2-Week Cycle Layout

Pharma / TRT
21

[quote]jMill2 wrote:
I will be running a series of 2-on/2-6 off cycles, this will be my first. [/quote]

Can you clarify, how many 2on/2off you will run before doing a 6 week off?

I’m assuming that’s what you mean in that opening statement, correct me please if I’m wrong.
I think again that this loooks kick ass, but I was wondering if Bill is still around, with running this protocol, in the fashion I’m “assuming” that jMill2 is using as mentioned,

Could you see using caber in any fashion, and/or at any given time, if one was to run say 3 back to back 2on/2off, and then run a 6 week off period?

Just curious, as even with the reduced time on, still would think at some point there you might encounter a rising prolactin level, and want to insure it?

Thanks for a great thread Op, and great posting guys.

22

As for how many 2 weekers I plan to run before taking 4-6 off, probably 3. If you read through the second link I posted in the OP, I think Bill talks about how much “on” time per year is “safe”. I think he said between 1/3-1/2 of the year spent “on” is within “safe” range with the latter pushing it a little.

So, my cycle will probably look like this:

2 ON
2 off
2 ON
2 off
2 ON
4-6 off

I think of it kind of like one 14-16 week cycle. From reading what people who have run the 2-on/2-off have to report, it sounds like gains typically continue during the “off” weeks (or at least you maintain what you gained). If I had to guess, I’m thinking it might have something to do with the excess glycogen that is still hanging around during those 2 “off” weeks. If that’s true, then that is yet another of the numerous advantages I see with the protocol.

23

[quote]jMill2 wrote:
As for how many 2 weekers I plan to run before taking 4-6 off, probably 3. If you read through the second link I posted in the OP, I think Bill talks about how much “on” time per year is “safe”. I think he said between 1/3-1/2 of the year spent “on” is within “safe” range with the latter pushing it a little.

So, my cycle will probably look like this:

2 ON
2 off
2 ON
2 off
2 ON
4-6 off

I think of it kind of like one 14-16 week cycle. From reading what people who have run the 2-on/2-off have to report, it sounds like gains typically continue during the “off” weeks (or at least you maintain what you gained). If I had to guess, I’m thinking it might have something to do with the excess glycogen that is still hanging around during those 2 “off” weeks. If that’s true, then that is yet another of the numerous advantages I see with the protocol.[/quote]

Ok, yeah that sounds real good. Having run these for a decent period a couple years back, I can indeed concur that the gains keep coming, albeit slightly less dramatic in the off.
I love these cycles, and plan on doing just what you’re up to this year with the same or similar cmpds. With my recent liver enzyme elevation which I pretty much attribute to doing longer and longer cycles, with not enough off time between, I am reaquainting myself with this strategy once more. You have done your homework and that’s great. It’s a more user friendly way to cycle regarding one’s liver and hpta etc, etc. Like Bonez said, it just doesn’t manifest gains as dramatically as the longer cycles, but it does catch up, and all the while your body takes less of a beating from it.

All the best, and keep us informed to your journey.

24

[quote]jMill2 wrote:
As for how many 2 weekers I plan to run before taking 4-6 off, probably 3. If you read through the second link I posted in the OP, I think Bill talks about how much “on” time per year is “safe”. I think he said between 1/3-1/2 of the year spent “on” is within “safe” range with the latter pushing it a little.

So, my cycle will probably look like this:

2 ON
2 off
2 ON
2 off
2 ON
4-6 off

I think of it kind of like one 14-16 week cycle. From reading what people who have run the 2-on/2-off have to report, it sounds like gains typically continue during the “off” weeks (or at least you maintain what you gained). If I had to guess, I’m thinking it might have something to do with the excess glycogen that is still hanging around during those 2 “off” weeks. If that’s true, then that is yet another of the numerous advantages I see with the protocol.[/quote]

I’m pretty convinced that the above-normal glycogen storage is gone within a matter of days of androgen levels returning to normal, given the pattern of rapid weight loss that is not fat or muscle loss and which is completed in that time-frame.

I expect that strength increases off-cycle are due to biological effects often being delayed relative to receptor activation. For example, suppose that under the influence of high androgen levels, a satellite cell fuses with a mature muscle cell, thus increasing its number of nuclei. This will result in ongoing higher capacity for protein synthesis, but the muscle wouldn’t have the full benefit or anything like it on the first day of this occurring. It might take quite a while.

It also may take the body time to learn to use the increased capacity of the muscle for strength. Even though it might be the case that the same nerve impulses will now produce a more forceful contraction, initially one might not have the same nerve impulses activating the muscle, as protective mechanisms may cause the higher weight to seem heavier than can be lifted.

My experience and that of anyone I’ve asked what they thought on it is that as one gets stronger, it is not that weights feel say half as heavy on getting twice as strong. No, a much heavier weight still feels much heavier: it’s just that now you can lift it despite it feeling much heavier. But I would suppose that if somehow, magically, that example doubling of strength happened overnight, for quite some time your body would not let you do it as it felt impossibly heavy.

