Don’t get me wrong, it’s not a bad cycle proposal :).
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
[quote]Smitty22 wrote:
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??? [/quote]
Well, first on the cycle length.
It depends on your situation. If there is some reason why a date 12 weeks from the start point is a key date – for example a competition or some social occurrence you are very psyched to be at your best for – okay, 12 weeks will best meet this immediate need.
But if your goals are, rather, that yes sure it will be appreciated to look better in the near future as well, really the more important thing is the result a year down the road and onwwards, then 12 weeks is not the best way to go.
For the same total amount of steroids used per year and the same ratio of “off” weeks to “on” weeks – the only way to do a fair comparison – for example 8 week cycles will be more productive for you over the longer term than 12 week. In an equal comparison, you might be comparing 3 eight week cycles per year against two 12 week cycles. The first plan can be expected to have you in better condition at the same end date as the second plan.
The reasons are that, first, earlier weeks are more productive ordinarily than later weeks in a long cycle. It’s not unusual that relatively little further is accomplished in weeks 9-12 anyway. And second, recovery is faster and easier frmo the 8 week cycles.
So, 'nuff said on that.
On the letrozole, ideally you’d get tested but as an estimate 0.36 mg (1/7th of 2.5 mg) per day is a good baseline value for ongoing use being “off” or I think for a low-dose bridge such as 100 mg/week.
It sounds as if you are planning on 500 mg/week testosterone enanthate. I would try doubling the above dose (0.72 mg day) and see how that does. A further increase may be required. (More inhibitor is needed in the presence of more T.)
Now, on your T dosage as you asked about that, especially since you are keeping estrogen under control 750 mg/week would not be too much unless you have particular DHT problems with the skin, in which case dutasteride could help. If you were using that then I’d try letrozole at 1 mg per day and see how that does.
As the half life of letrozole is at least two days and may be more like four (individual variation) take quadruple the dose on the first day. Otherwise it can take 2-6 weeks for levels to build up to steady state. Quadruple on first day, if in your case the half-life is 3 days, will immediately get you to the steady-state level.
On Nolvadex: Yes it can be used at the same time. If your estrogen levels are in fact low-normal thanks to the letrozole you don’t need to use it as a gyno-preventative. However since you a prone to it and you won’t know for a fact going into it that a given amount of letrozole will suffice, you could choose to use a little as backup. 10 mg/day should suffice.
The same frontloading consideration applies here: take 7 times as much on the first day. (Five or 6 times will also get you close.)
As for Nolvadex as PCT, it is an interesting and important question as to whether protocol ought to be changed with letrozole in the picture, keeping endogenous estrogen down to low normal. Maybe a lesser dose is equally good. But I don’t know myself. I would assume going with the traditional 20 mg/day and continuing until being confident natural T is back.
If following the “wait till reaching bridge-type blood levels before sustaining the bridge” approach I’ve described, let’s assume 6 days for the half-life of testosterone enanthate (there are various reported values, but using 6 days for figuring works well) and assume you are using 375 mg 2x/week, and assume that we okay with the cycle being only a “so-called 8 week cycle” rather than a true on, by which I mean that we are counting weeks at full dose rather than total suppressive time – the latter being how I prefer to count it.
Let’s also say the cycle starts on a Monday.
On that Monday you inject an amount equal to the ongoing usual injection (375 mg) plus the amount ordinarily injected in one half-life’s time. If the half-life were exactly a week that would be another 750 mg. Being 6 daysit averages 642 mg (750 x 6/7). So the total injection on day 1 is about 1000 mg. This immediately gets you to the steady state level instead of having to wait weeks for it to get there.
Week 8 ends with a final injection of 375 mg on Wednesday.
Call the Monday starting the next week Day 0.
At Day 6 levels are commensurate with ongoing 375 mg/week usage: leave alone. Day 12, with ongoing 187 (not really that precise) mg/week usage. Leave alone. Day 17 or so, levels are commensurate with about an ongoing 100 mg/week level and having just taken the ongoing injection. So that day can be left alone, but a half-week after that and then semi-weekly (twice a week) after that, take 50 mg to sustain the 100 mg/week bridge level.
So in terms of suppression it’s still really more like a 10 week cycle or a little more.
Now if you have access to orals or fast acting injectables you could do it as a true 8 week cycle – effective all 8 weeks and suppressive for only barely more than 8 weeks – or you could modify the above to be a true 8 week cycle by running the time of injections as only 6 weeks. That is what I would do myself if doing it that way, as the same principle applies that I can now do more cycles per year on the same amount of gear, but I know from experience that most don’t like being told to use for only 6 weeks (due to their choice of using only a long-acting) for what they plan as an 8 week cycle so I did not write the above that way. Obviously you could easily modify it.
