Short cycles - 2 on 2 off

Hi guys. First post, long time lurker (here and other forums).
I've been looking into starting my first cycle and in doing my research came across something pretty interesting which I've not seen mentioned here.

Short cycles. It seems the idea of short cycles was popularised by Bill Roberts.
Essentially you would be on gear for 2 weeks, take a break of 2-4 weeks and then repeat.
Many have followed the protocol 2 on, 2 off, 2 on, 2 off, 2 on, 4-6 off (thus "on" for a total of 6 weeks), which results in more gradual gains, less sides and much less of a negative impact on your LDL and HDL.
It is also thought by Bill Roberts and other proponents that due to the short time "on", you don't really shut down and thus you recover within a few days (if you even shut down at all).
Often it is suggested that no PCT is needed after the first 2 weeks on.

The point of running such a short cycle is that you can use gear at a much higher level (especially when including orals, as it is considered that the duration of use rather than the volume used is the main problem causer for your liver). I've seen quite a number of posts where guys even run dbol only at 70+mg (one guy even at 100mg!) ED for such a cycle with no shut down, no liver problems and kept around 80% of their gains. Guys using Test Prop and Tren even report making gains during PCT because the bounce back from shut down took 3-4 days.

3 samples I just copied from another forum:

ORAL ONLY (2on, 2off, 2on, 2off, 2on, 4off) (150mg drol, 75mg winny)
W 1-2 Drol 50mg 3x/D and Winny 25mg 3x/d
W 3-4 off
W 5-6 Drol 50mg 3x/D and Winny 25mg 3x/d
W 7-8 off
W 9-10 Drol 50mg 3x/D and Winny 25mg 3x/d
W 11-14 off

INJ ONLY (3on, 4off, 3on, 4off, 3on, 8off)
W 1-3 Test Prop 75mg/d and NPP 50mg/d
W 4-7 off
W 8-10 Test Prop 75mg/d and NPP 50mg/d
W 11-14 off
W 15-17 Test Prop 75mg/d and NPP 50mg/d
W 18-25 off

NO TEST (2on, 2off, 2on, 2off, 2on, 4off)
W 1-2 Tren Ace 100mg/d, Winny 25mg 3x/d, HGC 250iu 2x/w
W 3-4 off
W 5-6 Tren Ace 100mg/d, Winny 25mg 3x/d, HGC 250iu 2x/w
W 7-8 off
W 9-10 Tren Ace 100mg/d, Winny 25mg 3x/d, HGC 250iu 2x/w
W 11-14 off

PCT would be used during the off weeks, but if running lower doses then it usually won't be required for the first 2 off weeks (I'd probably still use it just in case though...)

Who this is for:
People who want to fly under the radar - gains are slower and more moderate
People new to cycles and wanting to dabble with oral only
People looking to bust through a plateau
People looking for a possibly safer and healthier way of cycling

Who this isn't for:
People looking for big gains

Anyway, thought I would share this with you guys and maybe see whether someone has tried anything like this?
I'd be happy to share links on more info on this protocol if the forum rules permit it.

Happy holidays

Those are some really bad cycles, see our sample cycles for expamples how it should be done.

Any Gear expecially Nandralone is goin to suppres or shut you down and the gear will stil be active in your 2 weeks off so you won't recover at all.
Those cycle look like major sides with very little quality gains.

Bad cycles bro

Honestly?

I don't agree with the theory and would never run those protocols. It's not something a first timer should do IMO. And I'd need to see blood work to backup his claim of no shutdown and that all other sides were untouched like cholesterol, liver, etc. What you should remember is that a 400/week cycle of test prop for 6-8 weeks is a short cycle by most peoples standards most sides wont even occur if you know just the basics of what you are doing.

I also don't like this on/off/on/off thing. That cant be good for the body.

So all in all don't bother with it, stick to something tried and tested.

admin wrote: Those are some really bad cycles, see our sample cycles for expamples how it should be done.

I realise that those cycles are vastly different to what a normal cycle would look like, however the rationale behind it's design is different to those of normal cycles.

Before you knock the idea though, maybe give it a bit of a Google, it won't hurt and you may even find something you like.

