Short Oral Cycles: Effective as Long Cycles?

A question for the knowledgeable.

Consider that oral aas is quick to reach its half life therefore, presumably, quick to be active and quick to clear down to an inconsequential level.

Also that in the event of a receptor ‘receiving’, the biological process happens; it just does what it does immediately.

(are these premises correct?)

Does that mean that the total gain from 1 week of taking oral aas will let you gain at same rate of gain as taking it for 6 weeks together, assuming everything else is the same.

In other words that there is no additional gain to be had from having several weeks on oral aas in sequence as against several weeks split apart here and there.

If there is then how does it work? It shouldn’t be a build up of T as that will be going up and clearing in hours after each tablet. Possibly a cumulative suppression of shbg or something else (if that happens cumulatively not in line with intake)? Possibly some cumulative effect on receptors, satellite cells or something else interesting along these lines.

Likewise suppression of your own T happens via feedback. Is that cumulative or very quick - its very quick in managing your own system for example.

As an afterthought on that, if you timed oral aas, e.g. taking at times of naturally low levels of T (evening etc) would the natural morning level still be ok, as there’d not be much aas left in the system to stop normal feedback? (I doubt this would work, but interesting anyway)

All a bit simplistic I know, but from reading around most people advise several weeks on oral aas because of habit and convention (also convenience, working in a cycle with a particular training/eating cycle and because I guess it’s nicer to gain 12lbs in 6 weeks than 2lbs in a week here and week there). I’d be interested in the physiological advantage of drawing out a longer oral aas cycle over several very short ones, if there is any real advantage.

Experience is always interesting to listen to as well, if you’ve played with short oral aas cycles.

I suppose the same could apply to shorter lasting injectables, the difference here though is the cumulative build and taper on an injectable should be much smoother than an oral even then.

I hope this helps clarify things for you. In general many dare I say most people will achknowledge that the gains from say 1gram of injectables per week for 6 weeks will meet or exceed the gains from 500mg of injectables a week for 12 weeks despite it being the same total amount of gear. The body will be in a state of suppression at 500 or 1000mg a week. Shut down is shut down. So being shut down for less than 6 weeks is better than less than 12 weeks. On everything but the longest estered products like Deca and EQ gains seem to come earlier and in the middle than towards the end of a 12 weeker anyway.

For orals specifically if given the choice between running dbol at 40mg ED for 2 weeks or 20mg ED for 4 weeks I’d go with the 40mg ED for 2 weeks. It is better to use an adequate dose for a shorter time period than a less than adequate dose for a longer time period.

By way of analogy, you could take 200mg of Test a week for a year [basically a high end TRT dose] but you will not receive as many “gains” per se in a year than if you ran just one 8-10 week cycle of 800mg a week. Total amount of gear is relevant to be sure but it must be placed in a context.

I agree with Saps on this.

Real good explanation and example.

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

Sure but he was asking about oral short versus oral long. I included the injectables to further illustrate the analogy that its the syngery of dose level and duration. Regardless of class 1 vs class 2. Someone could take 5mg of dbol everyday for a year but that would not be nearly as effective as 40-50mg ED 4 weeks.

The point was not to compare orals vs injectables but rather than anything is better at the proper dose and duration versus a suboptimal dose and extended time frame

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

[quote]saps wrote:
Sure but he was asking about oral short versus oral long. I included the injectables to further illustrate the analogy that its the syngery of dose level and duration. Regardless of class 1 vs class 2. Someone could take 5mg of dbol everyday for a year but that would not be nearly as effective as 40-50mg ED 4 weeks.

The point was not to compare orals vs injectables but rather than anything is better at the proper dose and duration versus a suboptimal dose and extended time frame[/quote]

Indeed and thanks. I would also think that short/optimal would do more than long/suboptimal.

Also, the key thinking in my post was that if, as example, 6 weeks on oral aas (at optimal) is a common cycle then would 1 week be as effective relatively speaking (i.e. it would be as 1/6th but not less than 1/6th)

the reasoning being that orals in particular are fast in and fast out, that the biological process happens anyway (t meets receptor, things happen) and cumulative t isnt a factor.

