Okay, based on the Bill Robert's Anabolic Pharmacology posted by ilFacell, I'm kind of at odds.
I think I'm going to go ahead with a moderate prohormone stack this summer with Dermabolics S1+, a transdermal 2:3 combo of 1-test and 4-AD.
However, Bill Roberts posts some info that has me wondering which is better, two 2-on 2-off cycles or one 4-on-4+-off cycle.
In favor of 4-week:
But later he says,
So it seems like a 4-week cycle would inhibit natural test disproportionately to its length as compared to a 2-week cycle. That may make 2-weekers better.
Is there something else I should be aware of? What seems like a better idea? Are 1-test and 4-AD "fast-acting" enough to make a 2-week cycle worthwhile?
I want to make sure I'm informed about this stuff if I'm gonna do it.
I think I'm going to go ahead with a moderate prohormone stack this summer with Dermabolics S1+, a transdermal 2:3 combo of 1-test and 4-AD.
However, Bill Roberts posts some info that has me wondering which is better, two 2-on 2-off cycles or one 4-on-4+-off cycle.
In favor of 4-week:
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Single short cycles, with many weeks allowed before beginning another new cycle, don’t seem so efficient. Usually, real strength gains don’t begin coming until the third week or so. While muscular weight may be gained in the first two weeks, it seems that the body is also adapting itself in a manner which will make growth very efficient in the next few weeks: or rather it would, if AAS were still available [Calkid note: Androgen Receptor upregulation?]. Thus, I can’t recommend doing isolated cycles which are shorter than four weeks at the minimum, and really five or six weeks is probably more reasonable. Only in the case of short acting drugs, with very frequent cycles, are two or three week cycles a good idea in my opinion.
But later he says,
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Where AAS doses are sufficient for good gains, an interesting pattern is seen. For the first two weeks of the cycle, only the hypothalamus is inhibited, and it produces much less LHRH as a result of the high levels of sex hormones it senses. The pituitary is not inhibited at all: in fact, it is actually sensitized, and will respond to LHRH (if any is provided) even moreso than normally. After two weeks however, the pituitary also becomes inhibited, and even if LHRH is provided, the pituitary will produce little or no LH. This then is a deeper type of inhibition. After this point, there seems to be no definite further "switching point" where inhibition again becomes deeper and harder to reverse. As a general rule, I would say that there seems to be little difference between using AAS for 3 weeks vs. 8 weeks: recovery is about the same either way.
So it seems like a 4-week cycle would inhibit natural test disproportionately to its length as compared to a 2-week cycle. That may make 2-weekers better.
Is there something else I should be aware of? What seems like a better idea? Are 1-test and 4-AD "fast-acting" enough to make a 2-week cycle worthwhile?
I want to make sure I'm informed about this stuff if I'm gonna do it.