Frontloading!

[tenor42]

First a disclaimer: I am both a newbie using AAS and seriously numerically challanged. (when tested for ADHD i scored in 98% verbally and...drum roll...the 14% for numbers in a series and other operations using numbers..

So basically all the calculation stuff simply makes my eyes glaze over and it's hard to read a post with tons of math that might as well be chinese to me. That said I am not sure this question was previously addressed.....and perhaps the question itself is flawed but when frontloading a cycle using Test Prop it occurs to me that there are two main factors to consider because of the short half life. In this case can front loading refer to both the dosage AND the frequency? if for most of the cycle i am using 100mg eod wouldn't both taking a higher dosage initially and up dosage frequency to ed for 3 or 4 days? Did i miss something about this earlier and am i missing something obvious?

t42

 

[skywalk]

First a disclaimer: I am both a newbie using AAS and seriously numerically challanged. (when tested for ADHD i scored in 98% verbally and...drum roll...the 14% for numbers in a series and other operations using numbers..

So basically all the calculation stuff simply makes my eyes glaze over and it's hard to read a post with tons of math that might as well be chinese to me. That said I am not sure this question was previously addressed.....and perhaps the question itself is flawed but when frontloading a cycle using Test Prop it occurs to me that there are two main factors to consider because of the short half life. In this case can front loading refer to both the dosage AND the frequency? if for most of the cycle i am using 100mg eod wouldn't both taking a higher dosage initially and up dosage frequency to ed for 3 or 4 days? Did i miss something about this earlier and am i missing something obvious?

t42

If you're talking about frontloading with prop, I wouldn't really frontload it with a larger dose. I'd probably pin ED with the usual dose, then drop to EOD with the same dose after the 3rd day.

 

[tenor42]

Thanks.. Yeah, this totally makes sense to me (and what i've been doing as i start a cycle now but was wondering if not increasing dosage amount was a mistake).

t42

 

[Michael Scally MD]

At what point is cycle frontloading offset by the shortening of the cycle? There must be a zone/line of loss/gain, otherwise one could take this to the extreme and frontload everything to WEEK 1. To answer this, what questions do you think need to be answered (muscle gain, fat loss, etc.)?

 

[skywalk]

At what point is cycle frontloading offset by the shortening of the cycle? There must be a zone/line of loss/gain, otherwise one could take this to the extreme and frontload everything to WEEK 1. To answer this, what questions do you think need to be answered (muscle gain, fat loss, etc.)?

If we have a therapeutic window (under which you will have negligible gains, and over which the sides outweigh the benefits) the hope is to achieve SSL within this window, and to keep it there for a period of time, to allow for growth.

If we frontload and achieve SSL within this window, and merely keep it there for a week, we wouldn't see much, if any gains.

Doc, Your question is excellent....how long should one remain within this therapeutic window to obtain the best results/benefit vs long-term sides from prolonged AAS usage?

for a person who doesn't frontload, assuming he hits SSL at week 4, he has to remain there for a number of weeks before he sees any benefits. Let's say he chooses to run 12weeks.

With frontloading, in theory, this same person might cut down the total cycle length because SSL are reached at the end of week 1, 2 tops. thus, should he cut down the total cycle length from 12 to 8 or less, while enjoying the same amount of time within that SSL therapeutic window as compared to his original 12-weeker?

 

[Sworder]

At what point is cycle frontloading offset by the shortening of the cycle?

Let us define what a cycle is in regards to dosage and duration. Our target is 500mg/week of Testosterone Enanthate. Without frontloading our cycle would look something as the following in regards to amount of testosterone metabolized/week.
week 1: 220 mg
week 2: 340 mg
week 3: 460 mg
week 4: 500mg
week 5: 500mg
week 6: 500mg
week 7: 500mg
week 8: 500mg
our last shot was thursday of week 8
week 9: 400mg
week 10:280
week 11:100
week 12: 20ish

The amounts are approximates, don't feel like calculating it exactly, sorry.

Okay then, so how many weeks did we have where we metabolized 500mg/week? About 5.

Why does that matter? Well first of all, and I know many others which have tremendous amount of experience whom will agree. You will get best gains with short cycles on a duration/gains ratio. The body doesn't like all these drugs and will build a sort of resistance to muscle gain. Yes Scally, I know you do not support androgen receptor tolerance and that isn't my statement.

But it is fact that if you are on a 1000mg/week testosterone cycle you may gain 2-3 pounds/week. You cannot continue this year round though and it is my belief that some other mechanism other than myostatin comes into play. As Demondosage has stated before "your body becomes a toxic dump and you won't grow" I have found this to be true.

In the interest of this conversation this is one of the reasons that you want to frontload, to prevent the "toxic dump effect"(Copyright of Demondosage 2012 all rights reserved, any use of "toxic dump effect" was approved by Demondosage.)

I feel that the beginning shots almost get "wasted" as when I have 250mg testosterone metabolized it won't be enough to promote significant growth so it is just a waste of money.

