Mag-10: 1 on/3 off

I haven’t kept up with all the latest posts concerning Mag-10 versus body weight gains, but the ones I have read seem to indicate that most of the gains are attained within the first week or week and a half of Mag-10 use and proper training/diet.

If this is the case, and if the half life of the 4-AD-EC component is longer than what was originally thought, wouldn’t a 1 week on 3 week off regimen be better? This protocol would mean the use of 12 bottles of Mag-10 a year (assuming 2 doses a day for 1 week) versus about 9 on the 2 on 4 off scheme. Because levels have built up quite a bit by day 7, there will still be a significant amount by the end of the 2nd week. If my math is correct after assuming a half life of 2 days, levels should be pretty low by the end of the 4th week so that another 1 on/3 off can be done.

I’m interested in comments about what might be wrong with this approach as opposed with the other regimens posted.


It would be an interesting thing to try
if you’re interested. It might work well.
It’s just that it’s an unproven approach.

Also, I’d make it more more like 1 week on / 2 weeks off unless you specifically wanted to be “on” only 25% of the time instead of 1/3 or unless the overall-4-week plan fit better into your training program.

Do you agree with Samurai Jack’s observation that the best gains are in the first week? I do think that tendancy surfaced in the previous mega-thread, though not conclusively. And personally, things have slowed in my second week. This was surprising to me, as my previous gains with the 'Sols tended to peak in the third week. And a related question: is the slowing of gains ever a reliable indicator of a good cycle length? Is it ever prudent to say, “Seven pounds the first week, three the second… maybe it’s time to go off and consolidate my gains.” Or, could another significant growth spurt be right around the corner if we stayed on a third week? I know you can’t say for sure, but your general impressions are always thought provoking.

I am trying a somewhat similar approach right now. I am doing 6 ml 2x a day instead of 9ml once a day. This is my second Mag-10 cycle. The first cycle I seemed to gain all my weight (around 8 pounds or so, but didn’t eat enough carbs and probably could have used some more protein) in the first 10-12 days, so I figured I would try this and see if the results are any better. I figure they cannot be “worse” than my previous cycle. I am also training a little different (focusing on negatives more) but still training 2x a day and am eating 400 g of protein and around 600 g of carbs. I will keep you posted…

My impression is that there’s a quick gain in bodyweight in the first week above and beyone gain in skeletal muscle mass from a process of increasing glycogen stores in muscle, which in turn increases glycogen associated water. You get pumped up so to speak. So far as actual
gains in skeletal muscle mass, I think they’re usually at the same rate through at least day 10-12.

If you plot (actually, do multiple regression) the time course of reported
gains from the previous MAG-10 thread you
find with relatively low standard error that it fits the equation of, I don’t recall, approximately:

Wt gain = 3 + 0.5 lb/day

So yes, your first week looks remarkably
good, because it’s not just 0.5 lb/day but
also a new 3 lb that you didn’t have before.
Whereas the second week looks not as good, because you also had those 3 lb the previous week.

I expect those 3 lb evaporate after the cycle.
If you experience no apparent LBM loss, then I think what’s happening is that there was a continued growth of 3 lb of muscle while losing 3 lb of this glyogen and glycogen-associated water.

So in other words, those 3 lb don’t, I think,
accrue from cycle to cycle. Doing 10 brief
cycles won’t add 30 lb in that manner – if you get 30 lb it will be from the daily LBM
increases, not the sum of these initial jumps.