You should pay closer attention yourself bro.. your post clearly says a 6wk cycle may yeild more gains. Second i never said you were gonna run multiple cycles, i simple said if you did it would screw up.. relax kid do reasearch before you come up in here like a master to the aas game.
6 weeks vs 12 weeks. Which is better???
- Thread starter weavy88
- Start date
3J
Super Moderator
Guys I would have to side with gram here. He makes a valid and important point with homeostasis. And rj was a big believer in it also. As am i
Muscle is muscle. Once it's acquired it's yours to keep no matter how long you 'maintain' it. The limiting factors towRds 'keepability' of gains is diet and training and your hormonal environment. You will NOT lose any extra l muscle by cutting early or by not maintaining 'newly acquired muscle' for any length of time before transitioning into a cut.
3J
Super Moderator
i'd have to disagree dre... through my experiences the body does like to stay a certain weight and have a certain amount of muscle on.. by maintaining that muscle, bf, etc you reset your homeostasis
gram of tren
so vain
yea dre is basically saying homeostasis doesn't exist lol
3J
Super Moderator
gram, you do come off a bit abrasive at times bud.. and it only fuels the fire you know what im saying??
i dont discredit your knowledge.. if i did i would be quick to point it out.. just be a bit more softer about the way you go around making your point.. you tend to get defensive
Black Beard
@ X450 Gravity
They both work. Best way to find out what works best for you is to try it. As you can see, everyone has their own experiences and they swear by them. So the best person to answer your question is yourself, but it's nice to hear others opinions 
You can search for more threads and read through everyone of them. you will get a better idea of what you consider to be a successful cycle. At the end of the day, the best way for you to find out which one is better, is to try them yourself. Good luck man
You can search for more threads and read through everyone of them. you will get a better idea of what you consider to be a successful cycle. At the end of the day, the best way for you to find out which one is better, is to try them yourself. Good luck man
That certain weight the body likes to stay at and amount of muscle mass kept on has to do with diet training, and hormones. Without altering one of those variables it doesn't matter how long you maintain it, your homeostasis is the same regardless. An example would be a pro who needs to cruise to maintain gains. Why does he lose muscle mass if he comes off AAS? If he maintained the muscle mass long enough by your argument he wouldn't need the AAS to maintain it. Length of time of gains Kept has NOTHING to do with how much you keep.
I never said homeostasis didn't exist, you'd only think I said that if you didn't understand my post properly. Homeostasis does exist for sure and I'd never say it doesn't but the thread you linked to is wrong on several accounts which would be evidenced to you if you took a physiology course or understood how the body works in this regard. The body will always gravitate back to homeostasis but homeostasis is NOT altered by how long the gains are sustained. ever.
Rida5d
city of the sun
3j u know we all respect you, and what's great about you is that you are very opened to hear others and speak them even if they disagree with you, unlike some others on the forum.. That's what makes steroidology a better home for us.. You can speak up with a mod .. And express your opinion.
Now the questions is, how much time is needed to consider this gained muscle stable (hemostatisEd)?
And if this hemostatis exists with muscle tissues, then would an 8-10 weeks cycle be much different than 12-14 weeks cycle! Are those 4 weeks what would make me keep my gains?
What if I do those extra 4-6 weeks and eat crap after? What if I fail my pct and my test production is at zero levels?
We ve all seen it, and am sure you did, more than me as u are a diet expert, even natural body builders lost a lot of muscle once they didnt maintain their calorie intake.. Right?
Even (old muscle) if u wanna call it , would be lost if u don't maintain ur calories , or ur training at the gym..
Once more.. I agree with dre.. And all the respect to you sir.
gram of tren
so vain
of course if you cut your calories, don't do a proper pct, etc you will lose the gains. you'll lose them on a 6 week cycle by doing this also. we are saying that with all things equal, the longer your body gets acclimated to holding the weight, the better off you are.
3J
Super Moderator
ohh of course.. if you dont maintain your calories you will lose it very easily.. what im saying is the more your body stays at a certain weight the more it wants to be at that weight...
and i think it takes much longer than 12-14 or even 16 weeks.. i think its cycle of 12 weeks plus another 12 weeks of maintaining that actual weight...
so this isn't a question of how long you cycle.. its a question of how long you hold on to your gains to make your body "comfortable" with it
I'm not forgetting genetic potential. Genetic potential is the hormonal environment. The better hormonal production and other genetic factors such as nutrient partitioning will all predispose you to hold a certain amount of muscle naturally. If you're under that and gain muscle you can hold that muscle with the right diet and training and that's with or without gear. If you're above your genetic potential than AAS Will be required for you to hold into that muscle along with diet and training. The two claims are:
"your body needs time to adjust to this extra weight"
And
"Longer cycles help your body get more acclimated to holding that progress you've made"
^^^those are simply incorrect. Your body will be able to hold the weight or it won't, it doesn't matter how long they're maintained for, if you're last your genetic potential than you'll lose some if you come off. If you're still under your genetic potential than you can keep those gains indefinitely provided you eat and train right and genetic potential/hormonal environment is amenable.
