6 weeks vs 12 weeks. Which is better???

[weavy88]

I'm starting to think that there may be some sort of advantage to running 6 week cycles with shorter esters vs the 12 weeks cycles with longer ones. Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't it true that the longer you're shut down, the longer it takes to recover? If that is the cse, then 6 week cycles should allow for faster recovery, preserving more gains as a result. In addition to this, you would be able to cycle more frequently because your cycles are shorter (considering the time off=time on rule of thumb). Thoughts on this?
12-16 weeks with longer esters what i rec and love. i dislike short cycles, i feel that are a waste. short ester or not even with teste you have effect and spik in only days, short ester or long you need ot wait weeks for decent result to start to show up.. yes a bit faster with short ester, but i still feel short cycles are a waste short ester or no short ester.

 

[kevib101]

Is this a serious question?

Read: A HOW TO for: SERMs, Aromatize inhibitors, Gyno and PCT *A must read*

 

[3J]

this is a very old school philosophy... old school bodybuilders would use prop 6 weeks on and 6 weeks off without pct

 

[weavy88]

guys, im not saying that i don't intend to use a pct...where in my original post did you get that from????

 

[3J]

i didn't say you were my man.. i was just reciting some history... if your going to use a short ester i would recommend 8 weeks

guys, im not saying that i don't intend to use a pct...where in my original post did you get that from????

 

[weavy88]

ok thanks man, and that response was more directed at kevib. Do you think that because the cycle is shorter that pct can be shorter as well? Maybe like 2-3 weeks instead of 4-5?

 

[3J]

absolutely not

ok thanks man, and that response was more directed at kevib. Do you think that because the cycle is shorter that pct can be shorter as well? Maybe like 2-3 weeks instead of 4-5?

 

[3J]

if your just using test prop i believe the curve for suppression is about 3-4 weeks... dont quote me on it i have not seen the cure for a while..

but using a 19-nor like tren or deca there is no curve.. it almost immediately shuts you down... so your length of time on cycle doesn't matter.. because no one in their right mind would do a 4 week cycle.. or just inject once or twice with the other compounds

 

[weavy88]

if your just using test prop i believe the curve for suppression is about 3-4 weeks... dont quote me on it i have not seen the cure for a while..

but using a 19-nor like tren or deca there is no curve.. it almost immediately shuts you down... so your length of time on cycle doesn't matter.. because no one in their right mind would do a 4 week cycle.. or just inject once or twice with the other compounds

thanks for the insight. I guess the reason im a bigger fan of shorter cycles is because i won't be shut down for as a long, which should decrease the risk of perma shutdown. It seems that, for the most part, that perma shutdown has resulted from either 19nor use, very long cycles (over 20 weeks) or some combo of the both. Guess i just want to be extra safe

 

[gram of tren]

you're failing to realize one very important factor. your body likes to be in a state of homeostasis. when we start gaining muscle/weight fairly rapidly, your body needs time to adjust to this extra weight. if you're only on cycle for a short time then you come off, your body is going to do all that it can to return to homeostasis, or where it is used to be. Longer cycles help your body get more acclimated to holding that progress you've made.

one other point that I would argue is that the gains you'll make in 6 short weeks aren't going to be that great. it's pointless to run a cycle that short and I don't see any valid argument for why such a short cycle would be beneficial. yes recovery may be easier, but the whole point of using steroids is to make gains/progress...6 weeks isn't enough.

 

[weavy88]

seems to me like i always get the most gains during the first 6 weeks of a cycle. Also, i'm quite skeptical that you would loose any more gains from a 6 week vs a 12 week cycle just because my body hasn't "acclimated" to it. If you can show me some studies that state otherwise maybe... IF you think about it, any cycle will have your hpta suppressed, which means that there will be some span of time post cycle that your test levels will be subphysiological. If anything, I would argue that shorter cycles allow for faster recovery, and faster recovery would imply that you keep more gains (i'll admit that is all based off of anecdotal evidence).

