosterone to normal adult male values in all gonadotropin-deficient subjects
Surprise, surprise. HCG and clomid raise test. That's nothing new.
Then, in your opinion, after a 2, or 3 week cycle, what sort of PCT should be followed for what length? I'm curious.i'm not even talking about packing on muscle .. i'm tlaking about this being a terrible idea because you never recover AND you won't pack on muscle ..
Read my previous post a little closer.I don't see why you wouldn't run an 8 week cycle with test prop and tren ace
Ok? This isn't about what the definition of a 'short cycle' is. A short cycle, in this case, is two or three weeks.(and by the way that is a short cyle i consider anything under 12 weeks to be a short cycle)
08-15-2005, 01:28 AM
Heres something interesting.
PMID: 12573299Subjects received MT (three days of 40 mg/day, then three days of 240 mg/day) or placebo in a fixed sequence with neither subjects nor raters aware of order. Samples were obtained at the ends of the baseline, high-dose MT and withdrawal phases. Potential relationships between hormonal changes and visual analog scale measured mood changes were examined. RESULTS: Significant decreases in plasma levels of gonadotropins, gonadal steroids, sex hormone binding globulin, free T3 and T4, and thyroid binding globulin (Bonferroni t, p<0.01 for each) were seen during high-dose MT; free thyroxine and TSH increased during high-dose MT, with TSH increases reaching significance during withdrawal. No significant changes in pituitary-adrenal hormones were observed.
A short super cycle (4-5x effective dosage) of MT did not significantly alter pituitary-adrenal hormones.
A slightly longer, normal-low dose cycle of tren/winny sounds mild by comparison.
One more for the night
PMID: 6309728There is an optimum concentration of anabolic agent in the systemic circulation that results in a maximum increase in growth rate of farm animals. This optimum blood concentration should be maintained over a long period. However, there is rapid metabolism and excretion of anabolic agents with short half-lives in blood, and metabolic clearance rate equals entry rate.
If I was using test enan, or tren enan, and trying to do a 2 or 3 week cycle, yes, that would be asinine. Acetate is a short ester.
Any studies you'd like to post to the contrary?
08-15-2005, 10:21 AM
you'd have to give me some time to find the studies as i'm at work right now and i can't really devote that much time
however there is m1t is a different compound from tren .. entirely unrelated .. one is methlyated 1-test the other is a nandrolone derivative
in the mean time .. ask anyone that's used tren ace and see if they've seen ANY results in 2 weeks
08-15-2005, 11:13 AM
I didn't say they were the same compound or attempt to confuse anyone as to that.
But 4-5x the effective dose of MT given over an short period did not significantly reduce function. A normally dosed tren a/winny cycle would not be in the same league.
I also never stated that I was looking for huge results. This cycle is to test the theory of it. If I get no results from it, I can point that out anytime posts this article, as noone seems to have even tried it. This entire debate is due to your claim that it will shut me down in two weeks to a point that it cannot be recovered in the following two.
08-15-2005, 11:41 AM
go ahead and try it ... i'm telling you that you WILL get shut down and 2 weeks is NOT long enough to recover
08-15-2005, 01:28 PM
i agree with glen, tren ace is something you START to make gains off of in the middle to the end of the second week. It is a nandrolone derivative, and i believe it's two to three times as androgenic as test, you've got to realize that just because a steroid may get into your system on the first day, it's effects take awhile to take place. Steroids just don't work by being in your system, they have different mechanisms of making your muscles grow, which can take much longer than two weeks, and if you did add muscle TISSUE in two weeks it would be like 1/2 a pound at the most, there is a difference between a glycogen and water filled muscle and muscle tissue, and as far as you not believing in shutdown, I dare you to try trenbolone
08-15-2005, 04:55 PM
I didn't say 'I didn't believe', I just don't think there is only one side to the matter, that being 'short cycles never work'. I'm looking for hard facts, or examples from a log, not opinions, sarcasm or speculation.
08-15-2005, 05:31 PM
Also, the reason I'm questioning how hard it shuts down the HPTA is due to several factors;
-In C.M.E., L. Rea states that a noted positive effect of trenbolone is its-On Big Cat's Steroid Profiles at BB.com, he states;"low-moderate HPTA function inhibition""Trenbolone is relatively safe steroid all in all. There is some concern about kidney toxicity, but usually exaggerated. The beauty of trenbolone is that its one steroid that has it all : Its highly effective in its own, provides all lean gains which are fairly easy to maintain and isn't very prone to cause side-effects."
Heres something interesting;
Thats interesting. Only part of the system is inhibited, as long as its kept short. A 6 or 8 week 'short' cycle would do it, but 2 weeks wouldn't.Where AAS doses are sufficient for good gains, an interesting pattern is seen. For the first two weeks of the cycle, only the hypothalamus is inhibited, and it produces much less LHRH as a result of the high levels of sex hormones it senses. The pituitary is not inhibited at all: in fact, it is actually sensitized, and will respond to LHRH (if any is provided) even moreso than normal.
Oooh, whats this now..
Short term is can be stimulatory? Let's look back at Big Cat's information on trenbolone acetate;Progesterone is another hormone that can cause inhibition, when used long-term. Paradoxically, in the short term it can be stimulatory.
Therefore, in the short term (two weeks), it could in fact be stimulatory of natural test production.There is some concern as to fina being progestagenic, ...
But, moving on..
This gets right to my point;
I do believe that summarizes my entire point..Where AAS doses are sufficient for good gains, an interesting pattern is seen. For the first two weeks of the cycle, only the hypothalamus is inhibited, and it produces much less LHRH as a result of the high levels of sex hormones it senses. The pituitary is not inhibited at all: in fact, it is actually sensitized, and will respond to LHRH (if any is provided) even moreso than normally. After two weeks however, the pituitary also becomes inhibited, and even if LHRH is provided, the pituitary will produce little or no LH. This then is a deeper type of inhibition. After this point, there seems to be no definite further "switching point" where inhibition again becomes deeper and harder to reverse. As a general rule, I would say that there seems to be little difference between using AAS for 3 weeks vs. 8 weeks: recovery is about the same either way. Between 8 and 12 weeks, it becomes more and more likely that recovery will be difficult and slow, though even at 12 weeks it is common for recovery to not be too problematic, taking only a few weeks. Cycles past 12 weeks seem much more likely to cause substantial problems with recovery.
But..I'm not done yet
Whats this? It can be recovered in less than one week?The best cycle plans are either brief two week cycles with short acting drugs, which allow a very fast recovery (less than one week) or cycle of approximately 6-10 weeks, which usually allow reasonable recovery and allow quite a bit of time to make gains. Cycles in the 3-5 week range are less efficient because they combine the disadvantage of relatively little time gaining with the disadvantage of slower recovery.
Note: The information that the article was based on was taken from a Tren/D-bol cycle.
I'd love to see some of those studies to the contrary, Glenihan.
Similar Forum Threads
- By windwords7 in forum SupplementsReplies: 18Last Post: 11-27-2007, 02:41 PM
- By YellowJacket in forum AnabolicsReplies: 3Last Post: 02-03-2003, 11:41 PM
- By YellowJacket in forum AnabolicsReplies: 0Last Post: 02-01-2003, 02:43 PM
- By pjorstad in forum AnabolicsReplies: 0Last Post: 01-05-2003, 03:03 PM
- By pjorstad in forum AnabolicsReplies: 25Last Post: 12-28-2002, 11:20 PM