T Nation

Short Cycle Results

[quote]pickapeck wrote:
If you notice I use fairly low doses. I ran the numbers on publicly available spread sheets then checked them with my own based on 1st order rate kinetics and known 1/2 lives. I’m sure most of you guys are familiar with the publicly available ones. If you consider the dosages I was doing and the known 1/2 lives you will see that I am in the normal androgen blood level range within 17 days on the longest ester sets. While my scheme does not fit well with the accepted group mentality I did put a fair amount of thought into my recent cycling habits. I do realize that the generally accepted protocol is to use fairly high doses of short esters and orals. The idea is a burst of anabolism with rapid clearance to be followed by a brief PCT. My protocols are a bit different I admit, and are designed to do something different. I am older and not interested in high dose cycles of any length. I am interested in keeping doses low and making mild gains with minimal toxicity. I have blood work done twice a year and my values are good.

It’s actually quite amazing how quickly thoughts outside the box are attacked. I am certain that none of you will see the logic I have seen with my current regimen. That really does not matter because it seems to be working to my satisfaction. I am experiencing moderate gains as expected and my recovery between minicycles appears to be adequate. Additionally, I am subjecting my body to only mild doses of these compounds.[/quote]

Thank you for this response pickapeck, and I apologize if my first post seemed like an ‘attack.’ I truly didn’t mean it like that; like I said it just caught me off guard.

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
Completely disagree.

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.

Bushy[/quote]

I don’t see why we can’t have a civil discussion about this. You made some assumptions about my post that were incorrect. Perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I could be.

I agree about the differance of effect on the HPTA. I was going to add that at the end of my post but I guess I forgot. Regardless, I wasn’t talking about the HPTA anyways.

I totally understand the concept behind short cycles relating to the HPTA. It’s not that difficult a concept.

What I don’t agree with is people saying long estered androgens over shorter intervals are useless INDEPENDENT of the HPTA. i.e Deca/Equipoise over 8 weeks rather than 14. And if you add HCG, which many people should, endogenous output will be equal with both protocols anyways.

Yes the shape of the bell curves are differant, but there’s still the same area underneath (same amount of androgens). The differances in effect will be moot.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

HOME TEAM 3 - AWAY TEAM 0

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
pickapeck wrote:
bushidobadboy wrote:
Dopamineloveaffa wrote:
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.

Completely disagree.

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.

Bushy

Your ego is immense.

Hark at you, Mr ‘walk my own path, superior to the group mentality’.

You have bastardised the short cycle approach (which is fine I guess - everyone should experiment, thjough hopefully with a degree of logic) put together by Bill Roberts who is a respected and genuine steroid expert. You then get very defensive about it and accuse us all of being “sheeple”.

Following behind a great idea is one thing, branching off on your own just for the sake of it is something else.

Your cycle is only giving you ‘mild gains’ anyway. Big deal.

Bushy[/quote]

Again your arrogance is astounding. You are certainly a self proclaimed expert. You took it upon yourself to distribute certain substances to a group of your followers in this very forum with your “brilliantly” contrived mixtures and protocols. Some of those “lab rats” did not fair so well as I recall. Who has “bastardized” short cycles?..as if anyone could bastardize a bastard son of a science that AAS use is in the first place. You are close minded to any ideas outside your own. You are confident beyond reason in those attitudes and actions. Your attitude and actions make you dangerous.

[quote]Whoa! wrote:
pickapeck wrote:
If you notice I use fairly low doses. I ran the numbers on publicly available spread sheets then checked them with my own based on 1st order rate kinetics and known 1/2 lives. I’m sure most of you guys are familiar with the publicly available ones. If you consider the dosages I was doing and the known 1/2 lives you will see that I am in the normal androgen blood level range within 17 days on the longest ester sets. While my scheme does not fit well with the accepted group mentality I did put a fair amount of thought into my recent cycling habits. I do realize that the generally accepted protocol is to use fairly high doses of short esters and orals. The idea is a burst of anabolism with rapid clearance to be followed by a brief PCT. My protocols are a bit different I admit, and are designed to do something different. I am older and not interested in high dose cycles of any length. I am interested in keeping doses low and making mild gains with minimal toxicity. I have blood work done twice a year and my values are good.

