This brings up a question as to what is healthier.
Does it do more harm to the body to do everything at 100% for 3-4 years as a young man and get massive quick? Or...does it do more harm to start low and gradually work your dosage up over an 8-10 year period, but end up using more total AAS for a longer peripod of time just to end up the same size?
I would put my money on the latter being more harmful every time. Of course, no one is going to stop using AAS after just 3-4 years when they've been taking it very seriously, but when strictly comparing the degree of risk between those 2 time-frames for getting big, the longer-term approach has a greater potential for harm, due to a longer period of exposure and a larger amount of total AAS being administered over that period of time.
The more total AAS which are used and the longer they're used for, the greater the risks become, generally speaking.
Here is another example. Let's say someone is just starting to use AAS and wants to gain 60 lbs. Well, 60 lbs could be gained in 2 cycles or 20 cycles. What has more potential for long-term harm? We could take one beginner and immediately put him on an extreme mass-building diet with hard & intelligent training...along with heavy doses of Test, Nandrolone, D-bol, Slin, GH, and Myoststain-inhibitors...and watch this guy blow up 60 lbs in two 12 week cycles. Or...we could have a guy start with 300 mg of test for his 1st cycle and gradually add in compounds and increase the dosages as time goes by...and watch him gain 60 lbs in 5 years.
From my perspective, the guy using AAS for 5 years to gain that 60 lbs is going to expose himself to potentially more serious side effects, as much of the damage done through AAS accumulates ove time. Yes, a beginner doing heavy doses as a 1st cycle is going to experience more outwardly noticable side effects comared to someone runnihg a mild cycle, but over the long-term, that single heavy-dose cycle will do less damage than many lower dose cycles over several years.
look at the cardiovacular risk factors, for instance. Cardiovascular harm leading to heart attack and/or stroke is the single biggest threat an AAS user faces....and this type od damage accumulates over time. A single mild Anavar cycle can crush someones lipid profile over just a few weeks, lowering their good cholesterol into the teens or single digits. On the flip-side, someone could run a high dose injectable & oral cycle, but their lipid profile isnt going to get much worse than the single digits no matter how much gear they take. It's similar with Bloodpressure. Having high BP for a relatively shprt period of time is MUCH less injurious than having elevated BP over along peripod of time...and as long as someone takes the proper steps to control their BP, a high-dose cycle doesn't necessarily have to elevate BP more than a moderate dose cycle. It's also the same with hematocrit; we can control hematocrit with high-dose or low-dose cycles, so having elevated hematocrit over the long-term with moderate dose cycles is going to be more injurious to the cardiovascular system than a single high-dose cycle.
It is not just the cardiovascular risk factors which work in this manner either. Much of the harm done with AAS is dependent on how long the body is exposed to a particular risk factor.
.gif "IP Gear")
This is likely to change soon 