There must be a zone/line of loss/gain, otherwise one could take this to the extreme and frontload everything to WEEK 1.

I don't know what you mean about frontloading everything to week 1.

Another reason incorporate frontloading is to reduce cost. Starting with frontloading long esters and using short esters at the tail end can save a lot of hard earned $ with little to no "wasted" gear. Wasted gear I consider is metabolized from the last shot -> start of PCT.

Frontloading reduces cycle time, saves money, makes efficient use of the drug, reduces scar-tissue build-up as the injection frequency is lower because you are using higher concentrate gear compared to short esters. Using long esters such as[Nandrolone] decanoate forces you to run 12-16 week cycles to achieve steady state concentrations and/or desired dosage.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

The hypothetical is the cycle of TE 500 MG X 10 weeks and ONE shot of 5,000 MG the same as far as anabolic gains. I think not. If not, is there something between these two where one can shorten the cycle by frontloading and still have the same anabolic gains. I do not know of any studies looking at this perspective. I am not questioning the use of frontloading (for AAS), but looking to optimize the cycle length/anabolic gain. Also, for this purpose disregard PCT. As a possible example, would one obtain the same anabolic gains for a 5-Week cycle still with the total TE 5,000 MG (2,000; 1,500; 750; 500; 250).

 

[skywalk]

The hypothetical is the cycle of TE 500 MG X 10 weeks and ONE shot of 5,000 MG the same as far as anabolic gains. I think not. If not, is there something between these two where one can shorten the cycle by frontloading and still have the same anabolic gains. I do not know of any studies looking at this perspective. I am not questioning the use of frontloading (for AAS), but looking to optimize the cycle length/anabolic gain. Also, for this purpose disregard PCT. As a possible example, would one obtain the same anabolic gains for a 5-Week cycle still with the total TE 5,000 MG (2,000; 1,500; 750; 500; 250).

with a single shot of 5grams, that would definitely exceed the therapeutic window of best benefits vs risk of sides. I'm with you in optimizing the cycle length with most anabolic gain, and I hope to achieve this by employing front loading to get SSL, remain there for a period of time, then coming off. The question though is, how do we find that "sweet spot" of dose/length? is there such a thing?

 

[Dr JIM]

Ah that sweet spot your referring can range considerable and varies according to genetic potential! What do you think Arnie's CAPABILITY was compared to most others not into BB professionally? The difference is huge IMO!! It could be liked to comparing sprinters to discus throwers.

 

[skywalk]

Ah that sweet spot your referring can range considerable and varies according to genetic potential! What do you think Arnie's CAPABILITY was compared to most others not into BB professionally? The difference is huge IMO!! It could be liked to comparing sprinters to discus throwers.

so sad but true.

 

[Dr JIM]

But really, the primary reason (IMO) to FL is the achievement of steady state levels sooner. (I don't disagree with anything DOC or Sworder have suggested)

For example suppose you desire a serum "A" (anabolic) level of 250x! (The "units" are omitted purposefully for illustration)
You could give an injection of 500a with a half life of 5 days.

Follow what happens
500e IM -----@ five days the level is 250x ------ repeat injection @250e ---- five days later the level is 250x and will STAY there providing the same dose and interval is used. Thus time to steady state levels is FIVE DAYS!

Now without "front loading"
The dosage is 250a ------ at five days it's 125 (repeat 250a IM) ------ five days later the level is 125a+ 62a = 187a (repeat 250a IM) ------ five days later the level is 31+62+125 = 217 ........ What you will discover is roughly 5-7 WEEKS are required to reach steady state levels in this example , compared to ONE WEEK in the former!

That's why front loading works. Such AAS high levels optimize the benefit of AAS rather than a slower increase whereupon some degree of physiologic compensation or "tolerance" is more likely to occur IMO.

Regs
Jim

 

[skywalk]

But really, the primary reason (IMO) to FL is the achievement of steady state levels sooner. (I don't disagree with anything DOC or Sworder have suggested)

For example suppose you desire a serum "A" (anabolic) level of 250x! (The "units" are omitted purposefully for illustration)
You could give an injection of 500a with a half life of 5 days.

Follow what happens
500e IM -----@ five days the level is 250x ------ repeat injection @250e ---- five days later the level is 250x and will STAY there providing the same dose and interval is used. Thus time to steady state levels is FIVE DAYS!

Now without "front loading"
The dosage is 250a ------ at five days it's 125 (repeat 250a IM) ------ five days later the level is 125a+ 62a = 187a (repeat 250a IM) ------ five days later the level is 31+62+125 = 217 ........ What you will discover is roughly 5-7 WEEKS are required to reach steady state levels in this example , compared to ONE WEEK in the former!

That's why front loading works. Such AAS high levels optimize the benefit of AAS rather than a slower increase whereupon some degree of physiologic compensation or "tolerance" is more likely to occur IMO.