It’s actually quite amazing how quickly thoughts outside the box are attacked. I am certain that none of you will see the logic I have seen with my current regimen. That really does not matter because it seems to be working to my satisfaction. I am experiencing moderate gains as expected and my recovery between minicycles appears to be adequate. Additionally, I am subjecting my body to only mild doses of these compounds.

Thank you for this response pickapeck, and I apologize if my first post seemed like an ‘attack.’ I truly didn’t mean it like that; like I said it just caught me off guard.[/quote]

I have no problem with you Whoa guy.

I haven’t been cycling for long, but there is one thing I have learned for certain so far:

Don’t fuck around with AAS for the sake of “mild gains”.

The whole point of short cycles is to have a crazy dose of AAS and do minimal damage to your own long-term test production, whilst maximising gains in the timeframe.

You simply cannot provide yourself with a high enough dose of long-estered AAS for this purpose. Assuming you dose as high as you would with short-estered gear, it will NOT be out of your system in time for recovery, nor will it provide the sharp peak you are seeking.

I once read in an article here on T-Nation (sorry can’t remember which) which theorised that most people need around 3.0 grams of AAS during any given cycle to see noticeable results, in terms of mass gain. Ergo 2 week cycle = 1.5ish grams PW, minimum. This is most certainly the case for me.

sounds about right… 300mg test 10 weeks…

or for you 750mg a week over 2 weeks… both as a minimum obviously!

JJ

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
How is this not a civil discussion?

You weren’t talking about the HPTA? Right sorry, I though that was the whole point behind short cycles. I must be mistaken, perhaps you can enlighten me.

The area under the curve will be the same, however if you think that a long slow peak will have the same effect as a short, high one, then again, you must know a lot more than me, so please educate me, I’m all ears.

Bushy[/quote]

“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.”

I didn’t think that comment was warranted, but whatever, no big deal.

I was arguing an entirely differant point that had nothing to do with the HPTA. Threads can go off tangent sometimes.

The differance in effect will be negligable, probably 10% +/-. Increasing peak concentration won’t linearly increase gains. It’s not a linear relationship. Regarding the same ester; A gram a week of test won’t give you double the gains of 500mg a week.

Therefore I don’t see how the shorter ester with higher peak concentration would necessarily be superior to the longer ester. If anything the relationship would favour the longer ester. Again, I’m discussing this point independent of the HPTA.

I’m not here to “educate” people, just discuss differant ways of looking at things. I’m not looking to win any arguments either and am certainly not married to my ideas.

Bushy, I respect your intelligence and contributions to the forum. That being said, there’s no reason for the condescending attitute.

[quote] JJ wrote:
HOME TEAM 3 - AWAY TEAM 0[/quote]

High five!

Oh, am I not on the home team? :slight_smile:

I didn’t know this was a competition.

[quote]Dopamineloveaffa wrote:
JJ wrote:
HOME TEAM 3 - AWAY TEAM 0

High five!

Oh, am I not on the home team? :slight_smile:

I didn’t know this was a competition.[/quote]

Looks like a pissing contest to me… i am not the one involved, ya prick!

[quote]Dopamineloveaffa wrote:
bushidobadboy wrote:
How is this not a civil discussion?

You weren’t talking about the HPTA? Right sorry, I though that was the whole point behind short cycles. I must be mistaken, perhaps you can enlighten me.

The area under the curve will be the same, however if you think that a long slow peak will have the same effect as a short, high one, then again, you must know a lot more than me, so please educate me, I’m all ears.

Bushy

“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.”

I didn’t think that comment was warranted, but whatever, no big deal.

I was arguing an entirely differant point that had nothing to do with the HPTA. Threads can go off tangent sometimes.

The differance in effect will be negligable, probably 10% +/-. Increasing peak concentration won’t linearly increase gains. It’s not a linear relationship. Regarding the same ester; A gram a week of test won’t give you double the gains of 500mg a week.