These are super long reads, but I found them pretty interesting:
forums.steroid.com/educational-threads/5...ducational-read.html

thinksteroids.com/articles/two-week-steroid-cycle-case-study/

"Where AAS doses are sufficient for good gains, an interesting pattern is seen. For the first two weeks of the cycle, only the hypothalamus is inhibited, and it produces much less LHRH as a result of the high levels of sex hormones it senses. The pituitary is not inhibited at all: in fact, it is actually sensitized, and will respond to LHRH (if any is provided) even moreso than normally. After two weeks however, the pituitary also becomes inhibited, and even if LHRH is provided, the pituitary will produce little or no LH. This then is a deeper type of inhibition. After this point, there seems to be no definite further “switching point” where inhibition again becomes deeper and harder to reverse. As a general rule, I would say that there seems to be little difference between using AAS for 3 weeks vs. 8 weeks: recovery is about the same either way. Between 8 and 12 weeks, it becomes more and more likely that recovery will be difficult and slow, though even at 12 weeks it is common for recovery to not be too problematic, taking only a few weeks. Cycles past 12 weeks seem much more likely to cause substantial problems with recovery. In the hundreds of consultations I have done for people with recovery problems, very few (I can recall two) were for very short cycles such as 6 weeks, while most were for usages of 12 weeks straight or more.
I do not know what changes take place in the hypothalamus and pituitary over a long period of time that result in this problem, but it certainly is true that long-term inhibition makes recovery more difficult on average. I suspect the problem may have to do with change in the “clock” that regulates the pulse rate of LHRH secretion, but I am not sure that that is so."

thinksteroids.com/articles/inhibition-an...osterone-production/

I tried googling Bill Roberts and it seems he's pretty highly regarded in the steroid world, so I don't think this is stuff he's just pulled out of his ass.

In short though - the rationale for doing a short cycle is that it helps avoid thyroid shutdown, so recovery is quicker (as I said earlier - a couple of days, often guys don't even use PCT)
Obviously, there's been a fair bit of flaming about this in other forums, understandably so, but the science behind it kinda makes sense if you take the time to research it.

How would you ever get a steady blood level with a method like this??

Don't you think that with all the flaring with the hormones that you will be more prone to side effects??

hxc wrote:

admin wrote: Those are some really bad cycles, see our sample cycles for expamples how it should be done.

I realise that those cycles are vastly different to what a normal cycle would look like, however the rationale behind it's design is different to those of normal cycles.

Before you knock the idea though, maybe give it a bit of a Google, it won't hurt and you may even find something you like.

These are super long reads, but I found them pretty interesting:
forums.steroid.com/educational-threads/5...ducational-read.html

thinksteroids.com/articles/two-week-steroid-cycle-case-study/

"Where AAS doses are sufficient for good gains, an interesting pattern is seen. For the first two weeks of the cycle, only the hypothalamus is inhibited, and it produces much less LHRH as a result of the high levels of sex hormones it senses. The pituitary is not inhibited at all: in fact, it is actually sensitized, and will respond to LHRH (if any is provided) even moreso than normally. After two weeks however, the pituitary also becomes inhibited, and even if LHRH is provided, the pituitary will produce little or no LH. This then is a deeper type of inhibition. After this point, there seems to be no definite further “switching point” where inhibition again becomes deeper and harder to reverse. As a general rule, I would say that there seems to be little difference between using AAS for 3 weeks vs. 8 weeks: recovery is about the same either way. Between 8 and 12 weeks, it becomes more and more likely that recovery will be difficult and slow, though even at 12 weeks it is common for recovery to not be too problematic, taking only a few weeks. Cycles past 12 weeks seem much more likely to cause substantial problems with recovery. In the hundreds of consultations I have done for people with recovery problems, very few (I can recall two) were for very short cycles such as 6 weeks, while most were for usages of 12 weeks straight or more.

If you can site me just a smidgin of evidence that any of the above is true I will look into those links. For him to say all that he MUST have read it somewhere in the literature if not then its nothing more than his own theory which doesn't mean much.

Specifically I'd like to see proof that shutdown does not occur at the two week mark but at 3 weeks it's the same as 8 weeks (thats what he said) .

You gotta understand, where I come from people back up such claims and with actual science otherwise they are not taken too seriously.

1 shot of Nandralone will completely shut you down. Do bloods and see for yourself, I have.!

And the though alone of doing a Dbol/winny cycle has my liver crying.

Chem1 wrote:

hxc wrote:

admin wrote: Those are some really bad cycles, see our sample cycles for expamples how it should be done.

I realise that those cycles are vastly different to what a normal cycle would look like, however the rationale behind it's design is different to those of normal cycles.

Before you knock the idea though, maybe give it a bit of a Google, it won't hurt and you may even find something you like.