 

[BigRussT]

seems to me like i always get the most gains during the first 6 weeks of a cycle. Also, i'm quite skeptical that you would loose any more gains from a 6 week vs a 12 week cycle just because my body hasn't "acclimated" to it. If you can show me some studies that state otherwise maybe... IF you think about it, any cycle will have your hpta suppressed, which means that there will be some span of time post cycle that your test levels will be subphysiological. If anything, I would argue that shorter cycles allow for faster recovery, and faster recovery would imply that you keep more gains (i'll admit that is all based off of anecdotal evidence).

Listen my man, cycles should run 12-14wks. Enough already. If you run multiple short cycles, then pct, cycle, pct, you will destroy your body. Also how can you be "skeptical" about the lose of gains 6wk v.s 12wk. Simple you WILL loose some gains when you stop AAS just a fact. Simple answer for you is that 6wk gains arnt as much as 12wk gains. So since 6wk gains arnt that significant your at a greater lose v.s 12wk. Their are certain protocols when it comes to running AAS why mess around, I mean its only your health were talking about here. If you wanna experiment on yourself be my guest. Lets us know how it works out. Just my o2

 

[weavy88]

Listen my man, cycles should run 12-14wks. Enough already. If you run multiple short cycles, then pct, cycle, pct, you will destroy your body. Also how can you be "skeptical" about the lose of gains 6wk v.s 12wk. Simple you WILL loose some gains when you stop AAS just a fact. Simple answer for you is that 6wk gains arnt as much as 12wk gains. So since 6wk gains arnt that significant your at a greater lose v.s 12wk. Their are certain protocols when it comes to running AAS why mess around, I mean its only your health were talking about here. If you wanna experiment on yourself be my guest. Lets us know how it works out. Just my o2

my man, lets pay closer attention to what i said. When I stated that i was skeptical about loosing gains, i was referring to the notion that you would loose MORE gains when coming off a 6 week cycle vs a 12 week because your body didn't have enough time to "acclimate" (in response to gram of tren). I already know that some gains will inevitably lost regardless. Secondly, i never stated that i planned to run cycles back to back after pct. If anything, i may only run 2-3 6 week cycles a year, mainly because it lowers the risk of effing up hpta for life.

 

[Rida5d]

you're failing to realize one very important factor. your body likes to be in a state of homeostasis. when we start gaining muscle/weight fairly rapidly, your body needs time to adjust to this extra weight. if you're only on cycle for a short time then you come off, your body is going to do all that it can to return to homeostasis, or where it is used to be. Longer cycles help your body get more acclimated to holding that progress you've made.

I hope u won't take it personal man , but I think that the (state of hemostatis) doesn't apply on new gained muscle... It's not like a disorder or a strange tissue ..
People loose gains during pct cuz the body seek for hemostatis in the hormone , aka no test production after being shut down ..
That's why we would need a pct.. to restart natural production so we function normally which lead to capable gains.

I agree with you on second part, Gains at 6 weeks , won't be amazing

 

[gram of tren]

you guys can oppose my statement all you'd like, but I firmly believe the longer you hold the weight, the more likely you are to keep it.

and no one is going to convince me that a 6 week cycle is worth a damn. it's a waste of time, gear, and stress on the body. even with short esters the amount of muscle you'll build in a measly 6 weeks isn't much. if you just wanna run 6 weeks, pct, run 6 weeks, pct, run 6 weeks, pct....just stay on. all you're doing is putting your body thru a rollercoaster with your hormones. it's stupid. of course you'll recover faster than a 12 week cycle...if that's the case then do a 3 weeker so you recover faster than the 6 weeker. sound good?

 

[Rida5d]

1- u took it personal
2- I myself, run long cycles..
3- I agreed with you that 6 weeks cycle don't worth it.
4- if you apply time on -time off rule then it's the same , regarding roller coaster with ur hermones.
5- saying that the body seek for hemostatis (with new muscles gained) was what I disagreed with you and I am opened to learn anything new, will you please elaborate?

