I think you both are just discussing the terminology, not the principle itself.
Im not a science guy, but i would explain this like this - even if you push the brakes on a train, it still takes time to stop. You can kill a person standing on tracks when the train goes full furce, and you kill him just as good with brakes fully pushed. I believe the term is - inertia? I think our body works the same way. After a long cut it takes a bit longer to get fat and see it. After stopping a huge blast, the strenght effects are still there, etc.
When i was a kid i remember reading this theory of 4 weeks on, 4 weeks off with short ester steroids. The idea behind this was that in 4 weeks off, you wont lose as much muscle as in 12 weeks off. Why? Well, because in my experience, even by stopping orals, you will never notice that you stopped them at week 1. In my experience with strenght, it stays for 3-4 weeks, so technically you can blast orals 4on 4 off and actually BE ON them for at least 6 weeks out of 8.
But thats just my non-science stupid thinking, sorry if i messed up your smart people chat. I just wanted to be a part of it even tho i have 0 actual clue of what im doing
I’m happy to amend the terminology to onset of effect and duration of effect (rather than duration of action) since there is some ambiguity in the literature on the definition of duration of “action”.
Really nice reviews below.
Unsure why you have issue with the using the term “mechanistic”? Ok, we agree the drug is gone. So I’ll term this a drug-associated relaxation time (drug is gone but there is still time required to adjust to no drug being there).
Your point about onset of action vs onset of effect is well taken.
My point in all of this was to explain that the additional and measurable duration of effect for someone coming off a cycle of AAS (originally I was referring to long acting ND+Test like @RT_Nomad used for many years) can extend easily to six weeks after coming off. This is explained by PKPD effects we’ve discussed (drug needs time to be eliminated + lingering indirect effect of drug as per indirect response on biologic machinery that continues after drug is gone — aka recovery to baseline). As usual @hankthetank89 doesn’t give himself enough credit. Inertia, well done. And thanks @lordgains for the feedback and exchange!
Each individual must answer that I guess. Assuming this isn’t a rhetorical question: given the like-to-effort ratio I get and the number of clicks I see on the articles/information I present, the answer is probably not much to the typical reader on this forum.
Personally, I like to try and understand how stuff works which means trying to understand the constitutive framework behind observables if I can. It’s why humans create models.
You got two answers to your detailed questions yesterday but didn’t hear anything back from you. What’s the practical value for you?
I appreciate this approach myself. I’ll be honest, I browse most of what you post but only click and read the studies/links maybe 10% of the time. Thats partially from my own egotistical view of “I already get it” for a lot of the discussions. Still, the deep dives I think are valuable. So you do you man and don’t let us slow you down.
I am way past adjusting my AAS usage for future use, being 73 years old. But even during the time I cycled AAS’s ( a multitude of cycles, greater than 85), this information you provided is pragmatically useless. Regardless of the information, it’s my experience and feedback that would determine when to start and end a cycle. I was only looking at the results that I could measure either empirically or subjectively. Though the science (as best it is understood today) is interesting, IMO, the pragmatic value to the bodybuilder or powerlifter is just about nil.
I would have to disagree, but with the upmost respect. I enjoy your other thread and your accomplishments. I feel that deeply understanding the actions of each compound would allow you to better ‘stack’ them and time them for ultimately better results. Would they be 100% better? No of course not, but better nonetheless. Its also helpful to understand this in terms of harm reduction and lasting effects.
I like a mix of science (theory) and experience. I think basing ones approach off of only one of these things would be a mistake.
We see some guys come in here that have coaches with experience laying out cycles that in theory make no sense at all. Why are you switching from NPP to Deca at week 6 type of stuff. The theory sets these guys straight.
We also have guys who come in with a bit of theory that lay out really dumb cycles. Before I ever touched AAS, I thought I knew what to do, and thought of some really dumb cycles that I thought were genius. Guys with experience set me straight.
Disclaimer: I was pretty much a “pioneer” the first 15 years I competed. There was zero scientific knowledge that I knew with the exception of a PDR. Through trial and error we had a fundamental understanding of basic differences in steroids.
What scientific information led you to modify or design a cycle? When I say “scientific information” I mean that which was acquired through the scientific method?
My wife has migraines. Do you know how the doctors prescribe her medications? It is pretty much all trial and error. She’ll try one and her headaches increase. Then another. It might work. It might not. Finally, the doctor “finds” one that she can tolerate. And she takes a multitude of medications, all of which must pass the migraine test.
If you look though the new cycle threads, you will see scientific information used to redesign cycles. The big thing that sticks out is the importance of understanding half lives.
I have seen protocols that have liquid dbol being injected once a week. Running PCT 2 weeks after a cycle with EQ in it. Explaining why this is stupid using theory is better IMO, than saying yeah I did that, it didn’t work.
Then there is advice on just running a cycle in a way that one variable is introduced at a time. We have guys that haven’t ever touched AAS that want to start with three compounds. We advise to start with one, and understand what that does. Perhaps add an oral at the end, so you understand the delta between just test, and test plus that oral.
Great point. Just getting folks to understand PK part of it is huge. The PKPD stuff above is probably way overkill for many readers but for some may still be useful to help parse the old adage of time on = time off and how that should be tweaked depending on what your objective function is.
Studying nuclear engineering for four years, I was well educated about half-lives. I figured orals made that easier. And I always split doses throughout the day.
If I stacked injections I spread those throughout the the week. (One on Saturday and one on Wednesday) I always took them weekly. I knew that Deca had a reasonably long half-life, therefore it was one of the reasons it became one of my staple anabolic steroids.
I think perhaps you underestimated the amount of scientific info you were using at the time. It seems like basic stuff to us, but a lot of guys don’t understand even these things.
I sometimes forget that not everything I know is basic knowledge. I studied engineering as well (mechanical). I make the error of assuming most people have a slight grasp on the concepts of physics, electricity, and math, but most do not. It seems we have a weekly question here that goes something like this: “I have Test E 250, I want to inject 200 mg twice a week, how far do I fill the syringe?”.
I’m on a phone so I’ll keep this short. @mnben87 touched on half lives which are important and closely tied to esters which are also important. More so is to know which compounds aromatize, which do not, and which act as E2 antagonist. I would expand more on this but don’t have a computer in front of me right now.
I think they end up the same. I didn’t look through the solution, but I worked though it. I get that they each have (192/193)Tbsp of the other juice in each container.
Hopefully this doesn’t turn out embarrassing for me
I agree with this being important to understand as well.
Me either. I simplified the the volume/concentration problem to 100 units where 50 units are added to the other. Got 33.3% for each in the other’s container. I like working with simple numbers where possible. It minimizes arithmetical mistakes…
for someone coming off a cycle of AAS (originally I was referring to long acting ND+Test like 
!