The same thing might be the case, though of course at much smaller percentages, with the increased capacity for strength generated in the “on” weeks. Perhaps not everything that is in fact there at that point is yet utilizable, but in the following weeks the body learns to employ it.

25

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]jMill2 wrote:
As for how many 2 weekers I plan to run before taking 4-6 off, probably 3. If you read through the second link I posted in the OP, I think Bill talks about how much “on” time per year is “safe”. I think he said between 1/3-1/2 of the year spent “on” is within “safe” range with the latter pushing it a little.

So, my cycle will probably look like this:

2 ON
2 off
2 ON
2 off
2 ON
4-6 off

I think of it kind of like one 14-16 week cycle. From reading what people who have run the 2-on/2-off have to report, it sounds like gains typically continue during the “off” weeks (or at least you maintain what you gained). If I had to guess, I’m thinking it might have something to do with the excess glycogen that is still hanging around during those 2 “off” weeks. If that’s true, then that is yet another of the numerous advantages I see with the protocol.[/quote]

I’m pretty convinced that the above-normal glycogen storage is gone within a matter of days of androgen levels returning to normal, given the pattern of rapid weight loss that is not fat or muscle loss and which is completed in that time-frame.

I expect that strength increases off-cycle are due to biological effects often being delayed relative to receptor activation. For example, suppose that under the influence of high androgen levels, a satellite cell fuses with a mature muscle cell, thus increasing its number of nuclei. This will result in ongoing higher capacity for protein synthesis, but the muscle wouldn’t have the full benefit or anything like it on the first day of this occurring. It might take quite a while.

It also may take the body time to learn to use the increased capacity of the muscle for strength. Even though it might be the case that the same nerve impulses will now produce a more forceful contraction, initially one might not have the same nerve impulses activating the muscle, as protective mechanisms may cause the higher weight to seem heavier than can be lifted.

My experience and that of anyone I’ve asked what they thought on it is that as one gets stronger, it is not that weights feel say half as heavy on getting twice as strong. No, a much heavier weight still feels much heavier: it’s just that now you can lift it despite it feeling much heavier. But I would suppose that if somehow, magically, that example doubling of strength happened overnight, for quite some time your body would not let you do it as it felt impossibly heavy.

The same thing might be the case, though of course at much smaller percentages, with the increased capacity for strength generated in the “on” weeks. Perhaps not everything that is in fact there at that point is yet utilizable, but in the following weeks the body learns to employ it.

[/quote]

Very well put per the man behind the strategy.
:slight_smile: Awesome.

26

[quote]InTheZone wrote:
Very well put per the man behind the strategy.
:slight_smile: Awesome.[/quote]

Thank you.

Actually, to be clear I only popularized and explained the 2-week cycles.

I learned it from a Greek athlete, Alexander Filippides, who to my knowledge is the inventor. His basis was entirely practical, which really is what counts.

27

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]InTheZone wrote:
Very well put per the man behind the strategy.
:slight_smile: Awesome.[/quote]

Thank you.

Actually, to be clear I only popularized and explained the 2-week cycles.

I learned it from a Greek athlete, Alexander Filippides, who to my knowledge is the inventor. His basis was entirely practical, which really is what counts.[/quote]

Then I salute you both! :slight_smile:

Really though thanks to you it became popular and has since helped countless individuals out here navigating through this tricky hobby we all enjoy.

Hats off Bill, I may well hit you up with a query or two down the road…

InTheZone

28

I agree, although I am yet to run my first cycle, theoretically it sounds fantastic, and you do a great job of explaining it Bill.

After reading Billâ??s post on the body learning to employ strength generated, I am interested in hearing thoughts surrounding training protocol used while doing the 2 on 2/4 off cycle length. (I’m probably hijacking here)

I am conscience of not maxing out my strength and pushing low rep weights while ‘on’. Fearing that when i go ‘off’ i will have to drop the weight because my strength and training tolerance goes down, resulting in decreasing loads, and a drop in hormone levels.

I am considering not increasing my weights despite the androgens making me stronger, only increasing the reps. When i come off, i had planned on keeping the weight constant but bringing reps down…

Perhaps I should be less concerned about my strength dropping off during my off weeks?

29

I really don’t think that the question of which training approach is best for an individual at a given time changes according to whether one is on the “on” weeks of a cycle or not, although somewhat more volume can be used to advantage when “on.”

However, it does seem to me that it is advantageous to not drop to any ligher weights in the first off week, but only to reduce volume to an amount that experience has shown is a reasonable minimum when “off” or not greatly more than that. An exception is that employing Westside-style dynamic effort work for a fair part of the work done (light weight but lifted very explosively) works well, though I’d still include some work with the same top work weight achieved on cycle.

All this was derived well before what I and others here have been learning from CT lately. With his teachings on how to get maximum training effect from lighter weight (e.g. 70% 1RM for sets that are that weight), and comparing that with the old methods that I used and suggested for a number of others of combining DE with heavier weight work, probably simply following CT’s advice would be a great way to go in the off weeks, but keeping the volume on the low end during the first off week.

