Why not 2 week SD cycles
- 02-26-2006, 12:13 AM
Why not 2 week SD cycles
I know 3 weeks is optimum for gains, but I also see most people start having sides in the 3rd week. I agree with the argument of keeping it down to 3 weeks, but what is the reason for not doing short 2 week cycles. It would seem you would be able to reduce sides, and fit more "mini" cycles in with less threat to your health. Albiet the gains would not be as much but I'm trying to look at the big picture and maximize gains for the long haul and keep my liver in tact.
Any thoughts or data?
- 02-26-2006, 12:29 AM
Originally Posted by Basso
02-26-2006, 01:14 AM
I'm in day 9 of my first cycle and I've gained 10lbs. I guess what I'm asking is, would there be any negatives to only doing 2 week cycles rather than 3.
02-26-2006, 01:35 AM
Shorter period of gains, less potential side effects.Originally Posted by Basso
2on/4off/2on sounds pretty nice. Most people just want to "go big", which isn't always the best.
02-26-2006, 03:49 AM
A lot of that weight could be water/glycogen retention, chances are you arent going to gain a ton of LBM in the first 2 weeks of a cycle. Id be willing to bet, out of those 10LBS maybe 2-3 lbs are lean tissue.I'm in day 9 of my first cycle and I've gained 10lbs. I guess what I'm asking is, would there be any negatives to only doing 2 week cycles rather than 3.
However, I dont think there are any negatives with a short cycle at all! I havent used SD, but if I didnt it would be for 2 or 3 weeks tops.
2 on 4 off 2 on might be a great idea, but I always questioned that approach because it just causes a big fluctuation in your HPTA. You shut down, you barley come back, and you shut yourself down again. Doesnt seem like a good idea to me, but then again that's an opinion based on research more than actual experience
I remember with 1-test, a lot of bros were running 4 on 4 off 4 on, and they'd be generally side effect free until the 2nd 4 weeks. That always steered me away from that on/off/on method.
02-26-2006, 08:34 AM
I'd probably be willing to bet that the actual lean tissue gain was <1lb out of the 10. This has been discussed on the board ad nauseam. It is not possible to synthesize that much lean tissue regardless of AAS. Unless of course you consider fluid and glycogen as LBM. I think they serve their purpose though. More glycogen= muscle fullness and endurance. I think the cycle that extends a little longer will have better actual LBM gains as a result of utilization of the extra glycogen stores.Originally Posted by BigVrunga
Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for life. Lao Tse 6th century BC
02-26-2006, 09:30 AM
Well I lied, after the I posted last night I weighed myself at 12lb gain. Anyway I'm estimating 2-3lbs LBM, and I'm thinking 5lbs in 2 weeks is pretty sweet gains. I'm just tossing the idea around, I'm going to go 3 wks for this cycle, but it's very difficult to for me to have 7 good solid weeks I can dedicate to eating/lifting/sleep etc. 4-5 wks chunck are a lot easier to come by. Oh well maybe I'll win the next powerball and quit my job.
For on/off/on cycles I was considering 2on 6-12off 2on. Really just depends on how I come back, but seems like 2 wks would be fairly easy to recover. Biggest problem would be the temptation to go back on to early.
Similar Forum Threads
- By ComeBackMan in forum AnabolicsReplies: 36Last Post: 08-03-2010, 12:45 AM
- By Movin_weight in forum AnabolicsReplies: 11Last Post: 08-28-2007, 01:51 PM
- By ub6ib91 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 5Last Post: 06-01-2007, 01:25 AM
- By stillinthegame in forum AnabolicsReplies: 2Last Post: 04-09-2005, 12:11 PM
- By spitboy2000 in forum Cycle InfoReplies: 9Last Post: 02-12-2005, 05:08 AM