Why Cycle?

[AudioMaker]

Ok, this is probably going to be taken as one of the stupidierest questions ever posted to this board so please be gentle...

First, I think I have a basic understanding of why people (especially BB's) cycle, but I'd like to hear it from you.

If one isn't going for Bulk/Cut, but simply to be "built", and maintains a consistent workout routine year-round, then can one toss the "cycle" mentality?

If so, then how would AAS apply to this?

I'll use myself as an example...

If I'm on testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) @ say... 150mg of T/week but 500mg would be better for "cycling", then is there any reason not to just stay on 500mg/week indefinitely and just keep working out?

I'm actually on 250mg of T/week, which feels OK (nothing dramatic), and I'm about to up to 500mg/week and I'm thinking... "Well if that makes me feel fantastic....why would I go back?"

With this, I'm also about to start 12.5mg Aromasin ed because I do feel like I'm holding water although my tits don't itch or ache @ 250mg T/wk. It's a precaution for 500mg though.

So... I guess the question is:

If you fine tune a med-high testosterone/ai dose that makes you feel strong and well, and helps you build and keep LBM, then why stop?... especially if you're going to stay on T anyway at a lower (but shut down) dose if you do?


I hope I'm making sense.

Thanks!

 

[ErectusMaximus]

The reason I won't cycle all year is because it will promote plaque build-up in your arteries, high blood pressure, and terrible blood readings, basically I don't want to have a heart attack .

Are you really on testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) ( yeah from a doctor) and if yes, why?

 

[AudioMaker]

The reason I won't cycle all year is because it will promote plaque build-up in your arteries, high blood pressure, and terrible blood readings, basically I don't want to have a heart attack .

Are you really on testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) ( yeah from a doctor) and if yes, why?

Ok, well that's interesting. I hadn't read anything about plague. Could you please elaborate on "terrible blood readings"?

Aside from financial, I wonder if there are other reasons?

I also wonder if being on half the time gives half the plague...etc.?

When some guys are doing 20wk cycles, that's getting close to half the year.

I am trying to determine the linearity of these routines. There's a lot of "standards" (12wk on 500-750 test + extras..etc).

It makes me wonder if that's the same as 36wks on 300mg...etc.

Most people seem to be going on... blasting... then cruising, while at the same time the HRT/TRT guys are on forever at different doses, but might still want to get some gains in the gym beyond what a maintenance dose can provide.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of happy medium area between programs for anti-agers and BB's/gainers.

Is this just an illusion because they are two groups of differently motivated people, or can you just land in between (um... 350mg Test + low dose Aromatase inhibitor (AI) + ...etc)?


Look at it this way:

Anti Agers (HRT/TRT) folks:

100-200mg Test + extras /wk

Workout = Fitness and moderate workouts

Goal = To not lose muscle and look old and fat.

Duration= For life

***

Body builders (including amateur)

500-1000mg Test + extras /week

Workout = Yelling outloud in the gym, beating up weaklings, crushing things (it's a joke people).

Goal = To make them look like they're wearing their sisters T-shirt.

Duration = 12 weeks (twice a year?) then PCT and maintenance.



You rarely see the steady but hard workout, linear muscle gain, long-term steady routine (including AAS to some degree).

You state that you don't stay on because you don't want to have a heart attack, but when you say "stay on", do you mean at BB'ing doses? I can understand that.

So is On/Off/PCT/On/Off/PCT really safer at higher doses than staying on at moderate doses?

I think everyone can see the point of my question, and I ask it sincerely.

To answer your question, I am not on Dr prescribed testosterone replacement therapy (TRT). I am taking test for maximizing my workout results first (which I would never get a prescription for anyway), but at my age (45), and my aging (lower energy, lower sex drive, harder to gain in the gym, harder to keep weight off), I'm pretty sure the test' is helping since I feel better. I wasn't trying to solve a serious medical condition, but I do feel better as a side effect of something I was planning to pump up a bit with.

Thoughts?

 

[Sir Anabolic]

cycle for health concerns. That's what they say.

 

[halfwit]

Such a pointed series of questions, you have obviously put some time and thought into this!

