Why steriods gains diminish after 8 weeks.

[Newman]

Hello. I'm sure your theory must be a researched one but i have a couple of questions. Why does EQ work best yielding results when run for a minimum of 15 - 16 weeks with folk not seeing any kind of result up until weeks 6 - 8?

And similarly deca durabolin?

Good questions...

 

[superbeast22]

Hi Superbeast,

Try this...utilized all short /fast acting esters. Each of which had an active -
life of about 72 hours and a half-life of 36 hours.

Day 1 to 10 - 150 mg Prop/ 50 mg Masteron
Day 11 to 15 - 100 mg Durabolin / 150 mg Prop
Day 16 to 20 - 150 mg Durabolin / 100 mg Prop
Day 21 to 25 - 200 mg Durabolin / 50 mg Prop

I only have some dbol and prop right now. oh and some proviron. maybe i shoul make a lil order.

 

[joesamphilip]

Hello. I'm sure your theory must be a researched one but i have a couple of questions. Why does EQ work best yielding results when run for a minimum of 15 - 16 weeks with folk not seeing any kind of result up until weeks 6 - 8?

And similarly deca durabolin?

BUMP ^^^^ BUMP

 

[Liphted]

Hello. I'm sure your theory must be a researched one but i have a couple of questions. Why does EQ work best yielding results when run for a minimum of 15 - 16 weeks with folk not seeing any kind of result up until weeks 6 - 8?

And similarly deca durabolin?

I guess my question to you is why do you think what you've stated is true?

 

[joesamphilip]

I guess my question to you is why do you think what you've stated is true?

Two words. Personal Experience.

 

[Liphted]

Two words. Personal Experience.

Well I'm sold then. Thanks for clearing that up.

I guess my point is I don't feel that's true. Granted I'm referring to boldenone undecylenate. Yes it's a long ester, yes that effects the time frame in which you see results, but gear in whatever form is not some magical black box. As soon as your body starts metabolizing it it's "working", not 6-8 weeks later. And by working I'm referring to increasing nitrogen retention and protein synthesis/re-synthesis. Just because you are not 20lbs heavier 4 weeks later doesn't really validate what you're saying. EQ is one of the more interesting hormones in my opinion - it's subtle yet effective. The mechanisms by which it operates are very different than most. And no, it's not a replacement for nandrolone, the two act very different in the body. If you were to compare it to something a closer bet would be testosterone.

Anecdotal evidence is all fine and good, especially in this field, but I have some that goes against yours, so who's right?

My point to all of this is you can use boldenone effectively, in much shorter time frames than you presented, but I would choose a different "flavor". Cypionate is great, and if you are 1 in a million that can handle it, propionate would be amazing.

 

[superbeast22]

What do you mean can handle prop? I can shoot up 400mgs of prop and be fine... the pain doesnt get me at all. Is this what ur talkin about? My momma always told me i was special!!

 

[Liphted]

What do you mean can handle prop? I can shoot up 400mgs of prop and be fine... the pain doesnt get me at all. Is this what ur talkin about? My momma always told me i was special!!

Boldenone propionate? If so you're the first I've come across, and yes feel special, as in short bus special.

 

[superbeast22]

Boldenone Propionate. Talked to a buddy, I guess it makes people feel sick?

 

[MrDeflation]

any update on this

 

[RINO]

Well I'm sold then. Thanks for clearing that up.

I guess my point is I don't feel that's true. Granted I'm referring to boldenone undecylenate. Yes it's a long ester, yes that effects the time frame in which you see results, but gear in whatever form is not some magical black box. As soon as your body starts metabolizing it it's "working", not 6-8 weeks later. And by working I'm referring to increasing nitrogen retention and protein synthesis/re-synthesis. Just because you are not 20lbs heavier 4 weeks later doesn't really validate what you're saying. EQ is one of the more interesting hormones in my opinion - it's subtle yet effective. The mechanisms by which it operates are very different than most. And no, it's not a replacement for nandrolone, the two act very different in the body. If you were to compare it to something a closer bet would be testosterone.

Anecdotal evidence is all fine and good, especially in this field, but I have some that goes against yours, so who's right?