Therefore I don’t see how the shorter ester with higher peak concentration would necessarily be superior to the longer ester. If anything the relationship would favour the longer ester. Again, I’m discussing this point independent of the HPTA.

I’m not here to “educate” people, just discuss differant ways of looking at things. I’m not looking to win any arguments either and am certainly not married to my ideas.

Bushy, I respect your intelligence and contributions to the forum. That being said, there’s no reason for the condescending attitute.[/quote]

I think I get what you are saying here but just to be sure. You are saying that in the long run, the gains made on a longer ester vs a shorter ester would be greater? Like using Prop for a 2on2off2on-off cycle would be less effective as gains are concerned than a Test E cycle of 4on4off? Is this right?

And the second part of what you were saying, the leaving the HPTA part aside, I don’t think you can separate that aspect. From what I can see, a short cycle isn’t focused so much on enormous gains but on minimizing the side effects and recovery. From that point a long estered cycle of 4-5 weeks would appear to be more suppressive that a short cycle of 2 weeks with a shorter ester.

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
pickapeck wrote:
Again your arrogance is astounding. You are certainly a self proclaimed expert.

Bullshit. How many times have people referred to me as ‘guru’ or whatever, only to have me ask them strongly not to do so?

You are just pissed because you don’t like my critisism of your crappy protocol. You didn’t much like it when I picked apart (nicely) your LH and FSH ideas for TRT. Those weren’t based in reality either as I recall. However you woulodn’t admit to me that you were off base, only later when someone provided some refs.

You still have yet to provide any theory or science behind your approach. I always try to provide some behind mine.

Even when I blatantly copy the work of a giant like Bill Roberts, I explain to people what my reasoning is for the choice of drugs, etc.

You took it upon yourself to distribute certain substances to a group of your followers in this very forum with your “brilliantly” contrived mixtures and protocols.

Again I say “Look who’s talking”. You are prattling on about your own ‘special blends’. Whose blends are more ‘special’ anyway? I don’t give a flying f**k to be honest. I do what I do, based upon science. You seem to want to do your thing, just to be different. Which one is potentially more dangerous?

Some of those “lab rats” did not fair so well as I recall.

That’s one of the dangers of experimentation, didn’t you know that? Probablty not, since you only ‘experiment’ with low doses and mild gains.

Who has “bastardized” short cycles?

You have.

…as if anyone could bastardize a bastard son of a science that AAS use is in the first place.

So you don’t think that AAS use and research is scientific? OK, you go with that. I’ll go with the knowledge I’ve picked up over the last 5 years. Scientific knowledge.

You are close minded to any ideas outside your own. You are confident beyond reason in those attitudes and actions. Your attitude and actions make you dangerous.

How can you say that I am not open to ideas outside my own, when I freely admitted that the short cycle idea belongs to Bill Roberts?

Jesus man, learn to think.

My attitudes make me dangerous? If the application of scientific reasoning is dangerous then I am guilty of that.

You have NO justification behind your protocol, and feel threatened when I criticise it. You are operating as a sham.

In fact, the only virtue that your ‘protocol’ has is that it is ‘low toxicity’, whatever that means when dealing with AAS. If you knew more about the body, perhaps you would be able to appreciate that there are way to safely negate the extra toxicity of non-testosterone steroids. Not that they are particularly ‘toxic’ anyway.

Bushy[/quote]

  1. In our LH, FSH TRT discussion: I was the one who provided the references. I referenced AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS MEDICAL GUIDELINES FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE FOR THE EVALUATION AND TREATMENT OF HYPOGONADISM IN ADULT MALE PATIENTS�??2002 UPDATE. In fact I admitted that there is no established protocol that uses LH and FSH levels as markers to adjust treatment. Remember that we were conversing about primary hypogonadism, also known as hypergonadotropic hypogonadism). Since FSH and LH are elevated in such condition (i.e. hypergonadotropic hypogonadism), added exogenous testosterone should in theory relieve the pressure on the hypothalamus and pituitary to �??over�?? produce GnRH and LH plus FSH respectively. As I recall you did agree with this in theory. However, I was the bigger man and admitted that no accepted protocol for such monitoring currently is widely practiced after I did due diligence and search the literature. However, I did note, in truth, that I have had a personal communication with a very good endogrinologist that uses this method.