The ONLY real health concern that I have ever seen with actual studies is that regarding an enlarged heart from prolonged AAS usage (high levels). This should make sense as the heart is a muscle, and with the added benefit of accelerated protein synthesis, your heart SHOULD grow from this. Of course, this can lead to a few complications such as heart murmurs/pulmonary edema and ultimately heart failure. How much AAS or how long one would have to cycle to achieve this level of growth to become dangerous is still not fully known. Keep in mind, the medical community swore up and down that AAS did NOT even promote muscle growth for the last 60 years, so I wouldn't expect a lot of clear information regarding the true dangers to surface until more progressive medicine is able to dominate the community. To put this in perspective though, cigarettes/alcohol/MANY prescription drugs have far more dangerous side effects and a far greater impact on longevity.

I too cruise at 250mg/wk but like to blast a couple times a year and have been looking into the very same reasons as you. Financially, it's not a terribly expensive hobby/lifestyle unless you start throwing other ancillaries into the mix such as HGH, so I don't see that being a limiting factor. Joints/ligaments could be a potential weak link if you are ALWAYS on a higher level of AAS as they will not be able to play "catch up" unless you take breaks or lower intensity for periods of time. But who would be taking large doses of AAS if they plan on sitting around the house watching tv? These are the only reasons I can think of that would prevent many folks from staying at high levels year-round. Then again, if you are a professional bodybuilder, you would be the exception to these I'd imagine.

If it weren't for the fact that I have my blood levels monitored by a doctor twice a year, I probably would cruise much higher as I LOVE the feeling of being on higher amounts of testosterone. Of course, my poor wife wouldn't be happy as I'm always chasing her around the house while blasting due to the enormous libidio increase.

My .02c

 

[AudioMaker]

Such a pointed series of questions, you have obviously put some time and thought into this!

The ONLY real health concern that I have ever seen with actual studies is that regarding an enlarged heart from prolonged AAS usage (high levels). This should make sense as the heart is a muscle, and with the added benefit of accelerated protein synthesis, your heart SHOULD grow from this. Of course, this can lead to a few complications such as heart murmurs/pulmonary edema and ultimately heart failure. How much AAS or how long one would have to cycle to achieve this level of growth to become dangerous is still not fully known. Keep in mind, the medical community swore up and down that AAS did NOT even promote muscle growth for the last 60 years, so I wouldn't expect a lot of clear information regarding the true dangers to surface until more progressive medicine is able to dominate the community. To put this in perspective though, cigarettes/alcohol/MANY prescription drugs have far more dangerous side effects and a far greater impact on longevity.

I too cruise at 250mg/wk but like to blast a couple times a year and have been looking into the very same reasons as you. Financially, it's not a terribly expensive hobby/lifestyle unless you start throwing other ancillaries into the mix such as HGH, so I don't see that being a limiting factor. Joints/ligaments could be a potential weak link if you are ALWAYS on a higher level of AAS as they will not be able to play "catch up" unless you take breaks or lower intensity for periods of time. But who would be taking large doses of AAS if they plan on sitting around the house watching tv? These are the only reasons I can think of that would prevent many folks from staying at high levels year-round. Then again, if you are a professional bodybuilder, you would be the exception to these I'd imagine.

If it weren't for the fact that I have my blood levels monitored by a doctor twice a year, I probably would cruise much higher as I LOVE the feeling of being on higher amounts of testosterone. Of course, my poor wife wouldn't be happy as I'm always chasing her around the house while blasting due to the enormous libidio increase.

My .02c

Well I know some amateur BB's that stay on *most* of the time, but they are *always* wanting to be bigger.

As I read countless cycle threads, I clearly see a division of groups and outlooks.

You mention smoking. Studies suggest that a healthy individual can smoke a few...maybe 5 cigarettes a day forever without a much increased health risk.

At the same time, I've read that if you soak a single pack of cigarettes in water for a few hours and consume that water, that it could kill you on the spot.

Cigarettes are poison, yet the body can deal with a certain amount over time, where like any poison, a large amount does damage immediately.

Substitute a drop of bleach vs a shot glass of it, or any substance that is hard on the system.

Physiologically I get the feeling this applies to AAS use.

