Opinions and experiences on Short Cycles (4-5 weeks)

Discussion in 'Steroid Forum' started by LordKraven, Nov 10, 2017.

Which cycle duration allows someone to put more total mass on if time on equal time off?

  1. 4-5 weeks

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. 8-10 weeks

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. LordKraven

    LordKraven Junior Member

    Shorter cycles seem like a good option for someone who is on TRT or blasting and cruising and seeking to things in a safer manner. You can even run 2 of these in a row and it’s still not that bad on blood markers unless you ran orals throughout both.

    They are intriguing to me because a) shifts in lipids and blood markers are out of range for a shorter amount of time and to a lower extent then longer cycles, b) gains are at peak as myostatin has not kicked in to slow growth down, and c) personally for me, my training blocks are done in 5 week blocks. If someone wanted to mitigate the myostatin issue they either stay on their current dose until it returns to baseline or pyramid up the dose.

    Anyway, I hear arguments on both sides, some saying it’s a waste of time to be on for such a short amount of time and that even short esters like Test P/NPP should be ran for 8 weeks or so to really get a benefit but having done 2 cycles (1st 16 week bulk 500mg Test E, 2nd 6 week cut Test P/NPP 300mg ea) I don’t have the experience to really comment on it. I assume 5 weeks is a good amount of time to put mass on if training, nutrition, recovery and proper selection of compounds are used, especially if GH and insulin were being used. Love to hear from all you guys, in particular those of who have run shorter cycles.