Could anyone share their experiences with cycles that are max 4 weeks on? I'm getting back into the mix again after years off. It seems logical to me to be able to capture smaller gains on a systematic 4 weeks on 4 weeks off cycle and to not allow estrogen and cortisol to run rampant. Will this not possibly allow the body to recover more easily before it fully adapts to the exogenous hormones? Additionally it stands to reason that as a beginner (again) that using lower doses, but higher than the plasma endogenous threshhold levels would allow for nice gains with increases each cycle ( or when necessary) as the body adapts. I understand that most here are highly experienced users so it may not apply. But for someone starting out am I way off base here? Any input welcome.
©ALL CONTENT OF THIS WEBSITE IS COPYRIGHTED AND CANNOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE ADMINISTRATORS CONSENT 2002-2024
.gif "IP Gear")
Short cycles?
- Thread starter tflash
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2006
- Messages
- 75
Bump for more info...
I'm planning on running my next cycle 4 on 8 off.
I'm planning on running my next cycle 4 on 8 off.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2003
- Messages
- 1,694
Others will, no doubt, disagree, but I think you've got a great idea.
I've seen this done many times, and as you point out, there is much less disruption to the HPT axis. Gains per cycle are more modest of course, but my experience is that retention of gains tends to be better. Over the longerer haul of 12-24 months, people seem to get better lasting results with fewr sides and better control of the sides they do experience.
The two biggest mistakes people make are to go on excessively high dosages (for most this is anything over about 750 mg total per week), and stay on cycles for 12, 16, 24, or more weeks.
Use Nolvadex and/or an aromatse inhibitor like Arimidex, starting no later then your second or third wekk, stay on these for at least 4-6 (preferably 6) weeks after your last shot, and possibly use a little Clomid and HCG a couple of weeks or so after your last shot.
Another thing that works best with these short cycles is to use something with a very short half-life like propionate or aqeuous compounds.
Nice to see some sanity in the cycle length discussion!
I've seen this done many times, and as you point out, there is much less disruption to the HPT axis. Gains per cycle are more modest of course, but my experience is that retention of gains tends to be better. Over the longerer haul of 12-24 months, people seem to get better lasting results with fewr sides and better control of the sides they do experience.
The two biggest mistakes people make are to go on excessively high dosages (for most this is anything over about 750 mg total per week), and stay on cycles for 12, 16, 24, or more weeks.
Use Nolvadex and/or an aromatse inhibitor like Arimidex, starting no later then your second or third wekk, stay on these for at least 4-6 (preferably 6) weeks after your last shot, and possibly use a little Clomid and HCG a couple of weeks or so after your last shot.
Another thing that works best with these short cycles is to use something with a very short half-life like propionate or aqeuous compounds.
Nice to see some sanity in the cycle length discussion!
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2004
- Messages
- 189
i'm gonna come at this from the other side
i think when using a sensible dosage for a longer time (20+ weeks) allows you to make constant gains without your body's hormones constantly yo-yoing ... i find this allows your body to become acclimated to the additional weight and yes it will shut you down, but using HCG 2x week during cycle and a proper post cycle will bring your HPTA right back to where it should be
IMHO short cycles just lead to hormone yo-yoing and confusing your body .. you wouldn't change your sleep patterns drastically every few weeks, why change your hormone status?
i think when using a sensible dosage for a longer time (20+ weeks) allows you to make constant gains without your body's hormones constantly yo-yoing ... i find this allows your body to become acclimated to the additional weight and yes it will shut you down, but using HCG 2x week during cycle and a proper post cycle will bring your HPTA right back to where it should be
IMHO short cycles just lead to hormone yo-yoing and confusing your body .. you wouldn't change your sleep patterns drastically every few weeks, why change your hormone status?
I've recently made the switch to shorter blast and cruise type cycles. For me staying on
for 12+ weeks and then off for 12+ weeks caused me to yo-yo since I do a lot more than
lift weights (ie things that involve a substantial amount of cardio) and during the time I was
off and recovering I would tend to lose a lot of weight.
For someone who can take it easy during that first month off and not stress their body
beyond lifting weights I'm sure it wouldn't be such an issue.
such a long period of time and it's one of the reasons I'm trying shorter cycles.
