There has been some debates that 2-3 week cycles with short acting esters could overall give better results for trainers who aren?t competitive PL and BB (who have to stay on all the time).
That is, you wont gain 30 pounds, but you?ll retain most of your gains and wont need PCT even if would still be useful. You dont have to wait 10-12 weeks for your next cycle while brooding with low test watching all your gains melt away.
I?ve seen very little feedback on this in the archives, and almost all the posters still talk about 8-10-12+ week cycles.
Let?s say you do two 12 week cycles or three 8 week cycles, you?d be "on" 24 weeks in a year. Would that give better results and less side effects than eight 3 week cycles ? still 24 weeks "on"? I?m interested in gains I CAN KEEP. Not doing the yo yo.
I stopped a planned Mag10 cycle (yep I still have some of those babies!!) after 4 DAYs for some timing issue. I noticed that I have really recuperated way better while on, yet I obviously don?t have any post cycle crash.
So? would taking fast acting orals on a 2 day on, 5 day off pattern be worth it, or just a waste of gear?
Anyone has tried 2-3 week cycles or 2-3 DAYS ?cycles? ???