SHOCK the body with drugs or go slow?

[wise]

I need some help understanding this:
Is it better to take drugs starting very slowly with very low doses at first and build up, OR, take large doses from the beginning to "shock" your body's physiological system?

Same question when getting off a cycle, should it be done slowly or just cut the drugs suddenly?

Any books/papers on this subject welcome and appreciated. Thanks.

 

[Mad- scientist]

lol truthfully it is a very touchy subject. I mean you will get your best gains off your first cycle. But also if for example you get horrible acne and depression from steroids and you are taking double the normal dose you will be a pimply depressed mess for a good month. And if you were to take the normal dosage of a single steroids at least that way you would know you responded bad to that exact steroid and you wouldn't have a insane amount in your system.

Some people just do not respond good to steroids. You really have to be a certain type of individual mentally and physically to get a lot of benefits out of them. Some people are just fucked to begin with genetically prone to horrible side effects and it would not be a good idea for them to start off with gigantic amounts of several steroids.

If some one had a true guru helping them who knew every side effect and did their injections for them and designed a cycle for them and everything and the guru worked with pro's and what not. Maybe it would be safer that way to do a big cycle on your first cycle. But every one know days is a self described guru and really doesn't know shit and who knows your guru could drop dead one night and you could be left with 2000mgs of steroids in your system and not know what the fuck to do to battle the side effects. My end point of this is to start out slow and learn how to gauge side effects and learn what substances to use to actually control side effects. Be your own guru and more is not always better. This might seem like a long ass response but after 1500 posts on here my typing skills have increased a lot and it only took me like a minute to type all this ha ha ha ha.

 

[MustangDX]

I need some help understanding this:
Is it better to take drugs starting very slowly with very low doses at first and build up, OR, take large doses from the beginning to "shock" your body's physiological system?

Same question when getting off a cycle, should it be done slowly or just cut the drugs suddenly?

Any books/papers on this subject welcome and appreciated. Thanks.

What kind of "drugs" are you referring to? Are we talking meth?...

 

[TheFitnessLife4ever]

Always start low... My first cycle was only 400mg of test and I blew up. I've taken over a gram at this point and I'd still say my best cycle was my first. Your receptors grow as you take aas. So if you start at a high dose now then there wont be enough receptors to use up all the aas and therefore you'll just get more sides with similar gains to the low dose. Whole point of my rant is that it's always better to start low because your body will respond best at a typical dosage. If you start at 750mg what, will your second cycle be a gram? That's fuckin stupid and irresponsible. I've been at this game a while and never started at higher dosages.. Plus if your under 230-240 at a 5"6-5"7 height then the only thing you need is food and some gear.. Now once you get 250+ then yes you will need quite a lot more aas depending on your genetics..

 

[Frank White]

Any new drug introduced to the body will create its own "shock" factor. Too many variables...

 

[Spunkey71]

Any books/papers on this subject welcome and appreciated. Thanks.

You could try reading the stickies!

 

[Optimal]

Well if someone were to ask me I would say take it slow...
but at the same time, I will admit to being a hypocrite in that regard

 

[3J]

he's talking about tapering up and down.. no need.. just start with a moderate dosage.. 400mg a week first cycle is fine

 

[Optimal]

he's talking about tapering up and down.. no need.. just start with a moderate dosage.. 400mg a week first cycle is fine

Ahh, yeah I see it now. Good catch... skimming posts FTL :/

 

[wise]

he's talking about tapering up and down.. no need.. just start with a moderate dosage.. 400mg a week first cycle is fine

Yes this is what I meant. Can anyone explain why it matters (or not) if you taper up and down.
So let's say for example start with test first cycle 50mg week 1, then 100mg week 2, then 300mg week 3, then 450 for a few weeks, then slow it back down to 300 - 100 - 50 - off cycle.

But back to the point that "Mad-scientist" has made, is the 1st cycle better just because you were skinnier, or does it have anything to do with the body's accommodation to the drug? There are 2 variables here so how do we know which one is the blame?

 

[DipKing]

Knowledge is limited on the subject, but I've been told slowly tapering off cycle was something done back in the day before clomid/nolva because it was believed to help keep gains and increase the chances of a rebound. As 3J already said it's not needed.

 

[DreDay187]

Yes this is what I meant. Can anyone explain why it matters (or not) if you taper up and down.
So let's say for example start with test first cycle 50mg week 1, then 100mg week 2, then 300mg week 3, then 450 for a few weeks, then slow it back down to 300 - 100 - 50 - off cycle.

But back to the point that "Mad-scientist" has made, is the 1st cycle better just because you were skinnier, or does it have anything to do with the body's accommodation to the drug? There are 2 variables here so how do we know which one is the blame?

There's no point in tapering as you laid it out. In the beginning it will just take longer to reach supra physiological serum testosterone levels and waste 3-4wks of a cycle which cannot be ran infinitely. And tapering towards the end doesn't really help suppression bc you still have compounded dosages and high serum levels to metabolize. If you made the taper even longer at the end to take this into account, you just extend the length of suppression or waste the last few weeks by dropping serum levels when they could have been higher.

 

[MustangDX]

There's no point in tapering as you laid it out. In the beginning it will just take longer to reach supra physiological serum testosterone levels and waste 3-4wks of a cycle which cannot be ran infinitely. And tapering towards the end doesn't really help suppression bc you still have compounded dosages and high serum levels to metabolize. If you made the taper even longer at the end to take this into account, you just extend the length of suppression or waste the last few weeks by dropping serum levels when they could have been higher.

^^^ Case closed...

 

[DipKing]

Right on the ball Dre. There is the answer you're looking for OP. Guys used to try different methods to see what worked best back then. Pyramiding/tapering is one of those things that didn't work out as intended.