No matter how you look at it you are yo-yo'ing no matter what, its just that you have
altered the frequency and magnitude as well. The time periods we are
talking about here are relative. Specifically, my short cycle will surely shut me down
less than your 20+ week cycle. So, the real question is how does the body respond;
does it prefer long cycles that completely throw it out of its ideal state, or does it prefer
short cycles that allow it to return to its original state more quickly? I think the answer to
this question, as most in bodybuilding, is specific to the person.
In my opinion I'd say give it a try because you will never truly know until you do. We are
all guinea pigs, in my opinion, all striving towards a goal and as much evidence that we
can provide each other, whether it good or bad, the better.
for 12+ weeks and then off for 12+ weeks caused me to yo-yo since I do a lot more than
lift weights (ie things that involve a substantial amount of cardio) and during the time I was
off and recovering I would tend to lose a lot of weight.
For someone who can take it easy during that first month off and not stress their body
beyond lifting weights I'm sure it wouldn't be such an issue.
Are you using time on = time off approach? If so I personally would hate to be off for
such a long period of time and it's one of the reasons I'm trying shorter cycles.
No matter how you look at it you are yo-yo'ing no matter what, its just that you have
altered the frequency and magnitude as well. The time periods we are
talking about here are relative. Specifically, my short cycle will surely shut me down
less than your 20+ week cycle. So, the real question is how does the body respond;
does it prefer long cycles that completely throw it out of its ideal state, or does it prefer
short cycles that allow it to return to its original state more quickly? I think the answer to
this question, as most in bodybuilding, is specific to the person.
In my opinion I'd say give it a try because you will never truly know until you do. We are
all guinea pigs, in my opinion, all striving towards a goal and as much evidence that we
can provide each other, whether it good or bad, the better.
Last edited:
question for the short cyclers,
have any of you done this for lets say a year, and if so how many pounds were you able to increase your bodyweight in that year?
I think the sherter cycles are what the body wants, but I belive the longer 16-20 weeks are better for puttin on size and keppin it.
have any of you done this for lets say a year, and if so how many pounds were you able to increase your bodyweight in that year?
I think the sherter cycles are what the body wants, but I belive the longer 16-20 weeks are better for puttin on size and keppin it.
b-boy
IFBB Pro / Quadruple Featured Member/ Verified Cus
IFBB PROS
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Verified Customer
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2003
- Messages
- 12,853
too bad that isn't the case in real world use, unless your going to increase the dosages as you go along, the body isn't stupid bro, SHBG is a bitch isn't it.. something to thing about!glenihan said:
the body doesn't have much time to fight back with short cycles, IM not saying they are the best, but they have advantages if used properly!
This is a fascinating debate and you guys are making excellent points. It has definitely stimulated thought. I am by no means regarding longer cycles (over 6 weeks) as bad. I'm just wondering if there are those who think (or know) there MAY be a better way to achieve gains the body would never ordinarily achieve, and in a much safer way. As I embark on a new journey of using AAS, for myself, I have got to have a long term plan. I don't want to just jump in to a 12-16 week cycle with 500 Test E, 400 Deca, 400 EQ and 30 mg Dbol as is a typical example I may see here.
In my research it seems that the body begins to adapt to most attempts to alter homeostasis within 2-3 weeks. If we can use a meticulously planned short term cycle that can take advantage of our choice of AAS, then we can "get in and get out" before the body can truly adapt. Then with an off period that allows the body to normalize again we are in effect "tricking the body into new levels of growth" with much less long term stress. Does this sound reasonable?
From what I understand, when you are "on" for over 6 weeks the body "reacts" by producing more catabolic hormones i.e. cortisol that counter-balance the anabolic effects. If this is the case then we would need to up our dosages at this point in a longer term cycle to stay ahead of the body's catabolic response, thus even higher doses required to grow.
Another issue here would be dosages. I ascribe to the theory that there is what is termed a "dosage threshhold". In other words whatever amount of endogenous (produced within the body) testosterone we produce, we would want to introduce our chosen AAS at a level that is sufficient to produce an effect on the body, as opposed to just arbitrarily picking an amount that most people use. By doing this, it would seem that we may be able to grow on lower doses (and with synergy of other AAS at lower doses) and be able to use these amounts until they fail to produce results for us. By exceeding the lowest level of AAS that will produce an effect we may be cheating ourselves of long term growth potential.
Dad makes a good point in that we would want to use shorter half-life compounds in these shorter term cycles.
I'd love to hear from those who have had experiences (good or bad) with both long term and short term cycles. I do believe though, that without proper planning and understanding of the dosages and the types of compounds we may choose, that it could drastically alter our results in a shorter term cycle. In other words it would seem that it could work well, but we would have to use impeccable planning.