  2. Scientific basis for my method; All illicit AAS methods can only be based on extrapolation from legitimate peer reviewed scientific literature, which is woefully inadequate regarding the schemes used in bodybuilding and sport, and anechdotal evidence. I have already gone over most of the following. I use low doses of long and medium acting compounds and slightly higher doses of shorter acting compounds. The decay curves of these compounds predict that all dip below normal physiologic levels of androgens by day 17 of sensation of use in my schemes. This leaves plenty of time for a 2-3 week SERM PCT if I choose. As you should know, HPTA depression, or cavalierly and inaccurately referred to as �??shutdown�??, is not an on/off switch. Duration dosage and the compounds used all effect the severity and duration of HPTA depression. In general a user will recover more quickly from a shorter lower dose cycle than a longer higher dose cycle. My last blood work was very good and not open to your critique. My scheme provides 15 lbs of gain with 8 weeks total injection/oral dosing using low doses compared to most of today�??s standards. As I have already stated, I am no longer interested in use of high doses or large gains in mass for reasons that are none of your business. 210 �?? 220 lbs is plenty of mass to work with at 5�??9�??.

  3. Who has bastardized AAS cycling;. Firstly, AAS use is not a science. If you are the student of science you claim to be you will realize that no University�??s Internal Review Board (IRB) would approve of a study calling for the use of high dose multiple compound dosing regimes that are in illicit use. There is no research that can adequately duplicate or come close to duplicating what is going on in gymnasiums and locker rooms today. There is no venue where controlled scientific study can ensue. Neither IRBs nor FDA would approve such studies. Therefore, we must rely on any related research be it in the HIV, hormone replacement, cancer, and/or other research areas. We are then forced to rely on anecdotal (stories) evidence, which is not scientifically derived information. Therefore, illicit AAS use and theory is a �??bastardized science�?? by definition illegitimate science. The theories can not be tested in a scientifically valid venue. So the answer is that all those that theorize and then practice AAS use are practicing illegitimate science. As a thinking man you should know this. My scheme is based on the same bastard science that yours is and it is logically based on these very inexact facts upon which we all rely in this.

  4. Special blends and lab rats; My blends were made and used ONLY for my personal use. I have chosen to risk my health. It is highly irresponsible, dangerous and arrogant to prescribe drugs made outside GMP and regimes outside internal and external review of the necessary governing bodies. I would never do such a thing. It is one thing to risk one�??s health and yet quite another to risk the health of others. You state that these compounds are not that toxic when disparaging my personal cycling schemes. Did you consider the possibility of infection from your distributed home compounding experiment? Did you consider the possibility of hypersensitivity of your subjects? Did you consider anything beyond your own personal desires? As I recall some of your subjects did indicate signs of toxicity.

  5. Special powers of the internet; You have a following on this board, which affords you certain powers. You have assumed an omnipotent role in this. You have managed to garner respect from many here. Yet, you have chosen to abuse this power by dictating your opinions as fact and leading the people to the beat of your drum. Moreover, you have demonstrated that you are dangerous in your actions in this role.

I am usually a mild mannered member willing to offer opinions and engage is civil debate. What you have engaged in over the past 2 days has not been civil nor is it debate. It has been dictatorial, authoritative and often without basis. While my scheme is not for everyone, there is no reason to treat anyone�??s ideas the way you have. Your attitude towards others is reprehensible as are your actions that go out from this board and touch others health.

good approach if you are on TRT. good approach if you like blast and cruise. i don’t like it personally as a straight forward cyling plan…4 weeks is a little too short for long esters, i’d say 6 minimum. recovery will not be successful or complete between cycles for the majority of people either.

short cycles are focused on getting on, getting some gains, and getting off with minimal sides and suppression. you can only acheive all of those with certainty by using short esters in cycles of 4 weeks or less.

[quote]pickapeck wrote:
bushidobadboy wrote:
pickapeck wrote:
Again your arrogance is astounding. You are certainly a self proclaimed expert.