Regs
Jim

doc, do you have any cool articles to read about physiologic compensation and tolerance? This idea would definitely change the way long cycles are regarded, imo.

 

[smt71]

At what point is cycle frontloading offset by the shortening of the cycle? There must be a zone/line of loss/gain, otherwise one could take this to the extreme and frontload everything to WEEK 1. To answer this, what questions do you think need to be answered (muscle gain, fat loss, etc.)?

Interesting question, I don't have an answer but a follow up question. Lets suppose you took muscle gain as your measure and that the variability was small enough to make all this meaningful - we could narrow the zone to a week or two. Are there any studies to show that muscle mass sustained at some later date, say 12 weeks out, is independent of the duration in which it was obtained?

 

[Dr JIM]

Great question SW but DOC and I are agree on this point no doubt. For example; if while using 500mg of test QOD for four weeks someone gains 10 pounds does that mean if you double the test dosage or duration the gains double? Or let's quadruple the test dosage does that mean the gains will also increase four fold?

Of course not! Why?

Because there are limits to any biological system ranging from enzymatic activity to co-factor or substrate availability and since humans don't live in a biologic vacuum upon the induction of a metabolic pathway (anabolism) it's physiologic "opposite" MAY (catabolism) also become involved as a means of restoring a preset (genetic predisposition) equilibrium!

I've been asked previously for specific information on this subject matter; "tolerance, compensation, enzymatic thresholds, cofactor interference, primary, secondary or tertiary substrate availability etc and I will pull what I have for you SW.

I also search Medline for more UTD info, since I could also benefit from a short literature review myself!

JIM

 

[skywalk]

Great question SW but DOC and I are agree on this point no doubt. For example; if while using 500mg of test QOD for four weeks someone gains 10 pounds does that mean if you double the test dosage or duration the gains double? Or let's quadruple the test dosage does that mean the gains will also increase four fold?

Of course not! Why?

Because there are limits to any biological system ranging from enzymatic activity to co-factor or substrate availability and since humans don't live in a biologic vacuum upon the induction of a metabolic pathway (anabolism) it's physiologic "opposite" MAY (catabolism) also become involved as a means of restoring a preset (genetic predisposition) equilibrium!

I've been asked previously for specific information on this subject matter; "tolerance, compensation, enzymatic thresholds, cofactor interference, primary, secondary or tertiary substrate availability etc and I will pull what I have for you SW.

I also search Medline for more UTD info, since I could also benefit from a short literature review myself!

JIM

we can call it the law of diminishing returns. the optimal dose and the optimal length will definitely vary greatly between individuals. I guess the key point here will be experience!!! what works for arnie may not work for another, but after a few dozen cycles of varying lengths and dosages, i'm sure if they're smart enough they'd be able to identify the optimal dosage and duration for their individual needs, right?

 

[Dr JIM]

Excellent analogy mate.
However in retrospect an excellent example of exactly what I was referring to is the Krebs or citric acid cycle. Such that depending upon the biologic needs of the organism the cycle is COMPLETELY reversible!

Run it in one direction and protein, glucose or fat is USED (catabolized) as an energy source yet run it in the opposite direction, and protein, glucose or fat is FORMED (anabolism) the latter utilizing the varied amino acids as substrates.
Now how many enzymes, cofactors, etc are required to "run" the cycle AND what is their presence dependent upon.

I don't know but it's a very intrinsic complicated and codependent process!

 

[skywalk]

Excellent analogy mate.
However in retrospect an excellent example of exactly what I was referring to is the Krebs or citric acid cycle. Such that depending upon the biologic needs of the organism the cycle is COMPLETELY reversible!

Run it in one direction and protein, glucose or fat is USED (catabolized) as an energy source yet run it in the opposite direction, and protein, glucose or fat is FORMED (anabolism) the latter utilizing the varied amino acids as substrates.
Now how many enzymes, cofactors, etc are required to "run" the cycle AND what is their presence dependent upon.

I don't know but it's a very intrinsic complicated and codependent process!

argh pls don't mention the Kreb's cycle....I might start getting flashbacks and nightmares!

 

[Dr JIM]

What's your degree in SW?

 

[smt71]

Interesting question, I don't have an answer but a follow up question. Lets suppose you took muscle gain as your measure and that the variability was small enough to make all this meaningful - we could narrow the zone to a week or two. Are there any studies to show that muscle mass sustained at some later date, say 12 weeks out, is independent of the duration in which it was obtained?

As a clarification, for the measure take muscle gained at the time the rate of gain, having initially risen, falls below some particular value. Furthermore, I would be curious to know if this measure turns out to be independent of the dose in that the zone itself doesn't fluctuate significantly for doses over a fairly large range. Anecdotally, I always seem hear that gains drop off around 8 weeks or so regardless of dose. Or even substance used for that matter.

 

[skywalk]

What's your degree in SW?

did a degree in sports med