I just wanted to double check on how long btwn cycles u need to take off.
I’ve been told that it is 3 months or 12 weeks from the time u end your PCT.
Is this right?
Also how does the taper stasis work into this as well?
No, rather the factors are:
-
Natural T production should be strongly back
-
If not planning on using HCG during the cycle, testicle size should be fully or nearly fully back
-
Depending on how you want to approach things, being “off” only half as long as “on” is very aggressive, equally is fairly aggressive, while being off twice as long as on is reasonably conservative.
I am completely tired of the “taper” subject and will not discuss why not to do it again whatsoever for some considerable period of time before the pain from beating my head against the wall has subsided. The search function will have to do.
As for your question on how the taper works into this, figure every week that the amount remaining in your system is not well under the 200 mg/week level to be an “on” week for the purpose of figuring needed “off” weeks.
Figure from the half-life of the products used how much remains at any given time from the injections. Then also figure your “taper” injections.
E.g., say on a week we’re going to call zero (obviously not the zeroth week of the cycle, but the point of the last full-sized injection) that the ongoing rate of use was 1000 mg/week and from that point on there is a plan to inject 100 mg/week as a “taper.” And let’s say the half-life is 7 days.
So at start of week 1 blood levels from the previous full-scale usage are now at the 500 mg/week level (reduced by half). You inject 100 mg – count this as half of that, however. So your total level is commensurate with ongoing 550 mg/week usage.
Week 2, the 550 is now cut to 275. You inject 100 mg again, so add in 50 mg. Your blood level is commensurature with an ongoing 325 mg/week.
Week 3, 325 is now cut to 160 (approx). Due to the the 100 mg/week that you are foolishly injecting as the “taper,” add in another 50 mg. Your blood level is now at the approx 210 mg/week level.
Week 4, works out to 155 mg/week.
If PCT were still being used recovery of natural T might be good by this point. If not, then it would still be quite suppressed. But let’s say that it is being continued and that things have gone well. In other words, let’s consider the best case scenario.
So let’s say you were foolish enough to do a so-called 14 week cycle and to do this “taper.” You should count it as being about a 18 week cycle because levels are remaining quite substantially suppressive for at least the 18 weeks.
Suppression might still be bad if PCT was discontinued before this, or an account of the HPTA being “asleep” for so long. Even the 100 mg/week level is 50% suppressive, approximately, in an individual having nothing going against him in the first place. So of course it’s possible and it does happen for a level such as the 155 mg/week level to block recovery. So actually the suppressed period might be longer than 18 weeks in this example. 18 weeks ia the approximate best-case scenario.
Of course the above is foolish to do: it is only presented as an example.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
…
I am completely tired of the “taper” subject and will not discuss why not to do it again whatsoever for some considerable period of time before the pain from beating my head against the wall has subsided. The search function will have to do.
…
Of course the above is foolish to do: it is only presented as an example.[/quote]
Very patient of you to add this one last time. Hopefully the headache is gone by New Years 
I agree 100%, and I’ve got to say it surprises me greatly to see many people here that favor (rationalize?) tapering.
I actually had no plans on a taper but was told about it in the last couple of weeks.It’s good to hear your thoughts Bill as u are a highly respected member of this forum.
So I’ll skip the taper and work with the info u have given me here.
Thanks
After doing a bit of reading (obviouslly more reading needs to be done) will taking HCG help in lowering my time in btwn cycles?
I know it will help in my recovery but I want to make sure that it covers all the bases.
I haven’t used it this cycle but would consider it next cycle at a rate of 100iu ED.
Yes if the reason for taking longer between cycles was having to wait longer for the testicles to regain size. Which wouldn’t ordinarily be the case.
My biggest concern is the Liver enzymes returning to there normal level.I read that after an 8 week cycle of dianabol then 3 months after the cycle was done that the liver enzymes had returned to a normal level.
So right now unless there is something out there that is capable of doing this quicker or if not taking orals allows the liver to recover quicker then I’m looking at 3 months btwn cycles.
Thanks
Any more thoughts on this would be appreciated.
[quote]deafwoody wrote:
My biggest concern is the Liver enzymes returning to there normal level.I read that after an 8 week cycle of dianabol then 3 months after the cycle was done that the liver enzymes had returned to a normal level.
So right now unless there is something out there that is capable of doing this quicker or if not taking orals allows the liver to recover quicker then I’m looking at 3 months btwn cycles.
Thanks
Any more thoughts on this would be appreciated.[/quote]
Avoiding orals will definitely prevent liver enzymes from getting too high. You wouldn’t run 8 weeks of dianbol in the first place, so that’s not the best info to compare anyway.