If not then what physiological factors would make a longer oral cycle better week for week than a short one (shbg lower? etc)

i’d be interested in any further thoughts, also on the suppression/negative sides part.

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

Thanks Altered, much appreciated.

I certainly hadn’t fully appreciated that difference regarding protein synthesis.

That poses another question - why (excepting Anavar) won’t it increases protein synthesis. Reading profiles on other sites havent specifically covered this.

Clearly I need to read up on class I and class II (any pointers?)

…Clearly I also need a huge tub of anavar at some point in the future to test this out :slight_smile:

Any other orals that will trigger protein synthesis?

(btw, i read that anavar doesnt suppress quite as much (mg for mg) as others (eg winstrol, db) which is also interesting if true)

Isn’t oral Primo class I, also?

[quote]barchie wrote:
Isn’t oral Primo class I, also? [/quote]

Yes.

So reading more, and putting this simplistically - class I is AR binding and class II achieves strength/size not so much by AR but by other means (water/glyco)

In oral aas terms class I is anavar and primo and class II is dbol, winstrol etc

Gains from class II will recede virtually completely relatively soon after cessation while gains from class I will stay (within reason)

Are there any post cycle benefits from class II - changes in receptors? something else?

the two tend to be synergistic I have read, but leads to the question - is (as example) dbol and anavar together going to leave you more gains post cycle as compared to the same dose of just anavar? (i know it isn’t always right to compare mg to mg of different substances, hope you know what i am getting at)

and again, I now take it that though a class I oral aas is quickly in and out of the system there is an additional benefit from taking it for longer (i.e. 6 weeks together is more than 1 week repeated on 6 different occasions) and this is to do with the time taken as described by altered above. That being the case, if aas clear the system quickly how do any stick around long enough to penetrate and if it’s a case of it taking time upon getting there then it shouldn’t matter how long they are taken for as it’ll do what it’ll do anyway once there.

Interested to hear some educated responses on this topic…

im curious also, this is a very informative thread.

[quote]gswork wrote:
A question for the knowledgeable.[/quote]

Most of my info and knowledge on this subject is from the great Bill Roberts, so look to his work for answers.[quote]

Consider that oral aas is quick to reach its half life therefore, presumably, quick to be active and quick to clear down to an inconsequential level.

Also that in the event of a receptor ‘receiving’, the biological process happens; it just does what it does immediately.

(are these premises correct?)[/quote]

I believe so.[quote]

Does that mean that the total gain from 1 week of taking oral aas will let you gain at same rate of gain as taking it for 6 weeks together, assuming everything else is the same.

In other words that there is no additional gain to be had from having several weeks on oral aas in sequence as against several weeks split apart here and there.[/quote]

I see what you are saying, but it isnt the case for all orals. take drol for example, that has a half life or around 8 hours, so if you do 100mg, with 50mg taken each 12hours, you will get cumulation of the drug.
Also it takes time for muscle to grow, you dont get gains of muscle in the first week even if you are using TNE. You will get water changes, but muscle needs stimulus, nutrients and time to breakdown, repair, supercompensate…[quote]

If there is then how does it work? It shouldn’t be a build up of T as that will be going up and clearing in hours after each tablet. Possibly a cumulative suppression of shbg or something else (if that happens cumulatively not in line with intake)? Possibly some cumulative effect on receptors, satellite cells or something else interesting along these lines.[/quote]

As i wrote above, it isnt JUST due to the increased levels of the AAS you have used, there are other mechanisms at play that allow you to grow at a faster pace. The same processes are being used to grow muscle by a natural or a doped athlete, but with the doped athlete the process is faster, more efficient, and there is generally a better catabolism:anabolism ratio. The processes doesnt magically ‘sprout’ muscle just because the drug is in there - thus why it is good to spend a long time (over 2-3 weeks) on a cycle as it gives more time to grow under these ‘perfect’ conditions.[/quote]

