MAG-10 in the long run

Bill, you have said that androgens’, and consequently MAG10’s, ability to produce good results goes down a bit after the third cycle or so. why is this? Is it because you are getting closer to your genetic limit, is it because your body “gets used to” the substance or is it actually both? I am trying to make a long term plan which will help me get the most out of this supplement. So I was thinking of cutting up first(from 11 to 6-7%) and then adding mass, but if my body gets used to MAG10 then I think I had better save it for bulking only.
So what do you think?

Just bumping this. Hasn’t anyone else thought of this, or is the answer that obvious??

It would only be a matter of getting “less results” given a peculiar definition of that.

I’d say that going from say 200 at some low percentage bodyfat to 205 is achieving a greater result.

However, many use the peculiar method of saying that achieving 205 from 200 is less of a result than was achieving 200 from say 190.

For any given hormonal milieu, exercise protocol, and diet, there is a maximum muscular size that will be achieved in the steady state – there’s a limit to how big you can get on it. When further away from that point, you gain more rapidly, and when closer to it, you gain more slowly.

To gain rapidly again while close to this point, it would be necessary to change the conditions. For example, add GH and insulin,
at which point the hormonal milieu is such that (for example) the same exercise and diet conditions can provide substantial further gains that would have been impossible without this change in the drug program.

So essentially, the diminution of gains is a result of being closer to genetic potential – including the hormonal mileu and other protocols being equal – not some other mechanism. Correct?

Yes, I believe so.

And it’s definitely not the ordinal number
of the cycle… there is no magic “first cycle” deal. Most assuredly, your fifth or tenth cycle, or whatever, will usually give more gains than your first, if it starts
out at lower LBM than your first did. This is seen sometimes when someone abandons training for a while and then resumes, or has suffered severe losses due to injury or illness.

In your example above of the 5th or 10th cycle acieving better results than the first cycle if LBM is lower in the later cycle due to, for instance, a break in training, doesn’t the phenomenon of “muscle memory” also have a part here? I don’t know if muscle memory has ever been scientifically proven but I have seen the results of it many times. What are your thoughts on it Bill?

Well, sure. But my point was simply to refute
beyond doubt the frequent assertion that “the first cycle is always the best.” There is no process by which the body “decides” to perform worse now on account of the number of cycles previously done, per se.