Short cycles with long esters yield the same results as short cycles with short esters. Yes, it takes longer to “kick in” but it also takes longer to “kick out” at the end thus making the two protocols equal.
Actually, I hate the phrase “kick in” as it’s not a true representation of the pharmacodynamics of the drug. Test cyp/enan starts working the first day albeit less so than test prop/susp.
You don’t go from nil gains to magically great gains at week 3/4 when using a longer estered androgen. The gains before are just more subtle.
The whole concept behind short cycles, is to only have androgens in your system for 2 weeks, 3 weeks max.
Any longer than this, and you suppress the HPTA. Which defeats the whole purpose behind short cycles.
The shape of the curve representing blood levels of hormone, when looking at long estered gear, is a lot more ‘blunt’ leaving a protracted timescale when you are ‘under the influence’ of the hormone, and thus suppressing your HPTA.
Conversely, a short ester provides a much more ‘peaky’ release of hormone, making it suitable for short cycles, because there is no hormone ‘hangover’.
I suggest that both yourself and Pickapeck have missed the entire point behind short cycles.
Please explain to me the advantage of running a 4 week cycle. Explain how the possible advantages outweight the disadvantages, and perhaps you can convince us that you are not playing with concepts you don’t understand.
Your ego is immense.