 

[gram of tren]

1- u took it personal
2- I myself, run long cycles..
3- I agreed with you that 6 weeks cycle don't worth it.
4- if you apply time on -time off rule then it's the same , regarding roller coaster with ur hermones.
5- saying that the body seek for hemostatis (with new muscles gained) was what I disagreed with you and I am opened to learn anything new, will you please elaborate?

1 - yes your right. im gonna lose sleep tonight over you disagreeing with me on an online forum
2 - k.
3 - k.
4 - if you apply time on/time off rule with a 6 week then it's the same as a 12 weeker? how? time on for a 6 week cycle would be 10 weeks(6 week cycle with 4 week pct). time on for a 12 week cycle would be 16 weeks total(12 week cycle 4 week pct). 16 =/= 10. that's an extra 6 weeks for your body to rest.
5 - sure here you go. http://www.steroidology.com/forum/anabolic-steroid-forum/156908-homeostasis.html

 

[Rida5d]

1 - yes your right. im gonna lose sleep tonight over you disagreeing with me on an online forum
2 - k.
3 - k.
4 - if you apply time on/time off rule with a 6 week then it's the same as a 12 weeker? how? time on for a 6 week cycle would be 10 weeks(6 week cycle with 4 week pct). time on for a 12 week cycle would be 16 weeks total(12 week cycle 4 week pct). 16 =/= 10. that's an extra 6 weeks for your body to rest.
5 - sure here you go. http://www.steroidology.com/forum/anabolic-steroid-forum/156908-homeostasis.html

You calling me a dumbass, ok .. Thnx.. I tried to be civilized arguing with you but hey..
The empty can rattles the most..

Big respect to RJ , but you give me thread and I ll give u 200 to debate it.. That's the magic of learning and searching. . Here is one:
http://www.steroidology.com/forum/a...29773-short-cycles-good-gains-less-sides.html

I won't feel surprised if u ll find a thread to support ur point and I will.. And this will continue forever..

Now, if your IQ is low enough that you don't understand that I agreed with you that I think that 6 weeks cycles won't worth it, then that's ur prob. I care more or less.

I reposted that thread by real gains, and those are the ideas of a vet, still I don't agree with it.. Just to show you that people do things different ways, with different levels of success..
But in ur case, it's your way or the high way..

Now, I'm out of here, and I ll let people decide who the dumb ass is.

 

[joliver]

I have tried it both ways. My experience has been that longer cycles yield greater results. The first few weeks in any cycle are deceptive. You gain a ton of weight in a month, but water weighs something. Anadrol or dbol cycles will fool a first timer into thinking they are going to gain 100lbs....but no.

 

[gram of tren]

You calling me a dumbass, ok .. Thnx.. I tried to be civilized arguing with you but hey..
The empty can rattles the most..

Big respect to RJ , but you give me thread and I ll give u 200 to debate it.. That's the magic of learning and searching. . Here is one:
http://www.steroidology.com/forum/a...29773-short-cycles-good-gains-less-sides.html

I won't feel surprised if u ll find a thread to support ur point and I will.. And this will continue forever..

Now, if your IQ is low enough that you don't understand that I agreed with you that I think that 6 weeks cycles won't worth it, then that's ur prob. I care more or less.

I reposted that thread by real gains, and those are the ideas of a vet, still I don't agree with it.. Just to show you that people do things different ways, with different levels of success..
But in ur case, it's your way or the high way..

Now, I'm out of here, and I ll let people decide who the dumb ass is.

god bless you. you asked me to elaborate so I showed you a thread RJ started a couple years ago that is exactly how I feel. Im sorry that wasn't sufficient enough for you brah.

maybe I am the dumbass, but it seems quite a few guys in this thread(and that thread I posted) agreed with me. maybe we are all just dumb lol. post a poll, let's see the board consensus.