Certainly there are different levels of hypertrophy, speeds at which to obtain it, and quality/longevity differences depending on how it's achieved.

I would be really curious to see the difference between the same guy who stays on 350mg/T all year round vs the guy who does 750mg 24 (12X2) weeks out of the year... and also the health risks between the two.

All this talk about "recovery" is usually at higher doses and "blasting". I think a lot more injuries are coming from putting too much weight on the rack too fast and over stressing the structure of the body thereby needing recovery. The same goes for AAS and it's sides. There seems to be a lot more recovery involved in that as well (and the med's required to do so).

I understand that the muscle requires trauma to grow, but I wonder if the non-pro BB would be better off getting off this roller coaster and traumatizing their muscle a little less, but all the time?

I'm wondering if it's a myth that one needs to cycle for health because if one didn't not "blast", then less trauma and damage...or maybe none?

Halfwit, you state you cruise on 250mg then blast. Have you ever wondered what 350mg or 400mg year round would do? Would it possibly be feeling great *all* the time and working out a little harder than your normal "cruise", but skipping the Superman feeling (and more extreme workouts) of 750mg twice a year?

I think everyone sees my point, but you don't really see a lot of 350mg/Low AS stay-on guys around.

Why do I get the feeling I'm going to end up trying this after going the usual routes?

 

[tbonexl]

U know, this is a pretty interesting thread. I read something similar in a muscle magazine years ago written by a bb. Not sure if I can disclose the name. He was saying somewhere on the lines of what your claiming. It doesn't do as much damage to stay on longer and at a lower dosage then shorter, high dosage cycles.. the guy is a freak. It is interesting to entertain the idea tho...

 

[halfwit]

Well I know some amateur BB's that stay on *most* of the time, but they are *always* wanting to be bigger.

As I read countless cycle threads, I clearly see a division of groups and outlooks.

You mention smoking. Studies suggest that a healthy individual can smoke a few...maybe 5 cigarettes a day forever without a much increased health risk.

At the same time, I've read that if you soak a single pack of cigarettes in water for a few hours and consume that water, that it could kill you on the spot.

Cigarettes are poison, yet the body can deal with a certain amount over time, where like any poison, a large amount does damage immediately.

Substitute a drop of bleach vs a shot glass of it, or any substance that is hard on the system.

Physiologically I get the feeling this applies to AAS use.

Certainly there are different levels of hypertrophy, speeds at which to obtain it, and quality/longevity differences depending on how it's achieved.

I would be really curious to see the difference between the same guy who stays on 350mg/T all year round vs the guy who does 750mg 24 (12X2) weeks out of the year... and also the health risks between the two.

All this talk about "recovery" is usually at higher doses and "blasting". I think a lot more injuries are coming from putting too much weight on the rack too fast and over stressing the structure of the body thereby needing recovery. The same goes for AAS and it's sides. There seems to be a lot more recovery involved in that as well (and the med's required to do so).

I understand that the muscle requires trauma to grow, but I wonder if the non-pro BB would be better off getting off this roller coaster and traumatizing their muscle a little less, but all the time?

I'm wondering if it's a myth that one needs to cycle for health because if one didn't not "blast", then less trauma and damage...or maybe none?

Halfwit, you state you cruise on 250mg then blast. Have you ever wondered what 350mg or 400mg year round would do? Would it possibly be feeling great *all* the time and working out a little harder than your normal "cruise", but skipping the Superman feeling (and more extreme workouts) of 750mg twice a year?

I think everyone sees my point, but you don't really see a lot of 350mg/Low AS stay-on guys around.

Why do I get the feeling I'm going to end up trying this after going the usual routes?

Here's the rub: No two humans are the same. We all react differently and have different predetermined reactions to substances that we do not yet fully understand. Even though tobacco is statistically more dangerous than a candy bar, I've met easily 100x more smokers that are over the age of 90 than folks that are diabetics due to a lifetime of sugar consumption. Does that mean we can all start up smoking as some folks live to be centenarians? Common sense says no, but I think it's a valid point. I have a feeling that AAS is similar in that while some of us could probably cruise at 500mg for the rest of our lives (with proper estrogen control/etc), there would be a great deal that would succumb to the adverse effects much sooner. To this end I think we agree that there are more variables than we are able to currently account for with regards to what is safe and what is not.