In my research it seems that the body begins to adapt to most attempts to alter homeostasis within 2-3 weeks. If we can use a meticulously planned short term cycle that can take advantage of our choice of AAS, then we can "get in and get out" before the body can truly adapt. Then with an off period that allows the body to normalize again we are in effect "tricking the body into new levels of growth" with much less long term stress. Does this sound reasonable?
From what I understand, when you are "on" for over 6 weeks the body "reacts" by producing more catabolic hormones i.e. cortisol that counter-balance the anabolic effects. If this is the case then we would need to up our dosages at this point in a longer term cycle to stay ahead of the body's catabolic response, thus even higher doses required to grow.
Another issue here would be dosages. I ascribe to the theory that there is what is termed a "dosage threshhold". In other words whatever amount of endogenous (produced within the body) testosterone we produce, we would want to introduce our chosen AAS at a level that is sufficient to produce an effect on the body, as opposed to just arbitrarily picking an amount that most people use. By doing this, it would seem that we may be able to grow on lower doses (and with synergy of other AAS at lower doses) and be able to use these amounts until they fail to produce results for us. By exceeding the lowest level of AAS that will produce an effect we may be cheating ourselves of long term growth potential.
Dad makes a good point in that we would want to use shorter half-life compounds in these shorter term cycles.
I'd love to hear from those who have had experiences (good or bad) with both long term and short term cycles. I do believe though, that without proper planning and understanding of the dosages and the types of compounds we may choose, that it could drastically alter our results in a shorter term cycle. In other words it would seem that it could work well, but we would have to use impeccable planning.
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2004
- Messages
- 189
b-boy said:
i understand your point ... that really hasn't been my experience though for whatever reason
i've always been able to gain relatively steadily on longer cycles like i mentioned while taken ~750mg-800mg total a week
after i'm on for 24 weeks, however, i will take 16 off ... i lose some of my definition and a touch of muscle but its nothing too bad
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2006
- Messages
- 228
Short cycles wont work for certain gear
I like this discussion, all of you are making some great points! If you are using liver toxic orals then yes, short cycles to detox liver. If you are using test stay on a low dose. 250mg/ week stay on it all the time to avoid crashing and depression. because once you have used gear your natural test levels will never be the same again . hcg works but only if you keep using it. once you stop it your test levels are going down! Gear like eg / primo should be used for longer cycles like 10- 24 weeks. if you use eq/ primo you will still use your 250 mg / test base.this is close to what your body puts out anyway. you should also cycle in the nolva/ clomid/ arimidex but with such a low test dose your aromatization will be easily manageable. go off everything every 3 months for 2 weeks to detox . use herbs to detox your organs for two weeks, use heavy nolva/ arimidex for those two weeks. then re start 250 mg/ wk test base etc... peaceout bros!!
I like this discussion, all of you are making some great points! If you are using liver toxic orals then yes, short cycles to detox liver. If you are using test stay on a low dose. 250mg/ week stay on it all the time to avoid crashing and depression. because once you have used gear your natural test levels will never be the same again . hcg works but only if you keep using it. once you stop it your test levels are going down! Gear like eg / primo should be used for longer cycles like 10- 24 weeks. if you use eq/ primo you will still use your 250 mg / test base.this is close to what your body puts out anyway. you should also cycle in the nolva/ clomid/ arimidex but with such a low test dose your aromatization will be easily manageable. go off everything every 3 months for 2 weeks to detox . use herbs to detox your organs for two weeks, use heavy nolva/ arimidex for those two weeks. then re start 250 mg/ wk test base etc... peaceout bros!!
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2005
- Messages
- 718
The master expert on short cycles is Muscle Trainee. He is a genius. His board is AnabolicExtreme. I will see if can get him to post here. His knowledge base is insane..
Thanks Hiramabiff. I checked out some postings by "Muscle Trainee" on Anabolic Extreme. He confirmed what I was saying regarding the benefits of short cycles. It seems like he has tremendous insight. I would post the link here, but I was not sure if that was appropriate etiquette or not as I'm new to this board.
The link at Anabolic Extreme regarding short cycles is very enlightening. I just wanted to share 2 excerpts to give you an idea. The first one is by "Muscle Trainee" and the second one is by a veteran of short cycles.
The thread that this is on is excellent. I will post the link if I get the ok to do so and if people care to see it.
