2 weekers, anybody try them

I wouldn't recommend it....IMO you won't put on enough mass to actually keep any of it....and if you do keep it...it'll be like 2 or 3 pounds of overall gain (without water). the shortest cycle I'd do would be 6 weeks. like prop/fina/winny or something like that.

IMO 2 weekers blow fat sloppy donkey nuts
 
Bill Roberts has said most of this. I'd expect considerably more gains at 16 weeks if the total 'on' time of 8 weeks were distributed over four 2 on / 2 off cycles rather than 8 weeks on / 8 weeks off. It's also quite likely that gains after the four brief cycles would be better than those immediately after the 8 week cycle.

2 weeks 'on' works a lot better in the long run than standard cycles based on a strong argument about the endocrine system. I can dig up more info if anyone is interested. There is a study showing the time course of responsiveness of the pituitary to LHRH as a function of duration of androgen usage. In the first 2 weeks, sensitivity actually increases. It then drops like a rock shortly thereafter. The hypothalamus is capable of quick recovery and production of LHRH at the 2 week point. The case study with "Jim" on the Meso site is one of many examples where blood tests have shown fast recovery of natural testosterone production. http://www.mesomorphosis.com/articles/pharmacology/steroid-case-study-01.htm
 
I think the main reason they are less desirable to body builders is an issue of patience. Most people don't like only putting on 4 or 5 pounds in a cycle like this, only to stop growing. The clear advantage, however, is that much less time off has to be taken in between these types of cycles because of a drastically improved recovery period. Another issue has to do with only being able to choose steroids with short half-lives. Test enanthate, sustanon, and most forms of Deca cannot be used effectively on this type of protocol.
 
Easto said:
What are you running right now needsize?


yeah id like to hear that too. im gonna try the following-
day 1 150 mg tren
day1- 14 35 mg dbol
day 1-12 75 mg tren.
clomid day 13-27

i only want a few pounds,
i was gonna run a 'normal cycle' but gonna see how this works out first.
 
Theoritically, 2 weekers are great - but this is the real world - they sux. I have been forced to run 2 weekers for the past year or so - and they sux. I have went from 265 to around 230 with the same body fat percentage. (That is the real world)

Nautica
 
nautica, why do you have to run2 weekers bro. 265 to 230 with same bodyfat. that sucks bro
 
Easto said:
What are you running right now needsize?

Here's what I am running, no lecture on the two orals please as I am under my Dr's supervision and everything is fine

weeks 1-2 anadrol, suspension
week 3 clomid
weeks 4,5,6 prop, dbol, anadrol
weeks 7,8,9 clomid, then start the process all over again

I'm just going into week 6 and am up around 14lbs, I really like the idea of not being off for more than 3 weeks
 
rjl296 said:
im giving serious thought to trying one of these. anybody done one b4

My buddy here at work got decent results from doing Tren 2 weeks on 3 weeks off. I personally plan to stay on it continuously for at least 8 weeks maybe even 10 weeks.
 
I don't remember where I found this, but it ties in kinda nice with this thread. Even if you consider the "receptor" theory to be wrong, the rest of it bears some consideration.



Interesting theory on short cycles.
All cycles should be no longer than 3 weeks in length.
This goes against conventional thinking but makes perfect sense. The greatest gains come when the receptors are fresh. Why not make the most of this precious "window of opportunity?" then get out and get clean. Naturally gains won't be massive due to the abbreviated cycle length, but remember, smaller gains are much easier to maintain. It doesn't matter if you put on 30 lbs if you lose 20 of them. But a gain of 6-7 lbs in three weeks......that the body can handle. Also, the shorter the cycle, the quicker the endocrine system can normalize.
 
The claim about that receptor hoo-hah is garbage. There's simply no proof of that kind of downregulation.

I would argue a large difference between two and three week cycles. There is a study showing the time course of responsiveness of the pituitary to LHRH as a function of duration of androgen usage. In the first 2 weeks, sensitivity actually increases. It then drops like a rock shortly thereafter. The hypothalamus is capable of quick recovery and production of LHRH at the 2 week point, making it ideal for cycling.

The key here is that the doses should be very aggressive with big "frontloads" on the injecables like tren and prop.

To Nautica - I would be happy to look at this issue with you. The best way to approach this little debate is to whip out your files and show clearly what you had been cycling before, and what you used when on 2on / 4 off cycles. Thanks!
 
Consider this Nautica - The point of the two week cycles is that you are on half as much time as you are not using steroids.

If you had been running longer cycles before, then I imagine you did it something like this:

"On" weeks 1-10
"Off" weeks 11-30

I imagine that "if", in that 20 week period without androgens, you were able to maintain your 260 pounds at say, X bodyfat, then there is no reason you would not be able to maintain this weight with 4 smaller cycles spread out over the 30 weeks. You claim, instead, that you lost around 30 pounds of muscle. How were you able to maintain that 30 pounds during the looong off weeks of your previous cycling method, but not on the 2on/4off method? I think it would be best to look at what cycles you ran before hand to get you to 260, then see what cycles you ran that supposedly caused you to lose 30 pounds of muscle. I am not at all saying it is impossible, I would just like to look at all the factors involved. Thanks!
 
I wouldnt do anything less than 4wks personally...

But if I did a 2wk cycle it would be like this

1-14 150mg TestSuspension + 150mg TrenSuspension + 150mg BoldenoneSuspension + an oral like Halo or Methyltest
 
I don't think 2 week cycles work. With my experiences the longer the cycles the more permanent the gains.
just me..

I never would do any more cycles under 12 weeks minimum.
The most gains I ever made and kept were on cycles of over 8 months..
 
Hey guys, thanks for sharing!

DG, I completely see where you're coming from. I'm sure the gains you kept off of that 8 month cycle were incredible. I just wonder if you were able to stay off for 16 months afterwards. Not everyone takes the same precautions on how much time to spend "off," but I guess my personal opinion is to spend twice as much time off as on in general.

This really isn't a matter of right or wrong, just how comfortable one feels in their particular protocol being safe. I personally don't compete, so I have no reason to push the envelope as far as increasing my total time juicing relative to the amount of time off of gear. BUMP this thread
 
GreasyGreek said:
Hey guys, thanks for sharing!

DG, I completely see where you're coming from. I'm sure the gains you kept off of that 8 month cycle were incredible. I just wonder if you were able to stay off for 16 months afterwards.

hell no!
4 or 5 months off is all and I lost very little size and strength
 
Back
Top