I would LOVE to cruise at 400mg/wk for a year and see how it goes. The only problem is that I really do enjoy the "superman" periods of time that come from blasts. I do think it would be healthier though (high cruises) as the human body does want to seek homeostasis, and may eventually normalize blood pressure/lipid profiles/et cetera. Blasting is an obvious spike of these levels, but at much higher rates than what would be seen on a high level cruise. The long term risks from cruising at a supraphysiological level are way beyond my level of experience, so I can't really contribute there. I'm sure that there are a few guys here that do cruise at 500mg/wk, but keep it on the down low due to fears of kids thinking it's a smart idea once they see how big these guys are and following suit.

I do still think it's more of a connective tissue issue than anything though with regards to REALLY high levels of AAS. You can't build muscle 365 days a year and not outgrow your joints/ligaments/tendons. Hell, I tore my right patella clean off my leg picking up ~650lbs a decade ago on the job because I was overconfident in that I had done far more weight than that in the gym, but I hadn't thought about the warming up or state of hydration I'm normally in while at the gym. That was natural, so I can't imagine what I could have done to myself if I had been on AAS. I know that pectoral tears and biceps injuries are pretty common around these parts, it would be interesting to see how much the occurrence of these injuries would change if it was a constant flow of hormones instead of a huge spike followed by a drop.

If it weren't for the fact I'm held accountable for my hormone levels, I'd totally test out higher cruises - but I'm not adventurous enough to try a 750mg/wk cruise.

My .02c

 

[AudioMaker]

Here's the rub: No two humans are the same. We all react differently and have different predetermined reactions to substances that we do not yet fully understand. Even though tobacco is statistically more dangerous than a candy bar, I've met easily 100x more smokers that are over the age of 90 than folks that are diabetics due to a lifetime of sugar consumption. Does that mean we can all start up smoking as some folks live to be centenarians? Common sense says no, but I think it's a valid point. I have a feeling that AAS is similar in that while some of us could probably cruise at 500mg for the rest of our lives (with proper estrogen control/etc), there would be a great deal that would succumb to the adverse effects much sooner. To this end I think we agree that there are more variables than we are able to currently account for with regards to what is safe and what is not.

I would LOVE to cruise at 400mg/wk for a year and see how it goes. The only problem is that I really do enjoy the "superman" periods of time that come from blasts. I do think it would be healthier though (high cruises) as the human body does want to seek homeostasis, and may eventually normalize blood pressure/lipid profiles/et cetera. Blasting is an obvious spike of these levels, but at much higher rates than what would be seen on a high level cruise. The long term risks from cruising at a supraphysiological level are way beyond my level of experience, so I can't really contribute there. I'm sure that there are a few guys here that do cruise at 500mg/wk, but keep it on the down low due to fears of kids thinking it's a smart idea once they see how big these guys are and following suit.

I do still think it's more of a connective tissue issue than anything though with regards to REALLY high levels of AAS. You can't build muscle 365 days a year and not outgrow your joints/ligaments/tendons. Hell, I tore my right patella clean off my leg picking up ~650lbs a decade ago on the job because I was overconfident in that I had done far more weight than that in the gym, but I hadn't thought about the warming up or state of hydration I'm normally in while at the gym. That was natural, so I can't imagine what I could have done to myself if I had been on AAS. I know that pectoral tears and biceps injuries are pretty common around these parts, it would be interesting to see how much the occurrence of these injuries would change if it was a constant flow of hormones instead of a huge spike followed by a drop.

If it weren't for the fact I'm held accountable for my hormone levels, I'd totally test out higher cruises - but I'm not adventurous enough to try a 750mg/wk cruise.

My .02c

Based on all that I've read, 750mg isn't exactly "cruising".

Also, when you're "Supermaning", you are working out quite a bit harder no?

Of course what I'm talking about is eliminating the cruise/blast cycle altogether.

As we both know, I know nothing about any of this (but I am actually a bit of a mad scientist), so I'm just applying virgin logic before the general consensus becomes permanent in my head.

