What's your opinion on first cycle using tren?

[CdnGuy]

Was kinda surprised reading Bill Robert's view only suggesting tren for a first cycle. He does make valid points on the benefits/gains from short 8 wk cycles. But seeing as guys are using Aas at such a young age it gives the wrong impression imo. A 19 yr old kid isn't prepared to deal with tren sides imo...


Trenbolone for the Very First Steroid Cycle

 

[Dw725]

I know he mentioned 8 weeks but I think this kind of leaned more towards his 2-4 week cycles. I've read a little about some of his super short cycling theories but not enough to argue for or against. The most I can say of it, and I know it sounds bad, but I don't think I would have the self control to jump off after four weeks, let alone two. Shits just getting fun at that point! I like what bill writes alot, but I think the standard beginner cycle became just that for a reason. Save the tren for later. His idea of short hardcore cycles to get the gains and be done would work under perfect scenarios , but rarely does that happen. I can elaborate on my thoughts more but I'll cut here.

 

[CdnGuy]

Edit- meant to say "on suggesting tren for a first cycle"

 

[guyzcool]

I know he mentioned 8 weeks but I think this kind of leaned more towards his 2-4 week cycles. I've read a little about some of his super short cycling theories but not enough to argue for or against. The most I can say of it, and I know it sounds bad, but I don't think I would have the self control to jump off after four weeks, let alone two. Shits just getting fun at that point! I like what bill writes alot, but I think the standard beginner cycle became just that for a reason. Save the tren for later. His idea of short hardcore cycles to get the gains and be done would work under perfect scenarios , but rarely does that happen. I can elaborate on my thoughts more but I'll cut here.

Wait like 2 weeks on 2 weeks off? So you throw in pct? And how long do you do it? I suppose it's shorter esters....

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

Was kinda surprised reading Bill Robert's view only suggesting tren for a first cycle. He does make valid points on the benefits/gains from short 8 wk cycles. But seeing as guys are using Aas at such a young age it gives the wrong impression imo. A 19 yr old kid isn't prepared to deal with tren sides imo...


Trenbolone for the Very First Steroid Cycle

I think he's advocating more aggressive cycles of short duration instead of lower dosed but longer cycles in order to make beginners understand that they don't need 12-14 week cycles to achieve the results they want.

I don't see anything wrong with it and his reasons for adding tren in a first cycle seem sound.

I've rarely exceeded 10 weeks. I actually like 8 week cycles because i get the bulk of my gains by week 8, and short cycles enable me to cycle again sooner.

And although I have now proof, I think shorter cycles are less harmful from a health perspective. YMMV

 

[CdnGuy]

I understand his point in running shorter cycles and with good result. Not disagreeing with it. My issue is tren being considered as a first cycle compound. It's like playing little league and getting throw into the big leagues

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

I understand his point in running shorter cycles and with good result. Not disagreeing with it. My issue is tren being considered as a first cycle compound. It's like playing little league and getting throw into the big leagues

Playing devil's advocate here, but what do you think a low dose of trenbolone will do to a beginner that it won't do to a more experienced user?

 

[CdnGuy]

Well imo an experienced guy will dealt with sides from Aas use already ie aggression, insomnia, mood swings. A first timer, damn that's a wake up call lol

 

[weighted chinup]

12,14,16,20 week cycles are ill-advised for most people unless you [1] don't care about hpta function [2] don't really care how long you are going with fucked up health markers or [3] don't really care how long it takes for health markers to return to baseline.

Therefore they are especially ill-advised for first time AAS users.

I agree with the article and would rather a beginner run a 6-8 week cycle with tren or some oral AAS than a 12 week test cycle that isn't even that great first of all, and requires you to stay shut down not only for 12 weeks, but a few weeks after that before you can attempt to recover your axis.

Tren sides are over exaggerated imo, especially on the boards. They aren't as prevalent or bad as most people make it seem for most users, and running test or any other AAS isn't really going to prepare you for the common tren sides, so it doesn't really stand to reason that you can't run it at cycle 1 but it's okay for later on down the line.

This article was worth reading and something I hope people will learn from because of how dogmatically people prescribe or suggest first cycle recommendations and the bro-science that permeates around them.