As to how to end the injection of TE two weeks before the end of the cycle and still have the cycle finish out strongly, it’s just a question of using orals and/or fast-acting injectables to progressively support what is being lost from the dropping TE levels. It’s a more efficient way to go when possible.
[/quote]
I have been reading BR’s posts for about 3 days straight now trying to wade through the exsisting taper vs BR’s modified method.
To me even though the taper sounds like a good idea in theory, the fact that BR posts the values for the half lifes and breaks it down so even a baby can understand it brings me to question not if the P22 taper works but if it works better than what bill is suggesting in this thread.
correct me is I am wrong on anything here because I am new to the game and I am a learning student so I know my place, but if you were on a 8 week cycle of test E would you want it to look like this based on halflifes:
*week 1-6 or 7 500mg test E (frontloaded @1000 for the first week to bring up stable levels)
*week 6 or 7-8 fast acting prop or orals such as dianabol to finish strong while letting the long esters break down (please suggest dose for either that could be used)
*500iu of hCG 2 - 3 times week on cycle
250iu EOD week 1 PCT
150iu EOD week 2 PCT
100iu EOD week 3 PCT
100iu x 2 in week 4 PCT
*nolva @ 40 ED (if needed) and taper off for PCT
*adex at .5 Eod on cycle and taper off to a low dose for off cycle E@ and gyno prevention (if you have naturally high E2)
because of the test E half life you would in fact have about 175 mg in theory still floating around in your system by the time week 8 hit, so by the time you got done with your PCT you would in fact be far ahead of the game of same the p22 taper method since it prolongs the recovery process??
Also i have read much about the possible use of primo towards the end of cycles or as a bridge? could you explain how this could work and more importantly why this would be beneficial? I plan on going about my first cycle right instead of having to play trail and error for my first few cycles. As always thanks for your time and input!
basicly something very similar to BulletproofTiger’s post. since it is a shorter cycle since BR said 3 8 week runs would be better than 2 12 week runs in the long run, wouldnt it just make since to not use long esters that last 2 weeks and to use more fast acting stuff so you could recover light years ahead of doing anything like the taper?
[quote]tampamuscle wrote:
basicly something very similar to BulletproofTiger’s post. since it is a shorter cycle since BR said 3 8 week runs would be better than 2 12 week runs in the long run, wouldnt it just make since to not use long esters that last 2 weeks and to use more fast acting stuff so you could recover light years ahead of doing anything like the taper?[/quote]
Depends on your working definition of light years I suppose. The most common shorter ester test these days is test prop which has a 2 day half life. Test enan is the common longer ester and its half life is 5 days so yes there is a 3 day half life difference. In the end its about a 1 weeks difference in terms of clearance from the body. That is its about 6 days with prop for a 7/8th’s clearance versus 15days for 7/8th’s clearance of enanthate
If I was planing on taking either the prop or say d-bol at 30-40g’s a day that last 2 weeks It would effectivly set me up for a quicker recovery time since the longer acting test E would be down to a theoretical 175mg by the end of the 8th week? It seems to me that just like BR said the taper would only shine on longer cycles Im guessing.
so would my proposed cycle above hold water then? anything you see flawed on it?
The taper has a better fit a longer cycle yes. But you can taper off shorter cycles well. If you seek to quickly get back to homeostatis than yes switching to prop is a fine move. Im not sure I understand your proposal above. If you intend is to run 8 weeks of test then 4 weeks of hcg then 4 weeks of PCT thats a bit odd. hcg is usually ran with the test “on cycle.” hcg should not be part of PCT however as it continues to delay, suppress and retard natural/endogenous test production/recovery.
no I planed on doing HCG on cycle at 500 IU E3d but since I had heard differing views on hcg post cycle I will plan on just using nolva and then a AI if my E2 becomes a problem again ( I have naturally high E2 levels for some reason)
would you suggest either d-bol or prop for the last 2 weeks of the cycle? Im guessing Prop would be ran @ the same amount the test E would be run at?
time on still ='s time off on shorter cycles correct?
Thats kinda a myth and a convenience thing. If you run an 8 weeker and take 4 weeks to recovery there is no law that states you have to then wait another 8-12 weeks before re running. Now it only makes sense if you intend to come off at all you might as well be natural. Or inversely if you just wanna be on stay on.