"There isn't any question that the less time your HTPA is suppressed, the faster and stronger it will rebound when you come off. And, there isn't any question that these guys who are doing one loooong cycle after another are ending up with damaged HTPA's. You see it, over and over, that, by the time these guys are 30 years old, many of them need permanent hormone replacement therapy.
The short cycle will give suppression to the HTPA which it will be easier to recover from, and be least likely to cause long term damage to the HTPA. There is a clear track record from short cycle users.
AAS cycles cause liver and kidney stress. If that stress is continued, month after month, and repeated over and over, in many individuals, this will equate to serious damage.
The same thing may be said for blood lipid inversions. Blood lipid inversions are commonplace during AAS cycles. If you continue that process for months at a time, it provides a basis for cardiovascular damage. Then, long cycle after long cycle, that damage becomes cumulative. Premature coronary artery disease is a clear risk factor, here.
The key is looking at the duration of time on AAS vesus time off AAS. With the short cycle, you are off more than you are on. And that on time is brief, so there is little opportunity for damage to occur. With the looong cycle, that on time is loooong. That duration allows for damage to occur. And nobody is willing to stay off so long that there is sufficient time to recover, even if it is possible to recover fully from that sort of damage.
There are many who say that injecting test prop ED, rather than EOD, will yield better results. It is my opinion that there is no difference in the results obtained between ED and EOD prop injections. So, why not spare yourself all those injections(and risk of scar tissue development) and just shoot EOD.
My recommended dosage for test prop is 125-150 mg EOD.
It is difficult to find test susp which can be injected with a slin pin. Most susp will jam in a slin pin. Also, susp should be injected deep into the muscle, to avoid the development of visible scar tissue lumps, over time. So, it is undesireable to use a slin pin to inject susp."
"With short cycling, the philosophy is simple and logical... shock the body as quickly as possible with short acting compounds, spend a short amount of time exposed to the drugs that shocked the body, take advantage of 90 of the drug's benefit in the first two weeks before the sides really kick in, and then get off them before the body has time to adapt completely and auto-regulate its own HPTA, foregoing the need for increasing dosages for each following cycle and still minimizing side effects. I have been doing short cycles for years, and I get the same amount of gains from each cycle, but my dosages havent gone up in 5-6 yrs. I have also made it a habit to have regular full blood work done, and my doc shows no deterioration of my HPTA, and my organs are all tip top. How much more logical can it be? I get to use drugs, grow, get strong, and have basically no long term risk (that is detectible at this point) to my health."
The thread that this is on is excellent. I will post the link if I get the ok to do so and if people care to see it.
"There isn't any question that the less time your HTPA is suppressed, the faster and stronger it will rebound when you come off. And, there isn't any question that these guys who are doing one loooong cycle after another are ending up with damaged HTPA's. You see it, over and over, that, by the time these guys are 30 years old, many of them need permanent hormone replacement therapy.
The short cycle will give suppression to the HTPA which it will be easier to recover from, and be least likely to cause long term damage to the HTPA. There is a clear track record from short cycle users.
AAS cycles cause liver and kidney stress. If that stress is continued, month after month, and repeated over and over, in many individuals, this will equate to serious damage.
The same thing may be said for blood lipid inversions. Blood lipid inversions are commonplace during AAS cycles. If you continue that process for months at a time, it provides a basis for cardiovascular damage. Then, long cycle after long cycle, that damage becomes cumulative. Premature coronary artery disease is a clear risk factor, here.
The key is looking at the duration of time on AAS vesus time off AAS. With the short cycle, you are off more than you are on. And that on time is brief, so there is little opportunity for damage to occur. With the looong cycle, that on time is loooong. That duration allows for damage to occur. And nobody is willing to stay off so long that there is sufficient time to recover, even if it is possible to recover fully from that sort of damage.
There are many who say that injecting test prop ED, rather than EOD, will yield better results. It is my opinion that there is no difference in the results obtained between ED and EOD prop injections. So, why not spare yourself all those injections(and risk of scar tissue development) and just shoot EOD.
My recommended dosage for test prop is 125-150 mg EOD.
It is difficult to find test susp which can be injected with a slin pin. Most susp will jam in a slin pin. Also, susp should be injected deep into the muscle, to avoid the development of visible scar tissue lumps, over time. So, it is undesireable to use a slin pin to inject susp."