Bullshit. How many times have people referred to me as ‘guru’ or whatever, only to have me ask them strongly not to do so?

You are just pissed because you don’t like my critisism of your crappy protocol. You didn’t much like it when I picked apart (nicely) your LH and FSH ideas for TRT. Those weren’t based in reality either as I recall. However you woulodn’t admit to me that you were off base, only later when someone provided some refs.

You still have yet to provide any theory or science behind your approach. I always try to provide some behind mine.

Even when I blatantly copy the work of a giant like Bill Roberts, I explain to people what my reasoning is for the choice of drugs, etc.

You took it upon yourself to distribute certain substances to a group of your followers in this very forum with your “brilliantly” contrived mixtures and protocols.

Again I say “Look who’s talking”. You are prattling on about your own ‘special blends’. Whose blends are more ‘special’ anyway? I don’t give a flying f**k to be honest. I do what I do, based upon science. You seem to want to do your thing, just to be different. Which one is potentially more dangerous?

Some of those “lab rats” did not fair so well as I recall.

That’s one of the dangers of experimentation, didn’t you know that? Probablty not, since you only ‘experiment’ with low doses and mild gains.

Who has “bastardized” short cycles?

You have.

…as if anyone could bastardize a bastard son of a science that AAS use is in the first place.

So you don’t think that AAS use and research is scientific? OK, you go with that. I’ll go with the knowledge I’ve picked up over the last 5 years. Scientific knowledge.

You are close minded to any ideas outside your own. You are confident beyond reason in those attitudes and actions. Your attitude and actions make you dangerous.

How can you say that I am not open to ideas outside my own, when I freely admitted that the short cycle idea belongs to Bill Roberts?

Jesus man, learn to think.

My attitudes make me dangerous? If the application of scientific reasoning is dangerous then I am guilty of that.

You have NO justification behind your protocol, and feel threatened when I criticise it. You are operating as a sham.

In fact, the only virtue that your ‘protocol’ has is that it is ‘low toxicity’, whatever that means when dealing with AAS. If you knew more about the body, perhaps you would be able to appreciate that there are way to safely negate the extra toxicity of non-testosterone steroids. Not that they are particularly ‘toxic’ anyway.

Bushy

  1. In our LH, FSH TRT discussion: I was the one who provided the references. I referenced AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS MEDICAL GUIDELINES FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE FOR THE EVALUATION AND TREATMENT OF HYPOGONADISM IN ADULT MALE PATIENTS�??2002 UPDATE. In fact I admitted that there is no established protocol that uses LH and FSH levels as markers to adjust treatment. Remember that we were conversing about primary hypogonadism, also known as hypergonadotropic hypogonadism). Since FSH and LH are elevated in such condition (i.e. hypergonadotropic hypogonadism), added exogenous testosterone should in theory relieve the pressure on the hypothalamus and pituitary to �??over�?? produce GnRH and LH plus FSH respectively. As I recall you did agree with this in theory. However, I was the bigger man and admitted that no accepted protocol for such monitoring currently is widely practiced after I did due diligence and search the literature. However, I did note, in truth, that I have had a personal communication with a very good endogrinologist that uses this method.

  2. Scientific basis for my method; All illicit AAS methods can only be based on extrapolation from legitimate peer reviewed scientific literature, which is woefully inadequate regarding the schemes used in bodybuilding and sport, and anechdotal evidence. I have already gone over most of the following. I use low doses of long and medium acting compounds and slightly higher doses of shorter acting compounds. The decay curves of these compounds predict that all dip below normal physiologic levels of androgens by day 17 of sensation of use in my schemes. This leaves plenty of time for a 2-3 week SERM PCT if I choose. As you should know, HPTA depression, or cavalierly and inaccurately referred to as �??shutdown�??, is not an on/off switch. Duration dosage and the compounds used all effect the severity and duration of HPTA depression. In general a user will recover more quickly from a shorter lower dose cycle than a longer higher dose cycle. My last blood work was very good and not open to your critique. My scheme provides 15 lbs of gain with 8 weeks total injection/oral dosing using low doses compared to most of today�??s standards. As I have already stated, I am no longer interested in use of high doses or large gains in mass for reasons that are none of your business. 210 �?? 220 lbs is plenty of mass to work with at 5�??9�??.