I have never run dbol as a “tapering off product.” Not to mention dbol aromatizes a lot more than prop will so from an estrogen control view alone go with prop. Does wise you will get more test with prop than enanthate so you could use less. That is 750mg of test e is about the same as 650mg of test p
so use a conversion factor of roughly .87?
Im planing on being on for quite a few years to come as this is something I plan to pursue wholeheartedly since I eventually want to compete one day and I feel my natural Levels are to low for my own good along with above normal estrogen levels at the moment (360 TT, 80 FT, 40 E2).
Would you suggest something more along the lines of a blast-cruise protocol if I plan on taking AAS atleast for the next 10 or more years?
[quote]tampamuscle wrote:
so use a conversion factor of roughly .87?
Im planing on being on for quite a few years to come as this is something I plan to pursue wholeheartedly since I eventually want to compete one day and I feel my natural Levels are to low for my own good along with above normal estrogen levels at the moment (360 TT, 80 FT, 40 E2).
Would you suggest something more along the lines of a blast-cruise protocol if I plan on taking AAS atleast for the next 10 or more years?[/quote]
Prop is like .82-.83; Acetate is about .87
There are many ways to do it. I use to cycle now I blast and cruise. Even amongst blast and cruises there is many different ways to do it. Its all about desired goals, compound selection and ability to manage and control negative sides.
For me I cruise on lower doses of mast and test. When I blast I up the mast and throw tren into the mix. I chose not to run the tren month after month. The nice thing about this approach is I dont have to plan a recovery off the tren. I just stop the ester takes care of everything. Im still on plenty of mast and test
thanks clarifying on the conversion factors!
and considering there is going to be no real reason for me to come off of AAS in the foreseeable future I am almost inclined to try a blast/cruise protocol. Are there any downsides to it vs just doing traditional cycles?
other than the fact that your basically putting your testis in extended hibernation, which after one cycle my already low test would be even lower post cycle im guessing and that will be no bueno at all since my natural low test levels wouldnt be a good thing to rely upon considering my new found mass.
I can see how your cycle makes since however I havent done much research into Mast and Tren other than knowing that tren is a huge strength gainer and mast is a derivative of DHT, is considered a “cutting” AAS, and doesnt armomatise so you wouldnt need something like adex or atleast not as much. As for effective dosages for each could you fill me in?
what are you blast/cruise time lengths like? could you post your dosages for each so I can see how to apply it in my situation?
What works for me and my training goals might not be applicable for you and your so bear that in mind. Also I dont really have a set protocol per se. I’ve had varying doses levels all year. But in general I dont find a need for my total injectables to exceed 1500mg a week in blast mode. In cruise mode Im as low as 400mg a week. I myself only made the decision to stay on indefinitely last fall myself so Im less than 1 year into the “program” if you will.
I’ve found cruising with as little as 200-250mg/wk each of both test and mast is where I still find an appreciable effect. So thats the low point for me. I still tinker with different dose levels each time I re-blast or re-cruise. Part of me is incline over the course of the next year to try different things like cruising with a 100/300 split or 300/100 just to see. Part of me considers even a pure mast cruise. We’ll just have to see. As far as blasts go I’ve run tren at 600wk, 400wk and 700wk this year. Each time my mast level was different. Obviously I keep a training log but I also jot down notes on how the blast is going. Making notations of sides and speculating whether I should go up or down in a certain compound and/or up or down with a certain ancillary.
With my strongman comp in the rearview now Im switching from a protocol of 200mg test, 450mg mast, 700mg tren to 500mg test and 600mg mast. So basically from one blast to another. Truth be told that tren blast was just 3 weeks. Since I used tren ace and my last shot was Saturday its already more than half cleared already. I don’t have a definite time duration to stay at these dose levels of test and mast maybe a month maybe 3.
Since we’re at relatively different points in our careers Im not sure how much you can gleen off me and what I do. Further Im not really recommending anyone play monkey see monkey do off my methods and choices. It took me 5+ years of cycling to get to the point I thought I would stay on “forever.” I dont know everything about everything but I know enough about me and the compounds I take and how it effects me at various dose levels. Someone who is newer will not have the same personal knowledge base.
To be super frank, its probably still best you run a few cycles with different compounds your are into just so you know what they do to you. If you try three or more compounds at once you may not be able to isolate the effect a specific compound has on you. Of course equally true sometimes adding compounds can correct problematic issues with individual other compounds.