It would be hard to say what does more damage... cruise/blast or "high cruise". Although with the "High Cruise" you'll avoid the extreme accidents from blasting like the one you describe, but on the other hand, you'll be working out harder than you would on "normal cruise" for twice the weeks, so wear becomes an issue. Of course...there's wear with over lifting too.

From the body's perspective, there's going to be a lot less shock, both physical and physiological. Can one weigh if the body needs that much shock to grow the same amount?

Honestly, even though I'll do it, I don't like the idea of the "cycle" at all.

The testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) guys seem to be able to find dosages and workout routines that make them feel fantastic for their age, and these don't really vary much...just small adjustments.

I don't see why there can't be a BBTRT that follows the same lines with just slightly higher levels and 1 or two more compounds.

I'll also, from the seat of ignorance claim that I believe the one guy who reaches the build he wants in a year of cycling will likely have the same if not more health risks, will not be as strong, and will be more prone to losing it than the guy who takes 3 years to get to the same build. It just makes sense to me, as it also makes sense that a normal testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) dose and routine might not ever get you there at all.

It reminds me of one of my security guards (I used to own a night club). He's 7' 375 BB that carries two or more drunks up a flight of stairs (one in each arm). He's on T/Deca 6 months or more out of the year.
A patron about 5'9 175 lbs is sitting at a table and challenges my guard to arm wrestle. Of course the little guy pounds my guard in a second. You could see though that the little feller just had "that body"....older and made of stone. He probably has naturally high T and has been putting it to work since puberty.

Now as you say, everyone is different but I just suspect that the "high cruise" is what would build that kind of muscle...the long lasting superhuman kind, and I bet he isn't blasting his eyeballs out at the gym.

Anyway, I'm in no way trying to be dogmatic. I'm just thinking out loud.

 

[halfwit]

All valid points and I'm sure that we have a few members here that do fit your BBTRT description, but I don't know if they will chime in or not. While I'm one of the bigger fellas on here height/frame wise, I'm definitely not one of the "bigger guys" here. With reference to your guard and that patron arm wrestling, you have to remember that a HUGE part of arm wrestling is from technique, not raw strength.

 

[AudioMaker]

All valid points and I'm sure that we have a few members here that do fit your BBTRT description, but I don't know if they will chime in or not. While I'm one of the bigger fellas on here height/frame wise, I'm definitely not one of the "bigger guys" here. With reference to your guard and that patron arm wrestling, you have to remember that a HUGE part of arm wrestling is from technique, not raw strength.

Yes of course. I'm actually a pretty good armwrestler myself and was taught by a pro. This big guard was the only one of my crew I could never put down (or stay up myself). The rest of my crew were BB's in their 20's and I never had any trouble due to skill and the fact that I'm just strong.
They used to laugh when I'd win and claim "Vintage Muscle".... which is joke sure, but unlike them, I put on my muscle as a machinery dealer who moved 10's of tons of cast iron around by hand every year because I was too impatient to go get the forklift.

So... I should have said that this little guy put him down with little to no technique aside from a surprising explosion of power. They did it twice...same result, so I think my guy was prepared the second time.

I'm just speculating that the BBTRT might build stronger muscle per weight. I'd also speculate this to due to longer-to-grow neural and biological pathways to support that muscle, and that those pathways being in place might lead to longevity. In short, foregoing the cycle should end the post cycle losses.

I'm gonna do it. I know 500mg isn't much, but it's more than I've ever taken. I think if I feel OK after 12 weeks, then I'll return to 350mg and take the Deca down to 100mg and ride it out and see what happens. I do want to try the 500 just to see what that does and I'll weigh that vs 6 months of 350... if you see what I mean.

Between having taken 250-500-350, maybe I'll be able to offer my experience on it in about a year.

 

[tbonexl]

U got me interested. I have read about this in the past, but it was with really high dosages. Like 2 grams a week! I'm not going to lie, I've done a gram per week with great results and I had all the accessories I needed to go with it. It wasn't a long cycle. I personally wouldn't stay on that high for a long duration. 500-750 a week would be more logical. Keep us posted on this. Now, your not going to run deca the entire time too are u? Just curious...

