[quote]Explosiv wrote:
Frontloading gets your levels up to the point that you want to have them at. It doesn’t go “above” that. It takes away weeks in the beginning of the cycle that are not really doing anything for you growth wise.[/quote]
Here is the part where we disagree. (I understand half-life theory and that it doesnt go “above” planned blood levels). As to the second part of your statement, there is nothing in the literature or in my anecdotal experience to suggest that the period of onset ESPECIALLY on a first cycle of weeks at 250, etc etc up to just sub 500 will “do [nothing] really for [me] growth wise.”
We both agree that your best gains occur in the first 1-6/8 weeks of a cycle. However, the fact that you make your best gains in the first weeks is not simple due to the arbitrary number of first 6 weeks = best growth. When you supply a dose of exo test of 500, your body immediately compensates for a dose of 500 test by upregulating co-factors(SHBG, d-r of AR-sites, increased myostatin expression, compensation of lean tissue slin-sensitivity, etc). You body will compensate. Being that much of this takes place by action of the endocrine system there is a lag time where you have the ability to exploit all the benefits. By NOT frontloading you have more than just ONE opportunity to take advantage of this ‘lag’ time.
The one time where I find frontloading helpful, would be for a competing athlete going from a TRT//cruise to a blast when they’re already holding more muscle than an intermediary dose of test would contribute to.
I guess what it all really boils down to is this.
Two cycles.
#1) W1-12 750mg test
#2) W1-6 500mg test
W7-12 750mg test
Which cycle yields better results? You guys choose option 1, I choose option 2 (even though there is less drugs used total)
As long as we can agree on the disagreement I suggested above, there’s no longer a reason to argue because we would gain nothing from it.