My point to all of this is you can use boldenone effectively, in much shorter time frames than you presented, but I would choose a different "flavor". Cypionate is great, and if you are 1 in a million that can handle it, propionate would be amazing.

But if ancedotal evidence is fine.Then why are you discarding his.Is it because His yours differs from yours? Still doesn't answer why he has a different expirence.

 

[RINO]

Boldenone Propionate. Talked to a buddy, I guess it makes people feel sick?

Is it Prop or Ace that makes you sick ?

 

[GoneForever]

This is very interesting and makes sense. On my last cycle years ago I did test/npp the first 10weeks then switched the npp to tren the following 6weeks. The first 8-10weeks I made excellent gains and the last 6weeks hardly anything changed. I wonder if its the acutal compounds or simply that the body can only put on muscle for 8-10weeks in larger amounts and then its drastically decreased. I mean that does make sense, the body cant stay i the same stage all the time, with more time of doing something the harder it gets. Maybe for pure growth its best to clean bulk with compounds for 10weeks then take a break and cruise for a few months to maintain and then hit another clean bulk with compounds for 6weeks for optimal muscle growth opposed to just trying to add all that mass in 16weeks straight.

 

[Buildinthaskinnys]

Ok this is interesting, so can one stay on longer if you cycle the dosages? maybe do a cycle of 12 weeks but do the first 4 weeks high than cruise for 4 weeks on a maintenance dose and then blast one more time? or do you guys think you need to come off completely after 8 weeks to allow your body to reset perhaps? This happened to me the one time I dabled with steroids, I essential made all my gains inbetween weeks 7 and 9 and although I increased the dosages of the deca I was taking from 150 mg a week to 300 a week, at about week 8 this did not seem to make a difference.

 

[Researchstop]

The body has Action/Reaction periods and factors. Basically the body begins to adapt significantly to most attempts at altering homeostasis after 2-3 weeks. This sucked since the best results from a cycle usually came during days 10-30. But we can profited from this information and used it to our advantage by utilizing brief
phases and cycles of 21-30 days, (this is the point where cycles provided serious
results) then got out before side effects out weighed benefits.

"To be successful it is necessary to create maximum growth thresholds and stop before the body is able to achieve its own counter measure thresholds."
L. Rea.

The best cycles are 8-10 weeks, not 30 days.

Well, you've started a really thread here, Scientist.

I'm curious how long it normally takes for myostatins to reduce to pre-cycle levels?

Put differently, I'm wondering how long it would be before a guy could go back on cycle again?

Also, do you have a link to that study so we can read it in closer detail?

The ideal thing to do would be to just stay on longer.



One of the problems with reading an abstract is that you don't get the whole story. I would draw the same conclusion that The Scientist did by reading that abstract. Because it's widely understood that cycle gains stall in the 8th week. Something we've know long before this study was done to explain why.
But if you read the whole study you would see that by the 20th week the myostatin levels went back to normal. I would show you the graph but I can't post a picture here.

Yes, your body will counter the change in your gene activity that is caused by the steroids. Now we know how, myostatin. But if you continue to use the steroids out about another 2 months your gains will continue. That's why people who are on all the time don't stall and don't have to go up every 8 weeks. You stay at one good level dose and grow like crazy. Then bump it up every few months and go back down in 8 weeks, all the while keeping your base dosing.


(the eq explanation belongs on another thread. Basically, it's the fact that it takes several weeks for the change in gene activity to begin with eq so the results, and I imagine the myostatin increase shows up much later. But really, who would do an eq only cycle?)

 

[qbkilla]

The best cycles are 8-10 weeks, not 30 days.



The ideal thing to do would be to just stay on longer.



One of the problems with reading an abstract is that you don't get the whole story. I would draw the same conclusion that The Scientist did by reading that abstract. Because it's widely understood that cycle gains stall in the 8th week. Something we've know long before this study was done to explain why.
But if you read the whole study you would see that by the 20th week the myostatin levels went back to normal. I would show you the graph but I can't post a picture here.