  3. Who has bastardized AAS cycling;. Firstly, AAS use is not a science. If you are the student of science you claim to be you will realize that no University�??s Internal Review Board (IRB) would approve of a study calling for the use of high dose multiple compound dosing regimes that are in illicit use. There is no research that can adequately duplicate or come close to duplicating what is going on in gymnasiums and locker rooms today. There is no venue where controlled scientific study can ensue. Neither IRBs nor FDA would approve such studies. Therefore, we must rely on any related research be it in the HIV, hormone replacement, cancer, and/or other research areas. We are then forced to rely on anecdotal (stories) evidence, which is not scientifically derived information. Therefore, illicit AAS use and theory is a �??bastardized science�?? by definition illegitimate science. The theories can not be tested in a scientifically valid venue. So the answer is that all those that theorize and then practice AAS use are practicing illegitimate science. As a thinking man you should know this. My scheme is based on the same bastard science that yours is and it is logically based on these very inexact facts upon which we all rely in this.

  4. Special blends and lab rats; My blends were made and used ONLY for my personal use. I have chosen to risk my health. It is highly irresponsible, dangerous and arrogant to prescribe drugs made outside GMP and regimes outside internal and external review of the necessary governing bodies. I would never do such a thing. It is one thing to risk one�??s health and yet quite another to risk the health of others. You state that these compounds are not that toxic when disparaging my personal cycling schemes. Did you consider the possibility of infection from your distributed home compounding experiment? Did you consider the possibility of hypersensitivity of your subjects? Did you consider anything beyond your own personal desires? As I recall some of your subjects did indicate signs of toxicity.

  5. Special powers of the internet; You have a following on this board, which affords you certain powers. You have assumed an omnipotent role in this. You have managed to garner respect from many here. Yet, you have chosen to abuse this power by dictating your opinions as fact and leading the people to the beat of your drum. Moreover, you have demonstrated that you are dangerous in your actions in this role.

I am usually a mild mannered member willing to offer opinions and engage is civil debate. What you have engaged in over the past 2 days has not been civil nor is it debate. It has been dictatorial, authoritative and often without basis. While my scheme is not for everyone, there is no reason to treat anyone�??s ideas the way you have. Your attitude towards others is reprehensible as are your actions that go out from this board and touch others health.
[/quote]

Im not as scientifically inclined as either yourself or Bushy, so contributing too much to this will be immpossible really for me, the ‘science’ i have always worked with, in theory, is similar to yourself, im the lab rat - experience talks.
So, reguarding long esters for short cyles, no i do not agree, i wouldnt do it i wouldnt reccomend it, have i done it - Yes.
What i am struggling to find is any portion of Bushy’s original postings which fit any of your descriptions, dictatorial, authoritatve and without basis - i am not defending Bushy, i doubt he would even want anybody to do that, but those accusations are unfounded and stink of shit imho.
I also saw this in another thread a week or so ago, reguarding ‘Bushys Army’ or his ‘special powers’ that he uses to garner respect in his ‘omni potent role’, im afraid this also stinks of shit.
Again i am not defending him, but more the forum as a general rule because those statements are about as as justified as your Science.

Do not take this as an attack, you do not want to go to war with me and that is not my intention here.
I will continue to follow this thread as your approach has intrigued me, in the same way it intrigued Bushy and we are willing to learn, you picked the fight from nothing and for no reason, please continue to make posts on the subject in hand and educate us with your different approach, i am genuinely wanting to learn, just man up and stop the fight.

Reguards
Test

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

I haven’t read this post fully so I dont know about the arguing but I want to answer the original question. I blew the fuck up doing two 2 weeks on 2 week off cycles of 100mg Drol and 50mg winny. ohhh man. I went through 3 tubs of cytogainer in 2 weeks along with pounds, pounds and pounds of lean hamburger, bags of potatoes a bunch of olive oil and peanut butter and TONS of heavy lifting. I would still say bust out a cycle of test e with a taper. Simple easy cheap and BALLIN, I just started mine today.