bellicose said:
haven't been in the game very long but definintely prefer cycles over 12 weeks. The longer you have muscle on your frame the easier it is to maintain
If you haven't been in the game very long, I assume you mean you haven't done many cycles since you
stated that you were on for 3 years straight. If thats the case then one of your earliest cycles was 3 years long? Scary to say the least.
Congratulations on recovering so quickly from such a long cycle, but what about your next 3 year go, do you think you'll be so lucky?
I constantly hear people trying to justify their ridiculously long cycles with the
argument of "your body will become acclimated to the weight/muscle and you'll maintain better".
Is that really the case when you've gone so far beyond what your body naturally wants to be at by using gear? Its just going
to take longer for your body to return to its maximum potential state. And I'm not
looking for opinions unless you have a PhD appended to your name or a
valid study to point at.
I think the crowd that disregards short cycles have never really given them
a chance. My guess is that someone tries a "short cycle" of 6-8 weeks, runs
a long-ester such as Test C. or E., does little more than bloat during that
time because of other factors not being nailed down, comes off and loses
all the water they were holding and says WTF, short cycles suck!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not completely bashing long cycles (12+ weeks),
they will work, but at what cost? My guess is that if someone truly gave
both methods a try and did them properly you would see little difference in
the end result except that the short cycle crowd would be left with less
complications and sides.
I don't think I'll persuade anyone in this thread to change anything and I'm
not trying to; really I could give a shit less what you do to your body, meaning
what you inject into it and for how long. Just don't slack on that
bloodwork.