[quote]pavlovs vodka wrote:
wait… 1/25 of a ml is .025 not .25… right?[/quote]
Right! EDIT: Wrong! 
When I’m on I tend to get 800-1200 cal a day from weight gainer shakes.
[quote]pavlovs vodka wrote:
wait… 1/25 of a ml is .025 not .25… right?[/quote]
Actually, 1ml/25 = 0.04ml so it’s true I was wrong. Sorry. my bad. That is 4 lines on a 1/2 CC insulin pin if my new calculations are correct.
That is for test e @ 250mg/ml during last week of taper which calls for 20mg/w or 10mg 2x/w. 4 lines on the 50 line 1/2 cc insulin pin equals 0.04ml.
Proof: 0.04 x 25 = 1ml so 0.04ml is 1/25th of a ml.
I just edited my quick response which clearly did not use a single shred of my mathematics education…
yeah im braindead today. im generally pretty stellar at elementary math.
At least we were all braindead.
Specifically what I don’t believe in is being in an intermediate state where levels are well below what one would want for good gains, but too high for good recovery.
Almost every taper protocol, and anything that I myself call a taper protocol, violates this principle, adding in multiple weeks in such a condition. Less than pointlessly, as it’s actually counterproductive. If wanting to be inhibited that long, why not be at good gaining levels during that period rather than having wussy-level weeks? If only going to be having real gains for X weeks, why not start recovering promptly after that point rather than throwing in another few weeks of inhibition? From either direction of looking at it, it’s counterproductive – either to continued gains, or to having more weeks “on” than gains justify and thus allowing, all else being equal, fewer cycles per year or fewer cycles per amount of gear, and making recovery harder or more likely to have problems.
Now, wanting to have a slight “supplement” or bridge can be acceptable provided that one can be confident that the bridge is not being too inhibitory. A non-T drug is handy for this because blood levels of T give you your answer immediately as to whether you indeed aren’t being inhibitory.
However if the dose of T is quite low and you know you recovered natural T in the first place then with ongoing use of an AI to where estrogen is staying at the low end of normal, this is unlikely to be inhibitory.
In terms of using doses like 80, 60, 50, 40, etc… why??
Let’s say one is using 750 mg/week and the half life is exactly one week, for convenience.
Then 1 week after the last injection, levels are as if you were still using 375 mg/week on an ongoing basis. Totally inhibitory.
2 weeks later, levels are as if you were stil using about 185 mg/week (no reason to be utterly exact as the half life will not be 7.000 days.) Quite inhibitory.
Why add another 80 mg or whatever to that? It’s not going to be enough to give gains, it’s not as if the 185 mg/week level even if natural T production is still near zero is going to be so bad as to have you moaning in despair… just why add the 80 mg? It will only prolong the process and add to the time inhibited.
Week after that, levels are as if you were using 90 mg/week (again approximately) on an ongoing basis. Congratulations! Now with your PCT, recovery should be getting well underway.
Unless that is you inject another 80 mg in which case it will be delayed that much further.
So why do that?
Now if wanting to strengthen the time frame in there where levels are too low for further gains but too high for recovery, there’s orals, there’s fast acting injectables, there’s HCG.
But injecting another 80 mg or whatever of long-acting? Nope, not the way to go.
And yes I know any number of users have done it and feel they were happy with the results. But they did not do it the way I am saying for comparison.
Thanks for the clarification Bill. What in your opinion is the ideal PCT following a 10 week 500mg/w test e cycle for example? Sorry if you have already written extensively about this.
If the intent is to be suppressed for only 10 weeks, which is how I figure it myself though others count cycle length according to methods such as till the day of the last large injection or other method, then assuming no further injections of any kind it will be about 2 weeks since the last TE injection before levels are low enough to be quite favorable for recovery (still moderately suppressive) though there can be some partial recovery before that point as well.
So ideally a 10-week cycle would end its TE injections at the end of week 8.
Weeks 9 and 10 could be beefed up with short acting injectables. For example 50 mg/day test prop for week 9 and the first couple days of week 10 would beef up those weeks to be as good as the earlier weeks yet allow good recovery at start of week 11.
Or Masteron could be used likewise.
Or even moreso for 50 mg/day TA.
Or orals could be used. 50 mg/day Oral Turinabol or 40-50 mg/day oxandrolone would do nicely, ending the OT a couple days before the end of week 10.
Ideally HCG would have been used weeks 1-9, at say 50 IU per day or 100 or 125 IU every other day or 125 IU 3x/week. If not throughout, then at least using during weeks 8 and 9 will help the testes to be ready to produce T as well as possible post-cycle, and also help beef up weeks 9 and to some degree 10.
Ideally estrogen would have been kept low-normal throughout the cycle with either the dose of Arimidex individually needed, or letrozole. There seems a lot of fear-mongering with letrozole that supposedly for some men a tiny dose will obliterate their estrogen levels, but has anyone actually had a problem with one-third mg/day?
As opposed to, basing things off a study that doesn’t even report what dosage was used, or being based off hearing or reading other people saying that this was a risk?
On the other hand with Arimidex, levels that one might call a “standard dosage” such as 0.25 mg every other day there are plenty of individual reports of this being a problem.
No HCG post cycle.
If Clomid or Nolvadex are used during the cycle at respectively 50 or 20 mg/day, then this simply should be continued weeks 11 and 12. If not, then that dosage weeks 11 and 12 is good, but it’s best to take 5 or 6 doses on the first day of use, with separate dosing perhaps being better than taking all at once. The reason is that levels take a long time to build up if not doing this, while this simply gets them to the steady-state levels promptly, rather than generating high levels as one might think.
Continuing low dose letrozole is probably ideal.
Thanks for that PCT outline. Great food for thought. Definitely evolved technique that no novice would come up with left to his own ingenuity.
When you refer to “Or even moreso for 50 mg/day TA” I assume you are talking about test suspension?
How long would you recommend continuing on low dose (0.3mg/d) letro - indefinitely?
So if I understand correctly, the duration of PCT for the 10 week cycle you outlined (8 week test e, 2 week test prop) would be 2 weeks as opposed to much longer for a test taper.
Sorry to be unclear: I meant trenbolone acetate by TA.
Indefinite low-dose letrozole use for low T seems to be considered fine medically. There seems no reason at all why not if doing fine on it.
It would be optional to continue Clomid or Nolvadex use for more than 2 weeks. But 2 weeks should do the job. In contrast, starting Clomid or Nolvadex when levels from injected testosterone are still high and only slowly falling means that the total time needed on those compounds is much longer, since recovery really won’t start much until the point I’m suggesting to start anyway. That would be so even if not extending the time of too-low-to-be-effective/too-high-for-recovery levels by taking small injections along the way, but even moreso if compounding the duration of such weeks by that method.
Thanks again Bill.
Im so glad Bill is a regular poster. I just search his posts and learn everything there is to know about steroids. It’s like reading a textbook on steroids in terms that I can understand lol.
You’re the man Bill!
Well, thank you for saying so! Dunno about that, but thank you nonetheless!
need to re-up on pins, my supplier is lagging. Any suggestions online?
[quote]egnatiosj wrote:
a 12 wk cycle will obv allow for more gains than a 10 wk cycle, just as an 8 wk cycle would limit gains compared to a 10. [/quote]
You are thinking only in terms of one cycle. Few users do only one.
If instead considering longer term results such as what will be gained in a year, then no, it is not correct to say, that for the same total amount of steroids used and same total amount of time “on” that the longer cycles will do better and 8 week cycles or 10 week cycles would “limit gains” compared to 12 week cycles.