Pulsatile prohormone dosing

Why does Lysis seem to differ on dosing than Bill? He posted on mfw that pulsatile dosing
has some distinct advantages? So orals would still be a viable product?

This is about the first time anyone has
pointed out much of a difference between me and
Lysis in philosophy and methods regarding
steroids – for those who don’t know him,
he is an eminent physician in a European
country, with many prominent athletes under
his wing, with whom I have corresponded
closely, often on a daily basis, for many years. I have learned a great deal from him
and also I think he thinks the reverse is
true: our collaboration has been mutually
very beneficial, as has my collaboration
with one of his associates, Alexi.

I don’t read or post to mfw anymore, that
having been an excessively time-consuming
hobby and overall not too productive. So
I have not read the posts in question.

In the context Lysis often has with his
athletes, a pulsatile effect giving strong
CNS stimulation is often important and
beneficial, e.g. with a wrestler.

I rather doubt he has said that for mass
gains, it’s superior to have a few pulses
per day rather than constant high levels.
I would think he has been bringing out
benefits in other regards.

I’d suggest just asking him on mfw. He
might reply :wink:

I remember his post was talking about his personal use of the nose spray up to 200mgs day I believe. I have tried to post/email him but no response. I also believe he last posted that he is in favor of a single daily dose of cytadren as well but that seems moot since the use of arimidex.

Yes, Lysis prefers (if Cytadren is to be used) taking a full tab of Cytadren on arising as
the only dose, versus my approach of taking
half a tab on arising and then 1/4 tab six
and twelve hours later. Both work and it’s
a fine distinction, not proven, which is
the better approach. Personally I prefer my
approach because it maintains somewhat more
consistent anti-aromatase activity while,
in the experience of myself and those who
have used this approach, giving no apparent
problems with ACTH, whereas Lysis prefers
his approach because he feels the anti-aromatase effect is still good and
the desmolase inhibition (which is the
factor leading to ACTH inhibition) may be
expected to be even less with his approach.