 

[Millertime]

Here's the rub: No two humans are the same. We all react differently and have different predetermined reactions to substances that we do not yet fully understand. Even though tobacco is statistically more dangerous than a candy bar, I've met easily 100x more smokers that are over the age of 90 than folks that are diabetics due to a lifetime of sugar consumption. Does that mean we can all start up smoking as some folks live to be centenarians? Common sense says no, but I think it's a valid point. I have a feeling that AAS is similar in that while some of us could probably cruise at 500mg for the rest of our lives (with proper estrogen control/etc), there would be a great deal that would succumb to the adverse effects much sooner. To this end I think we agree that there are more variables than we are able to currently account for with regards to what is safe and what is not.

I would LOVE to cruise at 400mg/wk for a year and see how it goes. The only problem is that I really do enjoy the "superman" periods of time that come from blasts. I do think it would be healthier though (high cruises) as the human body does want to seek homeostasis, and may eventually normalize blood pressure/lipid profiles/et cetera. Blasting is an obvious spike of these levels, but at much higher rates than what would be seen on a high level cruise. The long term risks from cruising at a supraphysiological level are way beyond my level of experience, so I can't really contribute there. I'm sure that there are a few guys here that do cruise at 500mg/wk, but keep it on the down low due to fears of kids thinking it's a smart idea once they see how big these guys are and following suit.

I do still think it's more of a connective tissue issue than anything though with regards to REALLY high levels of AAS. You can't build muscle 365 days a year and not outgrow your joints/ligaments/tendons. Hell, I tore my right patella clean off my leg picking up ~650lbs a decade ago on the job because I was overconfident in that I had done far more weight than that in the gym, but I hadn't thought about the warming up or state of hydration I'm normally in while at the gym. That was natural, so I can't imagine what I could have done to myself if I had been on AAS. I know that pectoral tears and biceps injuries are pretty common around these parts, it would be interesting to see how much the occurrence of these injuries would change if it was a constant flow of hormones instead of a huge spike followed by a drop.

If it weren't for the fact I'm held accountable for my hormone levels, I'd totally test out higher cruises - but I'm not adventurous enough to try a 750mg/wk cruise.

My .02c

Damn bro picking up 650lbs are work because you were overly confident doing way more at the gym! I use to consider myself strong!

 

[3ct]

From what I've heard that the longer you stay on at the same dosage, then the less effective it becomes due to your receptors getting used up. So, you need to constantly be increasing the dosage if you stay on the same dosage a long time. So, this is a reason people cycle or blast, to give their receptors a break.

 

[halfwit]

Yes of course. I'm actually a pretty good armwrestler myself and was taught by a pro. This big guard was the only one of my crew I could never put down (or stay up myself). The rest of my crew were BB's in their 20's and I never had any trouble due to skill and the fact that I'm just strong.
They used to laugh when I'd win and claim "Vintage Muscle".... which is joke sure, but unlike them, I put on my muscle as a machinery dealer who moved 10's of tons of cast iron around by hand every year because I was too impatient to go get the forklift.

So... I should have said that this little guy put him down with little to no technique aside from a surprising explosion of power. They did it twice...same result, so I think my guy was prepared the second time.

I'm just speculating that the BBTRT might build stronger muscle per weight. I'd also speculate this to due to longer-to-grow neural and biological pathways to support that muscle, and that those pathways being in place might lead to longevity. In short, foregoing the cycle should end the post cycle losses.

I'm gonna do it. I know 500mg isn't much, but it's more than I've ever taken. I think if I feel OK after 12 weeks, then I'll return to 350mg and take the Deca down to 100mg and ride it out and see what happens. I do want to try the 500 just to see what that does and I'll weigh that vs 6 months of 350... if you see what I mean.

Between having taken 250-500-350, maybe I'll be able to offer my experience on it in about a year.

Haha, vintage muscle. I like it! I am curious what you find from this experiment. Just do yourself a favor and get regular blood tests and keep an eye on your vitals. For the children of course.

Damn bro picking up 650lbs are work because you were overly confident doing way more at the gym! I use to consider myself strong!

