I just read an article with the following quote:
“The first steroid cycle you will do is usually the most effective in terms of muscle mass gains. Your muscles are full of testosterone receptors. They are therefore very sensitive to extra male hormones. Your second cycle will be a bit less effective. And it gets worst and worst. In order to counteract this diminishing effect of steroids, your only solution is to increase the dosages.”
Could the reduction in the sensitivity of testosterone receptors be permanent/long-term following a cycle, as the quote above suggests? Is that really the reason that a first cycle seems to be the best? I was thinking that the first cycle was the best simply because by the time of the second cycle, the user is already well past his natural maximum. This quote suggests otherwise. It seems to predict that someone who has previously done many cycles, but subsequently lost all his gains, would now be less sensitive to testosterone. Does that seem likely? If so, do you just accept it as one of the drawbacks of using steroids?
Or if the receptors’ sensitivity returns, then how quickly might it return? It sounds like it might take a lot longer that it takes testosterone production to return, if this is the reason that subsequent cycles are less productive than the first.