Would either of you recommend a 2-on/4-off cycle like BR wrote about a long time ago? What changes would you make?
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
2-on/4-off cycles...BR, Dr Scally
- Thread starter Bob Smith
- Start date
I do not know what exactly you mean by this, but I assume it means 2 weeks AAS followed by 4 weeks no AAS. If that is correct, I do not necessarily agree. For example, what purpose would this serve if one was doing 500-750 mg/week of TC/TE. At the end of the second week (three injections), the T level will be 2,000-3,000 ng/dL. It will take almost a month for the HPTA to return under ideal circumstances. There is a very good chance the HPTA will be suppressed. Do you get the downfall for the 2/4?
Well, for those reasons I didn't recommend it that way, and still don't.
The correct method is to use short acting compounds, for example trenbolone acetate and Dianabol. Recovery is within days or even with no perceived period of doing at all poorly.
And also doses used are sufficient to give results in even this short time. Frontloading is also employed so that levels are effectively high almost from the very beginning, rather than having to wait a couple of weeks to build up.
The correct method is to use short acting compounds, for example trenbolone acetate and Dianabol. Recovery is within days or even with no perceived period of doing at all poorly.
And also doses used are sufficient to give results in even this short time. Frontloading is also employed so that levels are effectively high almost from the very beginning, rather than having to wait a couple of weeks to build up.
Here is the 2-On, 4-Off Cycle as originally published on MESO several years ago.
An Integrated Drug, Training, and Nutrition Program
The 2-On, 4-Off Cycle - A Case Study
An Integrated Drug, Training, and Nutrition Program
The 2-On, 4-Off Cycle - A Case Study
I do like this. And would like to see such a program rigorously followed by labs, DXA, etc. It could potentially serve as a model for wasting.
OhNoYo
New Member
Mr. Roberts & Dr. Scally, then in theory wouldn't suspension AAS work the best then, as they would be eliminated from the body quicker than any other injectable? Furthermore, since ppl following this particular schedule would be getting back on AAS after only a 4 week break, wouldn't orals after a few cycles become rather harsh on the liver as well?
Thanks Millard. Ive read those a bunch of times, which is what sparked my interest. I was just wondering if Bill would make any changes to the original program, as 10 years has passed since it was written.
Ohnoyo, I fully expect testosterone suspension could be acceptable but even after all this time I have no experience with it, either direct or reported. I can't imagine why not though. Zambon Winstrol Depot has worked fine as a component in a 2 week stack when limited to the first week.
The reason I mention the make of Winstrol Depot is that with suspensions, particle size affects duration of action, with larger particle size giving longer duration of action.
I don't know how many days testosterone suspension -- particularly some unknown UG product -- could be used while still allowing levels to have fallen by day 15 enough to allow recovery to begin.
It might well not be quicker-clearing than trenbolone acetate for this purpose.
I certainly expect it could be used.
Bob, really the substantial differences that have occurred with time are:
1) It's been learned that the number of "off" weeks can be treated as being a sort of sliding scale: 4 weeks off is quite conservative yet allows nearly 9 cycles per year and so represents a balance many who are health conscious will prefer, 2 weeks "off" is more aggressive but not highly so, or even only one "off" week can be employed for several cycles in a row while still maintaining quick recoveries each time. But being "on" two-thirds of the time is getting more aggressive yet of course.
2) For those having dates where they really wish to be at their best, for example bodybuilding contests, a number that have wanted to balance some conservatism for their health with the bodybuilding goal and have had me provide them with long-term plans have liked using two-week cycles for most of the training year but a longer cycle, e.g. 8 or 10 weeks, to peak them for the important day.
This last thing hasn't changed with time: If one is going to be using a given amount of drugs and for a given number of weeks per year, approximately -- say 28 weeks as an example -- fourteen 2-week cycles definitely seems to give better results than two 14-week cycles, and to say the least, the declines (if indeed there are any declines besides dropping water weight) in the 2-week-long off weeks are far less than the 14-week off-weeks of the long-cycle plan.
The same is true, but to a lesser extent, for comparisons with cycles shorter than 14 weeks, but 14 weeks is an example that I like to use as it's very much beyond the point of diminishing returns and, if choosing to be "off" for example half of the time, makes for an obviously longer-than-desirable off period.
Nothing new there, but it's almost as if it's new as it is a concept that at any given time many will find to be a new perspective.
The reason I mention the make of Winstrol Depot is that with suspensions, particle size affects duration of action, with larger particle size giving longer duration of action.
I don't know how many days testosterone suspension -- particularly some unknown UG product -- could be used while still allowing levels to have fallen by day 15 enough to allow recovery to begin.
It might well not be quicker-clearing than trenbolone acetate for this purpose.
I certainly expect it could be used.