"With short cycling, the philosophy is simple and logical... shock the body as quickly as possible with short acting compounds, spend a short amount of time exposed to the drugs that shocked the body, take advantage of 90 of the drug's benefit in the first two weeks before the sides really kick in, and then get off them before the body has time to adapt completely and auto-regulate its own HPTA, foregoing the need for increasing dosages for each following cycle and still minimizing side effects. I have been doing short cycles for years, and I get the same amount of gains from each cycle, but my dosages havent gone up in 5-6 yrs. I have also made it a habit to have regular full blood work done, and my doc shows no deterioration of my HPTA, and my organs are all tip top. How much more logical can it be? I get to use drugs, grow, get strong, and have basically no long term risk (that is detectible at this point) to my health."
Short cycles = short duration of muscle retention after the cycle is over. If you gain muscle quickly, & trust me, you won't gain much 'pure muscle' with a low dose short cycle, you will lose a lot of it when you go off, as your body has not assimilated itself to the new tissue. Easy come easy go. I've tried short cycles, medium cycles & long ones. I'd say anything under 12 weeks will result in eventual disappointment, as you will lose the hard gained muscle too easily afterwards, even with a good PCT. This is especially relevant for experienced BB with a good number of cycles under their belts.
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 162
HGH-> Gear/IGF-1
Has anyone tried a protocol of long term HGH with short AAS cycles bridged by PTC and Peptide cycles IGF-1/MGF?
Has anyone tried a protocol of long term HGH with short AAS cycles bridged by PTC and Peptide cycles IGF-1/MGF?
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 3,109
Well I thought I would add to this dicussion with my expiriences of the past and observations that I have made during my many years in the game.
First , I have only ever done short cycles period . The longest I ever did was 7 weeks . I went from from mid 220s to 293 in about 18 months using this method .It seems some guys like being on and the rutual of gearing up , longer cycles seem to be more appealing to these guys liking . But to me gear was a chore ,and I didn't like the way I felt when i was on [ other than changes physically I made and strength increases] . Gear was just a tool and it always made sense to me that the idea was to trick the body into gaining mass ........I would cycle using fast acting gear and then get off as long as I was on ......[ usually using alittle hcg ,clomid , and nov.......only cuz I am very sensitive to estrogen sides ] I would eat and sleep my ass off during my cycles and back off during the off periods ........I would gain 10 -15 and retain 8- 10 everytime ...........this seemed to work very well and seemed a smart way of doing things .......I was being trained by a top trainer on this board [ note this was 11 yrs ago] and years later he came up with some great methods similar to what we had come up with back then ........he perfected them to a degree ,and I am sure he has even more since.[ but I have no idea , since we don't dicuss those things anymore ]
I believe gear is just a tool, not the means to an end . The body grows in spurts, not slow and steady . Create the right environment with correct diet and training ..........then use the hormones to trick the body into growth . Back off let your body normalizee and except the tissue you tricked it into gaining [ remember your body is programed not to get bigger .....it fights it] Then do it over again .........If you use your diet , training , supps to form the foundation for your growth and not your gear . The gear will will be far more effective in IMO .......
I understand what guys like Palumbo are saying by recomending these long cycles .......but i believe there is a price for playing with your hormones for such long periods ......and I think relying on gear is a mistake ........gear is not the answer .........food is the most powerful drug .....like they say , " Mass is more of a battle of the knife and fork than anything else ." I also beleive you keep alot more of your gains in the long run using such methods .........I have not used gear or even trained consitantly in many years , but I assure you am still one of the largest guys on this board .........why ? Because I built a strong foundation before i ever touched a drug , use inteligent diet /training methods , and when i did use gear it was done right ..........the many guys that I have seen rely on hormones for long periods lose everything and then some because of all the cortisol that has built up in their bodies from being on for so long .........So in conclusion , I liked my cycles like I like my relationships with women ..........lol .....short and sweet ........lol......