Yeah, lots of surgery scars to prove it too. Sadly, you don't realize how big your muscles in your legs can get until you lose them. I'm still trying to find good alternatives to deadlifts/squats since my knees get REALLY angry when I try them. The things we do when we're young.

From what I've heard that the longer you stay on at the same dosage, then the less effective it becomes due to your receptors getting used up. So, you need to constantly be increasing the dosage if you stay on the same dosage a long time. So, this is a reason people cycle or blast, to give their receptors a break.

Hasn't the receptor theory been disproven? I'll have to dig around for more information on this tomorrow.

 

[3ct]

Hasn't the receptor theory been disproven? I'll have to dig around for more information on this tomorrow.

I have no idea but, it makes me wonder how come people who first start AAS are able to make much bigger gains on their first cycle on a low dose (ie: 500mg test / wk) vs. the cycles that come after and they start increasing dosage? Yet some people aren't able to gain as much as they did on their first cycle. Would that have to do with receptors?

 

[AudioMaker]

From what I've heard that the longer you stay on at the same dosage, then the less effective it becomes due to your receptors getting used up. So, you need to constantly be increasing the dosage if you stay on the same dosage a long time. So, this is a reason people cycle or blast, to give their receptors a break.

Ok, that could be, but at what dose?

Some testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) guys are on for decades, or life. Based on that, they'd all need 1000mg/wk to stay in range by now?

I supppose there could be the concept of "threshold dosage" where once a amount was passed, that receptors would be "recepting" full time and might need a "break" to avoid building tolerance.

On the other hand, it could just be an illusion and the tolerance is mental. There is no question that cycling high doses is going to give the user a rush, and that rush probably matters in some ways.

I'll tell ya though, after 10 weeks of pretty clean diet, I'd probably get a huge rush right now from a BigMac and a large chocolate shake, but that doesn't mean it's healthy

Along those lines, weight loss is best done slowly and steadily over time. Heck, you can have a woman with a 12" long neck in some countries if you're willing to wait.

Back to my security guards... I had 6. All of them hit the gym, all of them were about being "big", those who could afford it were on AAS, and I've watched those guys go on and off I don't know how many times.
They get big, then they shrink, then big again, then smaller. In 3 years of watching this, they all ended up bigger than if they hadn't gone to the gym, but I can't honestly say bigger than if they had just been working out even without AAS.

Now my club has been closed for 8 months and most of them have bellies and look pretty soft now, but I'll almost promise you that little arm wrestler still looks like 40 year old stone.

I am so far away from being an expert on this that I might as well be tossed from the site, but I do make observations, and one of those has been watching 6 big employees cycle for 3 years and how they ended up.


I dunno. I've lived a good life and I don't plan on living forever. I might try a BBTRT at about 350mg of T and 100mg Deca or EQ with Aromatase inhibitor (AI) and stay on it just to see. Call it an "annual cycle".

Regards

 

[3ct]

Ok, that could be, but at what dose?

Some testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) guys are on for decades, or life. Based on that, they'd all need 1000mg/wk to stay in range by now?

On the other hand, it could just be an illusion and the tolerance is mental. There is no question that cycling high doses is going to give the user a rush, and that rush probably matters in some ways.

By receptors I don't mean your T levels, I mean you have to keep increasing your dosage to keep building more muscle. Meaning you can only stay on 500 mg /wk and gain a certain amount of mass for so long until you have to increase your dosage to continue gaining or take a break for a while let your receptors recover and then come back on the 500 mg to start putting on muscle again.

If your only purpose is to do it to feel good, then I guess you can stay on long term at the same dosage and still get the libido increase, well being etc. because your T levels will still be up.

I'm just guessing here, I don't have any studies to back anything up just what I hear from bro science. I just don't see anybody repeatedly doing the same cycle (ie: 500 mg /wk ) over and over, everybody always seems to be increasing their dosage every cycle or blast. If you gained 20 lbs. on your first cycle, then why don't you go back to the same dosage again and gain another 20 lbs. ? you just don't hear of that happening.