Bob, really the substantial differences that have occurred with time are:
1) It's been learned that the number of "off" weeks can be treated as being a sort of sliding scale: 4 weeks off is quite conservative yet allows nearly 9 cycles per year and so represents a balance many who are health conscious will prefer, 2 weeks "off" is more aggressive but not highly so, or even only one "off" week can be employed for several cycles in a row while still maintaining quick recoveries each time. But being "on" two-thirds of the time is getting more aggressive yet of course.
2) For those having dates where they really wish to be at their best, for example bodybuilding contests, a number that have wanted to balance some conservatism for their health with the bodybuilding goal and have had me provide them with long-term plans have liked using two-week cycles for most of the training year but a longer cycle, e.g. 8 or 10 weeks, to peak them for the important day.
This last thing hasn't changed with time: If one is going to be using a given amount of drugs and for a given number of weeks per year, approximately -- say 28 weeks as an example -- fourteen 2-week cycles definitely seems to give better results than two 14-week cycles, and to say the least, the declines (if indeed there are any declines besides dropping water weight) in the 2-week-long off weeks are far less than the 14-week off-weeks of the long-cycle plan.
The same is true, but to a lesser extent, for comparisons with cycles shorter than 14 weeks, but 14 weeks is an example that I like to use as it's very much beyond the point of diminishing returns and, if choosing to be "off" for example half of the time, makes for an obviously longer-than-desirable off period.
Nothing new there, but it's almost as if it's new as it is a concept that at any given time many will find to be a new perspective.
Last edited:
Here's some useful discussion on the topic from a while back on the HST forums.
From Blade:
And from Bryan Haycock:
From Blade:
And from Bryan Haycock:
I do generally agree with the view expressed by the authors above that if one is going to go past the 2 weeks, then one might as well go 8 weeks.
Where I think there can be an exception is where the lifter has a training plan that varies with time, that he considers it best to follow, and it seems to him that matching up steroid use with the training plan will involve periods of use such as 3 weeks or 6 weeks or what-have-you.
As Bryan Haycock said in Conciliator's quote, with ancillaries this can be managed so there is no "crash" of any kind.
Aside from the shorter periods of use perhaps better matching up with more intensified periods of the training plan, additionally -- where the same number of off weeks will be taken per year, or as another way of looking at it, the percentage of time "off" is kept the same -- the shorter-than-8-weeks "on" periods allow shorter off periods as well, which also may better fit the training plan.
Most bb'ers really do not follow such plans and are doing fine without them, so this is a fine point I usually don't address. But it seemed to fit in well with what Bryan Haycock was saying above.
Also, Blade is correct that I only popularized the 2-week method. I learned of it from Alexander Filippides, and he did not claim to have invented it himself, though in his own case and with the athletes he worked with, he developed it independently. But that surely is not to say that no one had ever done it before.
Where I think there can be an exception is where the lifter has a training plan that varies with time, that he considers it best to follow, and it seems to him that matching up steroid use with the training plan will involve periods of use such as 3 weeks or 6 weeks or what-have-you.
As Bryan Haycock said in Conciliator's quote, with ancillaries this can be managed so there is no "crash" of any kind.
Aside from the shorter periods of use perhaps better matching up with more intensified periods of the training plan, additionally -- where the same number of off weeks will be taken per year, or as another way of looking at it, the percentage of time "off" is kept the same -- the shorter-than-8-weeks "on" periods allow shorter off periods as well, which also may better fit the training plan.
Most bb'ers really do not follow such plans and are doing fine without them, so this is a fine point I usually don't address. But it seemed to fit in well with what Bryan Haycock was saying above.
Also, Blade is correct that I only popularized the 2-week method. I learned of it from Alexander Filippides, and he did not claim to have invented it himself, though in his own case and with the athletes he worked with, he developed it independently. But that surely is not to say that no one had ever done it before.
Last edited:
newbie23
New Member
2 weeks on 4 weeks off? 
silly
silly
On the orals point: If "on" for the same number of weeks per year and same percentage of time, I don't see a reason to think or know of any evidence that shows that the shorter cycles are harder on the liver.
If anything I'd expect the reverse, as the liver regenerates quickly, and there's no improvement to be had beyond full recovery. Thus, the total harm accrued with brief cycles, even with only two week "off" periods, is probably only that of two weeks time, whereas of course when using orals for six weeks straight, at that point the accrued damage is that of 6 weeks straight.