One particular example being that oral only cycles will just shut you down with no gains, and occasionally, people suggest you will be smaller after you are done than before you started. LOL, okay. Meanwhile I ran 50mg drol qd for 7 weeks and made fantastic gains. The only reason I don't recommend those cycles is because you may as well run more weekly mg of anabolics if you're going to shut yourself down and you can't do that with orals alone unless you run 150mg drol qd.

The biggest thing people need to realize is that gains for intermediate and advanced lifters doesn't come in a linear way. Nothing does, whatever the goal, if you are further along in your development, things will come in waves. Hell, even weight loss isn't linear. This just further emphasizes why shorter duration cycles with higher weekly mg is ideal compared to long drawn out cycles that will have you walking around with fucked up lipids and higher systolic/diastolic #'s for longer. Fuck that.

Compare the gains at week 16 vs week 8 on a cycle where weekly mg and compounds stayed steady and you will see what I mean. You would have made more gains, but it would only be marginal improvements at that point. Not worth it.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

12,14,16,20 week cycles are ill-advised for most people unless you [1] don't care about hpta function [2] don't really care how long you are going with fucked up health markers or [3] don't really care how long it takes for health markers to return to baseline.

Therefore they are especially ill-advised for first time AAS users.

I agree with the article and would rather a beginner run a 6-8 week cycle with tren or some oral AAS than a 12 week test cycle that isn't even that great first of all, and requires you to stay shut down not only for 12 weeks, but a few weeks after that before you can attempt to recover your axis.

Tren sides are over exaggerated imo, especially on the boards. They aren't as prevalent or bad as most people make it seem for most users, and running test or any other AAS isn't really going to prepare you for the common tren sides, so it doesn't really stand to reason that you can't run it at cycle 1 but it's okay for later on down the line.

This article was worth reading and something I hope people will learn from because of how dogmatically people prescribe or suggest first cycle recommendations and the bro-science that permeates around them.

One particular example being that oral only cycles will just shut you down with no gains, and occasionally, people suggest you will be smaller after you are done than before you started. LOL, okay. Meanwhile I ran 50mg drol qd for 7 weeks and made fantastic gains. The only reason I don't recommend those cycles is because you may as well run more weekly mg of anabolics if you're going to shut yourself down and you can't do that with orals alone unless you run 150mg drol qd.

The biggest thing people need to realize is that gains for intermediate and advanced lifters doesn't come in a linear way. Nothing does, whatever the goal, if you are further along in your development, things will come in waves. Hell, even weight loss isn't linear. This just further emphasizes why shorter duration cycles with higher weekly mg is ideal compared to long drawn out cycles that will have you walking around with fucked up lipids and higher systolic/diastolic #'s for longer. Fuck that.

Compare the gains at week 16 vs week 8 on a cycle where weekly mg and compounds stayed steady and you will see what I mean. You would have made more gains, but it would only be marginal improvements at that point. Not worth it.

I agree that tren sides have developed an undeserved reputation. And we've all seen what happens when an idea becomes lore.

I've used orals by themselves too. In fact, that's how Dianabol was used when AAS first appeared on the scene because that's all that was available. Lots of records were broken with only 15-20 mg/day of Dianabol.

 

[guyzcool]

I think he's advocating more aggressive cycles of short duration instead of lower dosed but longer cycles in order to make beginners understand that they don't need 12-14 week cycles to achieve the results they want.

I don't see anything wrong with it and his reasons for adding tren in a first cycle seem sound.

I've rarely exceeded 10 weeks. I actually like 8 week cycles because i get the bulk of my gains by week 8, and short cycles enable me to cycle again sooner.

And although I have now proof, I think shorter cycles are less harmful from a health perspective. YMMV

I see, how would the dosgae differ? I could see for an 8 week running tren a at 50 ed. But more than that and you'll just get bad sides. This is sure an interesting way to cycle. I'll be doing a 20 week eq cycle soon.

 

[Dizzy]

Interesting. I Like hearing the vets chime in. Good info. Lots to think about.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

I see, how would the dosgae differ? I could see for an 8 week running tren a at 50 ed. But more than that and you'll just get bad sides. This is sure an interesting way to cycle. I'll be doing a 20 week eq cycle soon.