30

For the only example I ever wrote up, over on Meso I have a case study article that details drug, nutrition, and training for a given subject over at least one two week-cycle. I would hope that I’d write the training program substantially differently now – it would be sad to have learned nothing in the roughly 12 years since then – but that program still isn’t bad for seeing what sorts of volumes, and volume reduction for off weeks, work out well.

31

I started day before yesterday with the injections. The first morning I injected I did so in 2 different spots. One with just Tren Ace, and the other with just Test Prop. As planned, I injected 120mg (1.2 ml) of Tren Ace, and 100mg (1 ml) of Test Prop. Even though the Test prop was a smaller volume, it was much more sore afterward. It seems as though the Tren Ace isn’t giving me much pain, but the Test Prop definitely is.

How much benefit is Test Prop really providing me in this cycle as opposed to just using Dianabol? I am thinking that maybe I should just drop the Prop and run Tren Ace + Dianabol. Maybe not on this cycle but the next. I’m doing 60mg/day of Tren Ace right now along with 30mg/day of Test Prop, and 30mg/day of Dianabol. Assuming this cycle goes well, I’m thinking of maybe just doing a higher dose of Tren along with 50mg/day of Dianabol.

Are there any major benefits that I would be missing out on by dropping the Test Prop? I’m just trying to figure if it’s worth the extra pain. I know pain is part of the game, which is fine, but I’m worried about hindering my workouts.

32

Try mixing the trenbolone acetate and testosterone propionate together. E.g., draw 2 mL up into a 3 mL syringe, pull in a mL of air, put the cover on the needle, and then invert a few times to mix them together. Then use that to fill the insulin syringes (if you are using them) for your next 2 mL of injections. This may solve your pain problem.

You could have a fine cycle on TA (if at least 50 mg/day) plus 50 mg/day Dianabol, though.

33

Have to ask.

In almost every other cycle with Tren u have test run with it(or at least HCG).Yet u are saying it is ok to run tren and just dbol?

Is this just because it is only a 2 weeker?

Just asking.

34

Ive had some pretty pain full prop injections, but they’ve never affected my workouts. It’s like you (or at least I) forget about the pain in the gym.

The pain bothers me more doing every day task.

35

[quote]Chris Eales wrote:
Have to ask.

In almost every other cycle with Tren u have test run with it(or at least HCG).Yet u are saying it is ok to run tren and just dbol?

Is this just because it is only a 2 weeker?

Just asking.[/quote]

Dbol provides a source of estrogen.

Deca/dbol was a very popular off season cycle for years.

Bill will surely have a more detailed answer, but that’s all I got.

36

Not really: that is exactly right.

There are probably times where someone has planned a trenbolone-only cycle in which I say pnly to use either testosterone or HCG in addition so as to provide a normal level of estrogen, but I also usually try to include that Dianabol can be used for this purpose as well.

Of course, the original reason why people used Dianabol with trenbolone, or as Bonez points out with Deca, was for added anabolism. But solving the low-estrogen problem that would result from a totally non-aromatizing cycle is another useful purpose.

37

Thanks for redirecting me here OP…

Originally I was going to run 2/2 with test prop and dbol but now that i see you have tren ace on here I’ve done a bit more research…

It seems BBB has recommended using Tren Ace and Dbol only for the 2/2 cycles. I know this isn’t the only way, but would lowering the Tren Ace and upping the Test Prop that you use going to screw up the ratio you were talking about? I read the thread you posted, but I’m trying to make sense of it.

38

I don’t think there is a specific ratio. I think the idea was to run a high dose of Tren while running a “maintenance” dose of Test (100-300mg/week). There are at least a few people on this board who have reported success doing that. Common advice I’ve read outside of this forum is “you gotta run Test way higher than Tren”, but I’ve never seen a convincing argument for why that is.

I trust what people here have to say way more than anywhere else, so I figured I’d give it a shot. I guess it’s too early to tell how it has worked out for me personally, but I’ll let you know soon. So far no noticeable negative sides.

39

FWIW jMill …

Back in the day (which was on a Wednesday … lol … if you know who said this then you know why I laugh) when I took some Prop I got terrible site pain.

Then a friend recommended warming up the Prop a lil first … bingo … never had pain (or much to speak of) again.

So I always take a small cup of hot water … drop the vial in for a min or so before pulling and it always workd for me. It also seems to push through the pin a little easier. Perhaps it will for you. (as a side … I always tend to leave the pin in for a 20-30 second count and never get any oil seeping out)

Anyone else do this ? Maybe since I’m a lil older than most of ya … just something I learned to long ago. =)

I will be trying some Tren this year for the 1st time so I am watching this thread. BOL to you.

GG

40

this question is for bill roberts, I have been reading as much as I can for a while about your 2 on 4 off protocol I must say it is genusis. so my question is could it be used for a test ethanate cycle only? that is all i have available from a trust worthy source. if i could do this what would be the optimal dose for week 1 and week 2 for a 185 lber? thanks very much