Yes, your body will counter the change in your gene activity that is caused by the steroids. Now we know how, myostatin. But if you continue to use the steroids out about another 2 months your gains will continue. That's why people who are on all the time don't stall and don't have to go up every 8 weeks. You stay at one good level dose and grow like crazy. Then bump it up every few months and go back down in 8 weeks, all the while keeping your base dosing.


(the eq explanation belongs on another thread. Basically, it's the fact that it takes several weeks for the change in gene activity to begin with eq so the results, and I imagine the myostatin increase shows up much later. But really, who would do an eq only cycle?)

what is your opinion if someone does not stay on year round? For me i always like to do time on= time off, to completley recover.

Would you reccomend 8 weeks on, 8 weeks off (year round), or 16-20 weeks on, 16-20 weeks off (year round). Just curious of your opinion.

 

[jdavid1139]

WOW

i really think you guys are complicating things.

stay on a cruise dose then up the test every time you reach a size/strength/appetite plateau then up the dose. do this till you cannot break anymore plateuas. add different compounds along the way all in a progressive manner until you hit a plateau you can't break.

then retire. and stay on hrt.

 

[Buildinthaskinnys]

i really think you guys are complicating things.

stay on a cruise dose then up the test every time you reach a size/strength/appetite plateau then up the dose. do this till you cannot break anymore plateuas. add different compounds along the way all in a progressive manner until you hit a plateau you can't break.

then retire. and stay on hrt.

And if you are taking 10000 milligrams of testosterone per week and still seeing diminished results, just stay the course?

 

[GoneForever]

The best cycles are 8-10 weeks, not 30 days.



The ideal thing to do would be to just stay on longer.



One of the problems with reading an abstract is that you don't get the whole story. I would draw the same conclusion that The Scientist did by reading that abstract. Because it's widely understood that cycle gains stall in the 8th week. Something we've know long before this study was done to explain why.
But if you read the whole study you would see that by the 20th week the myostatin levels went back to normal. I would show you the graph but I can't post a picture here.

Yes, your body will counter the change in your gene activity that is caused by the steroids. Now we know how, myostatin. But if you continue to use the steroids out about another 2 months your gains will continue. That's why people who are on all the time don't stall and don't have to go up every 8 weeks. You stay at one good level dose and grow like crazy. Then bump it up every few months and go back down in 8 weeks, all the while keeping your base dosing.


(the eq explanation belongs on another thread. Basically, it's the fact that it takes several weeks for the change in gene activity to begin with eq so the results, and I imagine the myostatin increase shows up much later. But really, who would do an eq only cycle?)

So brother if someone is staying on all the time, are you saying best gains would be made by blasting with extra gear/gh/slin for about 8weeks, then taking maybe a month to cruise at like 200mg test then blast again for another 8weeks. Im confused on what happend at week 20?

 

[Researchstop]

what is your opinion if someone does not stay on year round? For me i always like to do time on= time off, to completley recover.

Would you reccomend 8 weeks on, 8 weeks off (year round), or 16-20 weeks on, 16-20 weeks off (year round). Just curious of your opinion.

I think there is more than one way to address it.
If you're going to cycle in the traditional sense then 8-10 weeks. You can circumvent the myostatin to some extent by adding something to the cycle. Adding winny for instance for the last 4 weeks and going 12 would do it. But then your myostatin will continue to rise along with it.
Then you can get into the whole doubling your doses ever 8 weeks argument. Personally I have always recommended 8 + winny = 12.

So brother if someone is staying on all the time, are you saying best gains would be made by blasting with extra gear/gh/slin for about 8weeks, then taking maybe a month to cruise at like 200mg test then blast again for another 8weeks. Im confused on what happend at week 20?

It didn't happen AT week 20, it happened BY week 20. The levels went back down to baseline.

Yes, you would use a "cruising" dose and the go up 8 weeks and then back to your cruising dose. The people in my circle use 400-500 to cruise. This study used a top end of 600mg/wk for the highest dose of Test. But sure, you could use 200mg/wk.

I'd like to point out too that this study was not done by all the authors. The actual study was done in 2005 and the authors of this paper took the data from that study. Those of you familiar with the "Testosterone dose-response relationships in healthy young men" Bhasin et al study, that was where collected this data. Maybe I'm the only one that finds that interesting.