That's the problem with EQ, and to a lesser extent, deca. Presumably you could get better results from a shorter cycle by front loading those compounds but I prefer shorter acting compounds like NPP.

 

[guyzcool]

That's the problem with EQ, and to a lesser extent, deca. Presumably you could get better results from a shorter cycle by front loading those compounds but I prefer shorter acting compounds like NPP.

I may do a short cycle in the future to compare it!

 

[Trapmonster]

12,14,16,20 week cycles are ill-advised for most people unless you [1] don't care about hpta function [2] don't really care how long you are going with fucked up health markers or [3] don't really care how long it takes for health markers to return to baseline.

Therefore they are especially ill-advised for first time AAS users.

I agree with the article and would rather a beginner run a 6-8 week cycle with tren or some oral AAS than a 12 week test cycle that isn't even that great first of all, and requires you to stay shut down not only for 12 weeks, but a few weeks after that before you can attempt to recover your axis.

Tren sides are over exaggerated imo, especially on the boards. They aren't as prevalent or bad as most people make it seem for most users, and running test or any other AAS isn't really going to prepare you for the common tren sides, so it doesn't really stand to reason that you can't run it at cycle 1 but it's okay for later on down the line.

This article was worth reading and something I hope people will learn from because of how dogmatically people prescribe or suggest first cycle recommendations and the bro-science that permeates around them.

One particular example being that oral only cycles will just shut you down with no gains, and occasionally, people suggest you will be smaller after you are done than before you started. LOL, okay. Meanwhile I ran 50mg drol qd for 7 weeks and made fantastic gains. The only reason I don't recommend those cycles is because you may as well run more weekly mg of anabolics if you're going to shut yourself down and you can't do that with orals alone unless you run 150mg drol qd.

The biggest thing people need to realize is that gains for intermediate and advanced lifters doesn't come in a linear way. Nothing does, whatever the goal, if you are further along in your development, things will come in waves. Hell, even weight loss isn't linear. This just further emphasizes why shorter duration cycles with higher weekly mg is ideal compared to long drawn out cycles that will have you walking around with fucked up lipids and higher systolic/diastolic #'s for longer. Fuck that.

Compare the gains at week 16 vs week 8 on a cycle where weekly mg and compounds stayed steady and you will see what I mean. You would have made more gains, but it would only be marginal improvements at that point. Not worth it.

Would you say you get better results running the same amounts overall in a 6-8 Weekes compared to a 12-16? Say 1 gram test (and other compounds, etc) a week for 6-8 compared to 500mg test (plus what ever other compounds chosen at half the weekly rate) 12-16 weeks?

 

[guyzcool]

Wait.. you don't desensitize to aas. I guess the only objective here is recovery

 

[weighted chinup]

Would you say you get better results running the same amounts overall in a 6-8 Weekes compared to a 12-16? Say 1 gram test (and other compounds, etc) a week for 6-8 compared to 500mg test (plus what ever other compounds chosen at half the weekly rate) 12-16 weeks?

IME, I get better results with a higher dosage of weekly anabolics for a shorter duration than going longer periods of time with less weekly mg of anabolics.

1,000 mg of anabolics for 8 weeks will be a more productive cycle for me than 500 mg for anabolics for 12 or 16 weeks, and going longer than 8 weeks with the high dosage of anabolics will only provide a marginal improvement making it not worthwhile.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

I may do a short cycle in the future to compare it!

I think you'll like it. If you're anything like me, most your gains come early in the cycle and then slow down dramatically once you're beyond 8-10 weeks.

And with 8 weekers, you can start a new cycle before pct is finished on a 12 week cycle.

 

[guyzcool]

I think you'll like it. If you're anything like me, most your gains come early in the cycle and then slow down dramatically once you're beyond 8-10 weeks.

And with 8 weekers, you can start a new cycle before pct is finished on a 12 week cycle.

I can say my last cycle I saw gains from weeks 4-8 then they dropped off and I only got stronger until week 12. So interesting. Maybe I'll hit my next cycle as a short cycle!

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

Wait.. you don't desensitize to aas. I guess the only objective here is recovery

You don't desensitize but growth doesn't continue in a linear fashion either - even with a dosage increase.

Health is a benefit as well, IMO. As WC noted, the less time you're on, the less time your lipids, BP, etc are negatively affected.