OhNoYo
New Member
Mr. Roberts, it seems that one of the most important uses for orals, at least in bodybuilding terms, is to use them to have AAS effects kick in quicker than longer acting injectables for longer cycles. I myself have found most orals inferior to give quality and maintainable progess in terms of physique enhancement once the whole cycle is discontinued though. I feel that if someone were going to use your protocol, wouldn't it be wise to maybe use test suspension & tren suspension both at 50mg/day, as this would result in tremendous gains in the short span of 2 weeks? I have never used trenbolone suspension, but I have heard it is notorious for the dreaded "tren cough", so I'm sure getting this 3 days in a row, ppl might opt out to use something like an oral or even winstrol in its injection form?
"Tremendous" gains may not be what the person is looking for over such a short 2 week window. More modest gains, repeated over many short cycles, may be preferable for people who dont want to bring on the scrutiny of adding a ton of weight in a normal 8-12 week cycle.
buddy1
New Member
Bill, do you think nandrolone phenylpropionate could be substituted for tren ace, and oxandrolone substituted for dbol in this type of cycle? I'm looking for quality, consistent gains, and quick recovery. On long cycles I always seem to get sick or injured, and it really screws the cycle up. Also, I don't like to draw a lot of attention to myself by blowing up too fast.
"Tren cough" is something that can be as rare as occurring in only one or a few percent of injections, and only lasts for a minute or so anyway.
Rate of incidence seems to be higher with highly concentrated preparations but it still shouldn't usually occur.
It isn't unusual these days for trenbolone acetate doses to be 75-100 mg/day or sometimes even 150 mg/day.
At the time I wrote the Meso article, it was considered by practically everybody to be at the extreme to use a Parabolan per day (which 50 mg/day TA usage is equivalent to, as 50 mg of TA has the same amount of trenbolone in it as 76 mg, or whatever figure, of Parabolan). I knew that that was not the case, that there was nothing extreme about this, but I was at that time unsure of doses beyond that.
The 50 mg/day level, if combined with Dianabol or testosterone or both, still works as well as ever of course, but for quite some time since it's been established that many can use more than this if they wish.
Rate of incidence seems to be higher with highly concentrated preparations but it still shouldn't usually occur.
It isn't unusual these days for trenbolone acetate doses to be 75-100 mg/day or sometimes even 150 mg/day.
At the time I wrote the Meso article, it was considered by practically everybody to be at the extreme to use a Parabolan per day (which 50 mg/day TA usage is equivalent to, as 50 mg of TA has the same amount of trenbolone in it as 76 mg, or whatever figure, of Parabolan). I knew that that was not the case, that there was nothing extreme about this, but I was at that time unsure of doses beyond that.
The 50 mg/day level, if combined with Dianabol or testosterone or both, still works as well as ever of course, but for quite some time since it's been established that many can use more than this if they wish.
Nandrolone phenypropionate is unproven in this application and I think would be a poor choice as recovery problems are common with nandrolone.
Oxandrolone can't really be subsituted for Dianabol as it isn't a Class II, but can substitute for trenbolone acetate if desired.
There tends to be what I call androgenic water retention in the face that is seen even when estrogen is kept normal. My guess is that this is from the muscles in the face holding extra glycogen and water.
I have passed this effect off as being part of a bb'ing diet plan, in the few cases that facial effect has been pointed out to me: I say I eat big and carb load for 2 weeks, and then I diet down and go low-carb in the other weeks.
Oxandrolone can't really be subsituted for Dianabol as it isn't a Class II, but can substitute for trenbolone acetate if desired.
There tends to be what I call androgenic water retention in the face that is seen even when estrogen is kept normal. My guess is that this is from the muscles in the face holding extra glycogen and water.
I have passed this effect off as being part of a bb'ing diet plan, in the few cases that facial effect has been pointed out to me: I say I eat big and carb load for 2 weeks, and then I diet down and go low-carb in the other weeks.
Last edited:
buddy1
New Member
What do you think about this with regards to short nandrolone cycles?
http://www.mesomorphosis.com/articles/rea/030324.htm
I want to try this type of cycle (2on/4off) but I'm concerned about hairloss with tren and dbol. Any other suggestions? Thanks.
http://www.mesomorphosis.com/articles/rea/030324.htm
I want to try this type of cycle (2on/4off) but I'm concerned about hairloss with tren and dbol. Any other suggestions? Thanks.
The article doesn't specify what dosage was used for the suppression-after-two-weeks figures he gives, but as he was referring to doses as low as 200 mg/week, the amount used may have been as little as that.
You can certainly experiment and see what happens if you like.
Btw, I don't see any reason to think or know of any evidence that for any given anabolic effect, trenbolone is the slightest bit harder on the hair than oxandrolone.
You can certainly experiment and see what happens if you like.
Btw, I don't see any reason to think or know of any evidence that for any given anabolic effect, trenbolone is the slightest bit harder on the hair than oxandrolone.
Bill, is there any type of training that you think is ideal or preferential while using short cycles? Or conversely, any that you think just wouldnt work well?