Likewise suppression of your own T happens via feedback. Is that cumulative or very quick - its very quick in managing your own system for example.[quote]

IIRC the suppression of the hypothalamus is very quick, in week 1 or 2.
But the suppression of the Pituitary is later, in week 3 or 4, which is the idea around the 2on,4off cycles… as the hypo is alot easier to ‘revive’ that full HPTA suppression.
the feedback is just the androgen being present which is detected by the HPTA (i do not know the specifics of this one i am afraid) which then begins to stop production of GnRH, LH and FSH as they arent deemed necessary as the test/androgen/steroid levels are way high enough already. its kinda like turning off a tap when a bucket spills over…[quote]

As an afterthought on that, if you timed oral aas, e.g. taking at times of naturally low levels of T (evening etc) would the natural morning level still be ok, as there’d not be much aas left in the system to stop normal feedback? (I doubt this would work, but interesting anyway)[/quote]

It is actually better to dose when natural levels are at their highest, as the body assumes this is down to the endogenous production and is a perfectly natural time to have raised levels. Then as the day goes on, the levels drop - as they do endogenously too.
If you dose at night, then you will have high levels during the early morning, and the HPTA wont stimulate the secretion of testosterone due to the negative feedback mechanism.[quote]

All a bit simplistic I know, but from reading around most people advise several weeks on oral aas because of habit and convention (also convenience, working in a cycle with a particular training/eating cycle and because I guess it’s nicer to gain 12lbs in 6 weeks than 2lbs in a week here and week there). I’d be interested in the physiological advantage of drawing out a longer oral aas cycle over several very short ones, if there is any real advantage.[/quote]

As i mentioned above, it is due to the fact it still takes time to build muscle… however, there is definitely something to be said for short, intense cycles… i think you will get shut down with 3 weeks or more, and if that is the case, you may as well do 6-8 weeks (10-12 is supposedly even more suppressive) - but B.R writes about his 2:4 cycles which are repeated back to back over the year, and produce the same gains. However:

4 x 2weeks on, 4weeks off = 15lbs gained over 24 weeks
1 x 8weeks on = 15lbs gained over 8 weeks.

So while the time on is the same, the gains are the same - the time it takes to gain is longer.
But for those who are not in a rush, or who are concerned about their HPA function - then this is a viable alternative it seems.[quote]

Experience is always interesting to listen to as well, if you’ve played with short oral aas cycles.

I suppose the same could apply to shorter lasting injectables, the difference here though is the cumulative build and taper on an injectable should be much smoother than an oral even then.[/quote]

Hope this helps?

Thanks for the info

[quote] Brook wrote:

I see what you are saying, but it isnt the case for all orals. take drol for example, that has a half life or around 8 hours, so if you do 100mg, with 50mg taken each 12hours, you will get cumulation of the drug.
Also it takes time for muscle to grow, you dont get gains of muscle in the first week even if you are using TNE. You will get water changes, but muscle needs stimulus, nutrients and time to breakdown, repair, supercompensate…

4 x 2weeks on, 4weeks off = 15lbs gained over 24 weeks
1 x 8weeks on = 15lbs gained over 8 weeks.

So while the time on is the same, the gains are the same - the time it takes to gain is longer.
But for those who are not in a rush, or who are concerned about their HPA function - then this is a viable alternative it seems.
[/quote]

I can see some accumulation with orals then, if so timed. The stimulus, nutrients, time (repair etc) factors would be there anyway if you continued as normal. then the introduction of the aas would ‘do what it does’. The point I’m getting at there, unless I’m missing something physiologically as altered was suggesting I may be, when looking at a steroid meeting a receptor and doing it’s thing, that’s a singular event - it’s ‘received’ and does what it does. So in a sense even one extra molecule of T for that one moment would ‘help’ (though not noticeably!)