I agree.I’mm going to run d-bol for only 5 weeks in a future cycle.
So def if I just ran injectables my liver enzymes would not need as long to recover.
Any numbers on this?
[quote]deafwoody wrote:
I agree.I’mm going to run d-bol for only 5 weeks in a future cycle.
So def if I just ran injectables my liver enzymes would not need as long to recover.
Any numbers on this?[/quote]
No sorry, no numbers. But it is commonly accepted that injectables in normal doses over a normal duration are easier on the liver than methylated orals in normal doses over a normal duration (4-6 weeks).
Bonez you forgot to say that winstrol does the same damage whether in the injectable or oral form because both are 17aa’s
[quote]BUSHMASTER wrote:
Bonez you forgot to say that winstrol does the same damage whether in the injectable or oral form because both are 17aa’s[/quote]
True. Thank you.
From the sounds of it I’m going to take 12 weeks off from the end of my PCT and I am hoping that number is good.I haven’t done any orals in this cycle and the levels were pretty low.(450mg cyp a week and 400 EQ a week for 12 weeks)Would have went higher with the test but I didn’t find that out till mid cycle.
Hopefully I’m playing my cards right.
Does this sound OK?
Or can I cut the time in btwn cycles a little shorter?
Bill, not trying to nitpick here but I am wondering why, other than for simplicity of calculation, you chose to use “taper” values of 100mg/wk for the example you provided above?
The “test taper” known around these parts derives nearly all of its value from tapering down thru levels well below that 100mg/wk baseline: 80mg/wk, 60mg/wk, 40mg/wk, 20mg/wk etc with the presumption that natural test production gradually resumes as exogenous test is gradually reduced.
Because I wanted to pick just one number and that was the one I chose.
You can redo the calculations plugging in the numbers of your choice. The qualitative outcome is the same when these injections. It just jiggles the numbers somewhat.
It does not change the point that the practice extends the period of time in the “neither here nor there” time of neither having good gains nor good recovery.
E.g., if remaining levels from the main body of the cycle are still commensurate with say 250 mg/week use, why inject another 60 mg or 40 mg or whatever value you are suggesting?
It won’t yield “on-cycle” gains but it does delay recovery just that much further.
This was why i had stopped tapering my cycles quite some time ago (before coming here) - however on joining this forum i read (as we all have) the ‘stasis taper’ ideas and it makes perfect sense ASSUMING that 100mg/wk + SERM is not suppressive at all - more importantly not suppressive to those who are already totally inhibited…
I was always under the impression that SERM use post cycle, following the HCG use during a cycle was the ‘new and improved’ way to recover using more upto-date knowledge - where test tapers and 5000/5000/2500iu of HCG E5D post cycle was the old way… (we all know that the HCG is well out of whack these days…)
The first time i suspected that the T-Nation test taper might be a little off was when i decided to visit some of the other more popular steroid forums - and they all use their own tapers too! Not the same types… but testosterone tapers all the same.
This lead me to suspect that maybe many of the forums STILL believed this information from old, maybe from the ‘vets’ of the sites being old time users that haven’t re-educated possibly, rather than it being new information - a new way.
Just thinking out loud - If people really think they do recover better from it then they should use it IMO - but maybe if we could have a look at the actual data that suggests that 100mg test+SERM is unsuppressive in this context then it could turn this whole thing around, as this is what the WHOLE taper is based on… To trust this method without question is unlike this forum IMO.
Brook
[quote] Brook wrote:
This was why i had stopped tapering my cycles quite some time ago (before coming here) - however on joining this forum i read (as we all have) the ‘stasis taper’ ideas and it makes perfect sense ASSUMING that 100mg/wk + SERM is not suppressive at all - more importantly not suppressive to those who are already totally inhibited…
I was always under the impression that SERM use post cycle, following the HCG use during a cycle was the ‘new and improved’ way to recover using more upto-date knowledge - where test tapers and 5000/5000/2500iu of HCG E5D post cycle was the old way… (we all know that the HCG is well out of whack these days…)
The first time i suspected that the T-Nation test taper might be a little off was when i decided to visit some of the other more popular steroid forums - and they all use their own tapers too! Not the same types… but testosterone tapers all the same.
This lead me to suspect that maybe many of the forums STILL believed this information from old, maybe from the ‘vets’ of the sites being old time users that haven’t re-educated possibly, rather than it being new information - a new way.