As to the second claim, longer cycles don't get you more acclimated to holding extra weight. Long or short cycle you'll hold onto what you gain provided the diet, training, genetics allow it.
If you could alter your genetic potential by holding into gains for longer periods of time then by the same logic as we age we should be able to hold into more and more if we keep it for long enough. We know this isn't the case and that it's harder to maintain muscle mass as one ages.
3J
Super Moderator
ehhhh dre sometimes your a headache to debate with
ok.. the second claim about longer cycles was not in my point
my point was that when you gain weight within your genetic potential the more you hold onto it the better the chances are it wont quickly waste away.. i have seen this over and over again.. and have experience it myself
dre you are an empirical guy i get it.. so am i.. but there has to be faith in the horizon to new ideas... just because science has not proven something doesn't mean its incorrect my man..
example:
guy has been lifting for years has a nice build nothing too huge but well done for himself and within his genetic potential.. he gets injured.. cant lift.. keeps a steady diet and has been at the same weight for a long time now.. it is more likely that he will maintain his weight, or have less an effect of wasting away then someone who just got to that weight and had the same injury
ok.. the second claim about longer cycles was not in my point
my point was that when you gain weight within your genetic potential the more you hold onto it the better the chances are it wont quickly waste away.. i have seen this over and over again.. and have experience it myself
dre you are an empirical guy i get it.. so am i.. but there has to be faith in the horizon to new ideas... just because science has not proven something doesn't mean its incorrect my man..
example:
guy has been lifting for years has a nice build nothing too huge but well done for himself and within his genetic potential.. he gets injured.. cant lift.. keeps a steady diet and has been at the same weight for a long time now.. it is more likely that he will maintain his weight, or have less an effect of wasting away then someone who just got to that weight and had the same injury
3J
Super Moderator
fallacy... there is a set variable of genetic potential.. that variable is not altered in our argument
If rather be a pain in your ass lol
:loveThe claims weren't yours they were what I was responding to initially. As to your claim, I'm not saying it will hurt matters by holding onto the weight longer, but that it negligibly, if at all, affects what you hold onto. Suggesting otherwise is suggesting one can genetically alter themselves simply by holding on to a certain weight longer.
An example for me: I'm still within my genetic potential size and weight wise since I train for power and strength. I began my bulk at 185-187lbs, peaked at 220lbs, and ended the cycle at 217lbs (I started bulking before I started the cycle so not all 30lbs was during the cycle). I started cutting 8days before I started PCT meaning I was still shutdown and metabolizing the exogenous testosterone. By the time the water weight came off I was around 210lbs. I continued cutting through PCT and still am for a few more lbs lost. My strength is still increasing, mirror wise I've maintained most if not all my muscle mass and lost quite a bit of fat, I have much more muscle mass at 195lbs now the cycle is done vs 195lbs on cycle, my measurements are better than before, etc. I maintained my gains for all of 9days before I started cutting and my gains are no less 'keepable' now than when I've maintained them for much longer before cutting.
juced_porkchop
Moderator
Thanks! :-D
3J
Super Moderator
If rather be a pain in your ass lol
The claims weren't yours they were what I was responding to initially. As to your claim, I'm not saying it will hurt matters by holding onto the weight longer, but that it negligibly, if at all, affects what you hold onto. Suggesting otherwise is suggesting one can genetically alter themselves simply by holding on to a certain weight longer.
An example for me: I'm still within my genetic potential size and weight wise since I train for power and strength. I began my bulk at 185-187lbs, peaked at 220lbs, and ended the cycle at 217lbs (I started bulking before I started the cycle so not all 30lbs was during the cycle). I started cutting 8days before I started PCT meaning I was still shutdown and metabolizing the exogenous testosterone. By the time the water weight came off I was around 210lbs. I continued cutting through PCT and still am for a few more lbs lost. My strength is still increasing, mirror wise I've maintained most if not all my muscle mass and lost quite a bit of fat, I have much more muscle mass at 195lbs now the cycle is done vs 195lbs on cycle, my measurements are better than before, etc. I maintained my gains for all of 9days before I started cutting and my gains are no less 'keepable' now than when I've maintained them for much longer before cutting.
and i argue that if you had taken more time to hold on to that weight you would come in heavier after your cut
Similar threads
