2 six week cycles vs. 1 twelve week cycle

[jSalud]

Here is the article I wrote about this Method. Yes it is more advisable for experience users, BUT in moderation I believe even a relatively new user with a couple under their belt could handle it.

Example of a cycle would be

1-Last week of second Cycle - 250mg/wk Test E
1-6 Test Prop 75mg/ed
1-6 NPP 150mg/ Mon/Wed/Fri
1-6 Dbol 30mg/ed

continue your Cruise 4-5 weeks

1-6 Test Prop 100mg/eod or 50mg/ed
1-6 Tren Ace 50mg/ed or 100/eod
1-6 50mg/ed winstrol
1-6 Proviron 50mg/ed

post cycle therapy (pct) week 8 for long ester test to clear.

Of course Aromasin or adex should be run at 25mg/ed or adex .5mg eod
Caber .5mg Twice Weekly if using a 19nor.

Here is the write up I did. http://www.steroidology.com/forum/a...g-power-approach-success-oldschoollifter.html

Myostatin levels start to really rise around week 8 and start climbing from there, hence while some will stall out, or increase the dose to counter it. You can negate this buy running short esters in 6 week intervals, followed by a rest to get lipids, and myostatin levels if they did rise slightly to decrease, then blast again for another 6 weeks. and post cycle therapy (pct) or Cruise for a period before starting the protocol again. I have found this method to be very effective in my growth lately.

I would love to try this out someday. Gotta get a few more cycles under my belt first. All of my buddies who are more advanced have been raving about this approach. Best of both worlds they say.

 

[frank.tb]

really? i would think a short cycle followed by a recovery period. and another short cycle followed by another recovery period would be a lot healthier than a longer period of shutdown. thanks tho bro

No because you are fluctuating/changing your test levels too frequently...
Steady blood levels is the key to success with AAS...that and DIET...

 

[Invictusboy]

I've recently been studying lots about the short cycles. There's some good stickys already around (most suggested cycles are shorter than 6 weeks though). This thought of "non-traditional" length cycles is based around risk vs reward. There's definitely some people that fully support the short cycle (even though yours will be bridged). However, I've found from asking around that the general consensus is to do at least a few cycles of traditional nature (including test only for your first) and see how YOUR body reacts. From what I've read and peoples testimonials, the longer cycles are better for results. You're gonna have to weigh your own risk vs reward as some negative sides aren't as severe if you're not on for as long at a time. You'll find people on both sides of the fence on this though. Some say it's worse to recover "twice" for the same amount of gear. The natural goal of the body- homeostasis, in all things- seems to suggest longer time spent at a steady level instead of up and down would be better. Sorry if this doesn't fully answer your question- just what I've found from looking at the same thing. I had to decide against the short cycle after all I read and heard to start with- but that's my own decision after weighing everything. Best of luck when the time comes !!

 

[iwillsucceed]

I've recently been studying lots about the short cycles. There's some good stickys already around (most suggested cycles are shorter than 6 weeks though). This thought of "non-traditional" length cycles is based around risk vs reward. There's definitely some people that fully support the short cycle (even though yours will be bridged). However, I've found from asking around that the general consensus is to do at least a few cycles of traditional nature (including test only for your first) and see how YOUR body reacts. From what I've read and peoples testimonials, the longer cycles are better for results. You're gonna have to weigh your own risk vs reward as some negative sides aren't as severe if you're not on for as long at a time. You'll find people on both sides of the fence on this though. Some say it's worse to recover "twice" for the same amount of gear. The natural goal of the body- homeostasis, in all things- seems to suggest longer time spent at a steady level instead of up and down would be better. Sorry if this doesn't fully answer your question- just what I've found from looking at the same thing. I had to decide against the short cycle after all I read and heard to start with- but that's my own decision after weighing everything. Best of luck when the time comes !!

thanks man and yea this is the dilemma im trying to figure out haha whether i want to do a long test e cycle or some shorter test prop ones

 

[Invictusboy]

thanks man and yea this is the dilemma im trying to figure out haha whether i want to do a long test e cycle or some shorter test prop ones

Glad to help any way I can brother. I was given enough test p to just do a short cycle, so I started looking into it. You're doing the right thing by asking about 'em. And there's certainly many people that can answer your questions on a chemical level better than me- but I did put in the research hours on this one. My very humble opinion would be that if you wanna try a short cycle- you'd be better to do some full length ones with any test (test e seems to be the crowd fave though), and then you'd at least have some baseline to compare it to. Also, don't forget to post about it if you should ever do it in the future so people like us can find some written testimonial when searching.