Just thinking out loud - If people really think they do recover better from it then they should use it IMO - but maybe if we could have a look at the actual data that suggests that 100mg test+SERM is unsuppressive in this context then it could turn this whole thing around, as this is what the WHOLE taper is based on… To trust this method without question is unlike this forum IMO.
Brook[/quote]
I think that the 100mg/week stasis is off base. I like the idea of a stasis because it would help to counteract the cortisol rebound that occurs post cycle. I believe the stais should consist of 5-10mg/day of test P which is much closer to the actual values that men secrete (in the ~7mg a day area if i remember correctly).
The idea of test E though at 100mg/week presents an unstable set of levels that bill eluded to in a previous post
Actually my point is not that 100 mg/week if no substantial higher amount is remaining from the just-completed cycle is necessarily too greatly suppressive if a SERM is being used at the same time. Certainly sometimes it is not.
My point was that injecting 100 mg/week (or whatever amount) while levels are still suppressive from the previous cycle is just prolonging the process to no good end.
For example, let’s say for the sake of round numbers that someone is using 800 mg/week and the half-life is 7 days. Let’s call the day of the last injection day 0.
So on day 7 levels are commensurate with ongoing use of 400 mg/week and having just taken the injection maintaining that level; on day 14 the same is true with regard to the 200 mg/week level, and day 21 for the 100 mg/week level.
So if wanting to bridge at 100 mg/week, if nothing at all is injected on day 21 it is the same (in terms of levels and amounts in the body) as if you had not done the cycle at all but instead had been doing 100 mg/week, and just took your 100 mg weekly injection.
So if wanting to do this as a once per week injection, actually it would not be till 28 tha you were at the same place as you ordinarily expect to be a week after your 100 mg weekly injection.
Doing injections in the meantime before this point is delaying the time required to get to your planned bridge level, but not with amounts sufficient for on-cycle-like gains, though enough to slow recovery.
Either have enough to really do the job, or little enough to allow natural T production, is my view. But inbetween should be hastened if possible, or at the least not needlessly prolonged.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Actually my point is not that 100 mg/week if no substantial higher amount is remaining from the just-completed cycle is necessarily too greatly suppressive if a SERM is being used at the same time. Certainly sometimes it is not.
My point was that injecting 100 mg/week (or whatever amount) while levels are still suppressive from the previous cycle is just prolonging the process to no good end.
For example, let’s say for the sake of round numbers that someone is using 800 mg/week and the half-life is 7 days. Let’s call the day of the last injection day 0.
So on day 7 levels are commensurate with ongoing use of 400 mg/week and having just taken the injection maintaining that level; on day 14 the same is true with regard to the 200 mg/week level, and day 21 for the 100 mg/week level.
So if wanting to bridge at 100 mg/week, if nothing at all is injected on day 21 it is the same (in terms of levels and amounts in the body) as if you had not done the cycle at all but instead had been doing 100 mg/week, and just took your 100 mg weekly injection.
So if wanting to do this as a once per week injection, actually it would not be till 28 tha you were at the same place as you ordinarily expect to be a week after your 100 mg weekly injection.
Doing injections in the meantime before this point is delaying the time required to get to your planned bridge level, but not with amounts sufficient for on-cycle-like gains, though enough to slow recovery.
Either have enough to really do the job, or little enough to allow natural T production, is my view. But inbetween should be hastened if possible, or at the least not needlessly prolonged.[/quote]
Excuse my jumping in to the middle of this little conversation
I see what you mean. I haven’t used the stasis/taper before but the theory backed up by postive user reviews always seemed sound.
I wasn’t able to get my head around your previous posts explaining your opinion on the inferiority of the stais/taper. I understand it better now.
I’ll probably still be on the fence until I try it. But that is a good explanation.
So bill I have a question also…I have been told that tapers are the way to go…But then I hear you say they are not…This is tough because people give good sound info of why a taper should be used and then you who I have read numerous posts by and hold very knowledgeable on the subjetct says don’t do a taper…I’m bout to start a test-e cycle for about 12 weeks at 250mg every 3-4 days and have been told conflicting info what do you reccomend…
I’m prone to gyno so I will be taking letro throughout and was going to do a taper but don’t need to if I don’t have to, also can you hit on the use of letro in conjunction with the taper and pct…I have posted this same question now three times with no answers and if they do ansewr they don’t my questions??? This is my first test e cycle and want to do it right please help??? If you can give exact dosage reccomendations of all three teste, letro, and nolvadex please feel free if you think I should tweak my plan fell free I would like to hear what you have to say…