I hope I have added something here . Really impressed by all that has been said here . [ And guys ,when dad speaks you guys should pay close attention ...........the guy is on it .......and is being way kind to contribute here ........thanks dad, if you are out there ]
One last thing , guys playing with these growth factors / peptides is insane in my eyes ......you are litterally playing russian rollete with your body.....please be careful . In my eyes , it is not nessary . stick to the basics ........remember ..........the only secret is that there are no secrets ......lol
First , I have only ever done short cycles period . The longest I ever did was 7 weeks . I went from from mid 220s to 293 in about 18 months using this method .It seems some guys like being on and the rutual of gearing up , longer cycles seem to be more appealing to these guys liking . But to me gear was a chore ,and I didn't like the way I felt when i was on [ other than changes physically I made and strength increases] . Gear was just a tool and it always made sense to me that the idea was to trick the body into gaining mass ........I would cycle using fast acting gear and then get off as long as I was on ......[ usually using alittle hcg ,clomid , and nov.......only cuz I am very sensitive to estrogen sides ] I would eat and sleep my ass off during my cycles and back off during the off periods ........I would gain 10 -15 and retain 8- 10 everytime ...........this seemed to work very well and seemed a smart way of doing things .......I was being trained by a top trainer on this board [ note this was 11 yrs ago] and years later he came up with some great methods similar to what we had come up with back then ........he perfected them to a degree ,and I am sure he has even more since.[ but I have no idea , since we don't dicuss those things anymore ]
I believe gear is just a tool, not the means to an end . The body grows in spurts, not slow and steady . Create the right environment with correct diet and training ..........then use the hormones to trick the body into growth . Back off let your body normalizee and except the tissue you tricked it into gaining [ remember your body is programed not to get bigger .....it fights it] Then do it over again .........If you use your diet , training , supps to form the foundation for your growth and not your gear . The gear will will be far more effective in IMO .......
I understand what guys like Palumbo are saying by recomending these long cycles .......but i believe there is a price for playing with your hormones for such long periods ......and I think relying on gear is a mistake ........gear is not the answer .........food is the most powerful drug .....like they say , " Mass is more of a battle of the knife and fork than anything else ." I also beleive you keep alot more of your gains in the long run using such methods .........I have not used gear or even trained consitantly in many years , but I assure you am still one of the largest guys on this board .........why ? Because I built a strong foundation before i ever touched a drug , use inteligent diet /training methods , and when i did use gear it was done right ..........the many guys that I have seen rely on hormones for long periods lose everything and then some because of all the cortisol that has built up in their bodies from being on for so long .........So in conclusion , I liked my cycles like I like my relationships with women ..........lol .....short and sweet ........lol......
I hope I have added something here . Really impressed by all that has been said here . [ And guys ,when dad speaks you guys should pay close attention ...........the guy is on it .......and is being way kind to contribute here ........thanks dad, if you are out there ]
One last thing , guys playing with these growth factors / peptides is insane in my eyes ......you are litterally playing russian rollete with your body.....please be careful . In my eyes , it is not nessary . stick to the basics ........remember ..........the only secret is that there are no secrets ......lol
Str8jacked said:
This is very similar to the "experiment" I'm doing right now. I'm running 4 week blasts
and cruising on Var for 3 weeks along with some HCG and Arimi. using advice from Dad (thanks by the way).
I plan on throwing GH into the mix as soon as my financial situation permits.
I'm doing the above (4 week blast, 3 week cruise) a total of 4 consecutive times and then adding
in IGF and continuing GH through PCT and staying off everything besides those two (GH and IGF)
for about a month and a half to two months depending on bloodwork.
I'm keeping my diet and lifting as consistent as possible in hopes to remove
those from the equation so to speak, which I believe will allow me to compare
how I respond to short cycles compared to long ones (12-16 weeks).
Unfortunately I'm only two weeks into the first round of blasting, so I can't
give you any real feedback, but I'm keeping a very detailed journal of my
progress/results so if you feel like waiting around I'll have some data for
you.
I'd like to hear from anyone else if they've done something similar.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Staff online
-
pesty4077Moderator/ Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Members online
- Simon90
- sylentkaos
- Diesel_Dick
- buffone77
- Pull Freak
- VakarianSK
- sandiego_2008
- ape1nope
- SB Labs
- hulkboy
- saucewater
- adpolice
- jfrost89
- samson516
- pesty4077
- hoodstark
- Dot89051
- Jkbarnett
- sciroxx-lab
- IronFist
- gauge22-v2
- bigjim6775
- Creep
- cser
- Brazzilian
- Mephistopheles7
- Rider
- tren
- maxrep24
- SAVAGEPMHNP
- Bobik
- BloodshotBen
- AceLabs
- BigRisk
- jumpguy23
- GreatGhandi51
- SleeperX
- luki7788
- SavageLMuscle
- BurgerKing13
- wannabeOO7
- Joey85
- EdgeCrusher1982
- pothole
- Barbell-king SC
- danjb
- Standfast
- sirtica
- mikelew
- Blueballs
Forum statistics
