Q: “Your articles have two pieces of advice that are totally contrary to recommendations I read on boards everywhere. One, even for a guy’s very first cycle you seem to like choosing trenbolone. Everywhere else, the vets shoot that down when anyone suggests that’s what they want to do for a first cycle. You also write cycles up around a gram per week for first cycles. Same thing. Are those old recommendations which you’ve since changed, or is there a reason behind them?”
A: I still often recommend those kinds of cycles as first cycles.
Why I do so is a combination of experience and some specific reasoning.
I continue to recommend cycles of these types because they work extremely well. They never disappoint. In contrast, cycles of the type often recommended on boards and the like frequently disappoint, or require extended time to provide much result.
There hasn’t been an adverse side effect reason to stop recommending these cycles. With correct combination of steroids, and anti-aromatase use when using larger amounts of aromatizable steroids, side effects at the 1000 mg/week level are usually not problematic for those who are careful with what they are doing.
As for trenbolone, a very small percentage do indeed find it unsuitable for them entirely, but the great majority can use at least 37.5 mg of trenbolone acetate per day, and a large majority have no real problem with 50 mg/day. The most common issue is night sweats, but that’s a harmless price to pay.
When people agree with trenbolone as a suitable choice for later cycles but not the first, this makes no sense as there’s no regard in which previous experience makes a difference. If trenbolone is suitable for an individual, it will be just as suitable in a first cycle as in a later one. Anabolic steroids are not like narcotics: it’s not the case that tolerance must be or is developed.
Why have such fast gains as these higher dose cycles promote, though? Is there really a need for the beginner to make really fast gains, as occurs with such cycles and proper training and nutrition?
Well, a beginner, as with anyone but even moreso, wants to gain some amount. If he can gain an amount he’s thrilled with in a short time, then he’ll be happy with a short cycle. If he gains little in a short period of time, then he won’t be happy with that, and will seek longer cycles.
I would far rather see the beginner use short cycles, no more than 8 weeks and in some instances as little as 2 weeks, and enjoy fast recoveries rather than see him remain on steroids for 12 or 14 weeks, or even longer, trying to eke out results from marginal dosing. There are many reasons for preferring shorter cycles, including better recovery. Short cycles do not work well with marginal dosing.
About the author
Bill Roberts is an internationally-recognized expert on anabolic steroids and performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs). He received a bachelor degree in Microbiology and Cell Science and completed the educational and research requirements for a PhD in Medicinal Chemistry at a major American university.
Bill entered the nutritional supplement industry prior to completing his doctoral thesis but his education was invaluable so far as being able to design/improve nutritional supplement compounds, since it was in the field of designing drug molecules and secondarily some work in transdermal delivery.
His education was not specifically "geared" toward anabolic steroids other than expertise with pharmacological principles having broad applications. This has allowed Bill to provide unique insight into the field of anabolic pharmacology with knowledge of points which he would not have known otherwise.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.