 

[AudioMaker]

By receptors I don't mean your T levels, I mean you have to keep increasing your dosage to keep building more muscle. Meaning you can only stay on 500 mg /wk and gain a certain amount of mass for so long until you have to increase your dosage to continue gaining or take a break for a while let your receptors recover and then come back on the 500 mg to start putting on muscle again.

If your only purpose is to do it to feel good, then I guess you can stay on long term at the same dosage and still get the libido increase, well being etc. because your T levels will still be up.

I'm just guessing here, I don't have any studies to back anything up just what I hear from bro science. I just don't see anybody repeatedly doing the same cycle (ie: 500 mg /wk ) over and over, everybody always seems to be increasing their dosage every cycle or blast. If you gained 20 lbs. on your first cycle, then why don't you go back to the same dosage again and gain another 20 lbs. ? you just don't hear of that happening.

Hey 3ct, I'm guessing too bro....Just speculating for a good chat about something that I don't understand.

I also have been reading a lot of "broscience". I don't know if what I've read agrees with what you've read about constantly increasing dosage.

While the guys who really get into it (or addicted to BB'ing) surely will take as much as their body can handle, there is a limit.

I don't know the max Test' and other AAS that the pro's are taking, but there is a limit I'm sure.

I think the first cycle is different...maybe even the 2nd or 3rd. I've worked out most of my life on and off, and whenever I get back into it, there's a quick gain. That is completely without AAS.

Then, it gets harder... one reaches plateaus ...etc. There are natural ways to get over plateaus of course, but the guys already using AAS likely go to that first, and report that as the "solution".

If you couldn't gain without upping your doses, then somehow these natty guys are breaking a rule or two by getting there....even if it's not monstrous, it's still pro-level.

Everyone talks about AAS being sort of an "amplifier" to your diet and exercise, and based on that, one should not need to up the dose more than by the percentage that they are physically larger. No?

Obviously if you've gotten bigger, you will need to adjust your dosages by some degree to get the same net gains again (not including the 1st cycle bump). You will also have to adjust your weights and diet, but I think it's proportionately. I mean...you're bigger right?

Just thoughts

 

[3ct]

I guess I didn't associate increasing dosage with size. Though you never hear of people say if it's your first cycle and you weight over 200 lbs. then 500 mg test a week won't do anything for you, you need to start with at least 750 etc. you never hear of anybody saying that. Everybody is told to start off at the same dosage, 500 mg wk. If the test dose had anything to do with size then that would be something you would need to take into consideration when you first start. Just like when you are calculating your calories and what you need to grow, you put your stats in and calculate it. If this applied with AAS then I'm sure there would be a similar calculator to figure out how much you should increase your dose based on your stats but, there's not, so I don't think it has anything to do with that.

What you said about pros having limits, I agree but, the thing is they are also not on that max dose consistently all the time. They cruise on a high amount but, then they also blast (from what I gather). They don't stay on 2g or 3g all year, they will crusie on 1g or something like that, whatever they need to hold their mass, and then they blast. Your theory is to stay on the same dosage all the time and eliminate cycling and blasting, correct?

I believe the gains your'e referring to when you get back into the gym is related to muscle memory. The type of gains I'm talking about, are like what most people get on their first cycle. Those aren't from muscle memory.

"If you couldn't gain without upping your doses, then somehow these natty guys are breaking a rule or two by getting there....even if it's not monstrous, it's still pro-level."

Yeah, I see what you're saying there. But if you wanted do it the natty "way" then why would you be on AAS at all? If you're going to decide to use AAS, you might as well use it to get the most benefit out of it?

Also I think you were asking why people can't stay on high doses all the time. As mentioned everybody is different but, a few important aspects that I can reply to like what was mentioned heart issues. So cholestrol is an issue, the bad cholestrol raises and good cholestrol lowers, so that's one reason. Blood pressure is another reason, I remember on 400 mg test my BP was fine, then I went up to 500 and I was near 170 / 90. So I for sure could not stay on that dose long term, everybody is different. Some people also have prostate issues. Liver issues are another possibility, once I started testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) my AST/ALT values doubled. RBC and hemocrit is another issue, this usually increases due to AAS. Depending on the person one can experience all these issues once you get into super physiological test doses long term. Hell, it even happens to people in the short term on a cycle.