If that is how (AR acting) aas works at the simplest level then even ultra-short cycles ‘help’ although they may not be noticeable.

It would suggest that longer cycles work better because of consistency in exercise stimulus and using what you eat over time rather than the time itself being the key factor in the effect.

Using the example 4x2=15lb (but let’s say 16lb!)

1 week would only be 2lb of gain, a less obvious gain than 16lbs (after 8 weeks) but coming at the same rate of growth.

Taking it to the ridiculous level, taking the aas for one day would be 1/7th of that 2lb (if all other factors are in place), not that anyone would notice.

also important is the difference between action, class I v II and the role of protein synthesis and more permanent gains.

I suspect, ultimately, there are many other variables acting which muddy the waters so that analysis (esp. those involving numbers) aren’t really that useful, though intriguing.

Would love to see studies in multiple short cycles v longer ones.

I see what you are saying, but we dont know that the gains come daily as 1/7th’s of weekly growth spurts! In fact it is pretty safe to assume they dont.

I think you need to stay on for a length of time for any growth to occur… i agree that some anabolics for some time could cause growth that isnt noticeable, but is still there… but i dont think it is on a daily level.

I think a good example of this is if you took 25mg of dianabol a week after one session. You would probably never notice the results from that, there probably wouldnt be any at all.
But if you took it after training every session for 5 sessions a week, then you would notice, at the end of 3-8 weeks a considerable difference in performance and physique changes.

I dont think that it is due to the dianabol only making small gains when taken once a week, it is that gains arent made in one session… they are a result of a number of sessions continually stressing the muscle… an educated guess may be 4-5 sessions before adaptation occurs (i think i remember reading it was 6 sessions or 2 weeks for adaptation to occur)
Overloading the body one time wont do shit, it wouldnt make you stronger or bigger, even un-noticeably so. it takes continual stress… so the body has to change to keep the work output low.

Indeed I doubt they happen daily, and yet at a physiological level the synthesis of protein is quite quick and the trigger absolute.

It’s something experimenting won’t uncover because miniscule gains from aas over every short time scales wouldn’t be big enough to notice, nor could we rule out other factors

Consistent stimulus makes sense in terms of yielding adaptation - though if we exercise over 5 sessions and take aas only on one of the days then the effect of aas, the level of ar activation (prob not the right term!) and protein synthesis could be being raised.

It’s interesting but probably not practical. However noting the example you gave where 8 weeks gives the same as 4 lots of 2 weeks suggests short cycles of orals can work.

I though dbol gains tend to recede quickly because they don’t raise protein synthesis all that much?

… I can see why some people become captivated by the world of hormones, steroid types and so on. It’s all interesting.

It is…

I honestly dont know about the level of protein synthesis of dianabol. You may be right, but i do know that Dbol does give lean gains - albeit under the bloat. They are just a lot less than one would expect/hope/want.

The example i gave was an example i read by Bill Roberts (good guy!) on the details of his 2 on 4 off cycles: repeated.
He had a trainee follow his cycles and measured the growth and progression of his persormance and physique.

Do you not par-take yourself then?

JJ

I’d understood dianabol to be class II and that it’s size gains were not predominantly protein synthesis thus wearing off soon after cessation.

Reading through the orals I’d picked out anavar as being the best allround (for retaining gains) because it does enhance synthesis and also increases cp in muscles allowing more stimulus in exercise. Also there is no conversion to estro and (in modest dosages anyway) less hpta shutdown.

The main problem with anavar seems to be its availability, cost and likelyhood of being faked.

however it may be that a mix of dbol and anavar would be better than an equally dosed anavar only cycle because of a synergy (I’d be interested in understanding the basis of that)

I don’t partake but have nothing against it. It’s a fascinating field and i admit to being tempted. I won’t rule it out.

If I did I would use them to accelerate towards a strength/size goal and to compensate for any possible downside of being a bit older (late 30’s) rather than to try and go beyond a sustainable muscle mass, i.e. I’d want to get to where i could get, but quickly!