These are super long reads, but I found them pretty interesting:
forums.steroid.com/educational-threads/5...ducational-read.html

thinksteroids.com/articles/two-week-steroid-cycle-case-study/

"Where AAS doses are sufficient for good gains, an interesting pattern is seen. For the first two weeks of the cycle, only the hypothalamus is inhibited, and it produces much less LHRH as a result of the high levels of sex hormones it senses. The pituitary is not inhibited at all: in fact, it is actually sensitized, and will respond to LHRH (if any is provided) even moreso than normally. After two weeks however, the pituitary also becomes inhibited, and even if LHRH is provided, the pituitary will produce little or no LH. This then is a deeper type of inhibition. After this point, there seems to be no definite further “switching point” where inhibition again becomes deeper and harder to reverse. As a general rule, I would say that there seems to be little difference between using AAS for 3 weeks vs. 8 weeks: recovery is about the same either way. Between 8 and 12 weeks, it becomes more and more likely that recovery will be difficult and slow, though even at 12 weeks it is common for recovery to not be too problematic, taking only a few weeks. Cycles past 12 weeks seem much more likely to cause substantial problems with recovery. In the hundreds of consultations I have done for people with recovery problems, very few (I can recall two) were for very short cycles such as 6 weeks, while most were for usages of 12 weeks straight or more.

If you can site me just a smidgin of evidence that any of the above is true I will look into those links. For him to say all that he MUST have read it somewhere in the literature if not then its nothing more than his own theory which doesn't mean much.

Specifically I'd like to see proof that shutdown does not occur at the two week mark but at 3 weeks it's the same as 8 weeks (thats what he said) .

You gotta understand, where I come from people back up such claims and with actual science otherwise they are not taken too seriously.

"Where AAS doses are sufficient for good gains, an interesting pattern is seen. For the first two weeks of the cycle, only the hypothalamus is inhibited, and it produces much less LHRH as a result of the high levels of sex hormones it senses. The pituitary is not inhibited at all: in fact, it is actually sensitized, and will respond to LHRH (if any is provided) even moreso than normally. After two weeks however, the pituitary also becomes inhibited, and even if LHRH is provided, the pituitary will produce little or no LH. This then is a deeper type of inhibition. After this point, there seems to be no definite further "switching point" where inhibition again becomes deeper and harder to reverse."

www.anabolic-bible.org/ShowPage.aspx?id=73

I'm with you - I don't want to rely on bro-science when it comes to putting stuff in my body.
I unfortunately I don't quite know what to google to get legit medical study results - not sure whether it is the luteinizing hormone or what which signifies pituitary inhibition.
I've found a couple of references to corticosteroids in medical journals, citing that usage exceeding 2 weeks may inhibit the HPA axis, which is the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis, through a negative feedback loop (inhibition incurring due to no need for it to be active due to drugs already providing checmicals), which is pretty much what we're looking at here - except with anabolics and not cortisol.

Again.. Those cycles are terrible, look through the sample cycles on the site and use the search function for further information. If you want to try cross reference threads on steroid.com, then rather sign up on there and ask for advice.. You have been told by extremely experienced people it's a bad idea but you trying to push that terrible idea, I can assure you, you will not change our thinking.

00pump wrote: Again.. Those cycles are terrible, look through the sample cycles on the site and use the search function for further information. If you want to try cross reference threads on steroid.com, then rather sign up on there and ask for advice.. You have been told by extremely experienced people it's a bad idea but you trying to push that terrible idea, I can assure you, you will not change our thinking.

I'm sorry, but that's a rubbish response.
Very "think our way or GTFO".

I realise that I have a low post count and generally low post counts are used to identify idiots or newbies, but I can assure you that I am not one. I'm yet to start a cycle because I'm pretty cautious, so I've been researching for the past year and only now feel reasonably comfortable with the idea (no, the shorties aren't going to be the first cycle either)

I am also however willing to bet that you've not even skimmed over the posted links so you won't even know if there's anything there that you agree with.
I'm not pushing anything either. I found something interesting and I thought I would share it, the information is now there and you can choose to continue to ignore it, or we can discuss the merits of it in an educated fashion (which would exclude the "we won't change our way of thinking" rhetoric and maybe consider reading stuff before bashing it in it's entirety)

hxc wrote:

Chem1 wrote:

hxc wrote:

admin wrote: Those are some really bad cycles, see our sample cycles for expamples how it should be done.

I realise that those cycles are vastly different to what a normal cycle would look like, however the rationale behind it's design is different to those of normal cycles.

Before you knock the idea though, maybe give it a bit of a Google, it won't hurt and you may even find something you like.

These are super long reads, but I found them pretty interesting:
forums.steroid.com/educational-threads/5...ducational-read.html

thinksteroids.com/articles/two-week-steroid-cycle-case-study/

"Where AAS doses are sufficient for good gains, an interesting pattern is seen. For the first two weeks of the cycle, only the hypothalamus is inhibited, and it produces much less LHRH as a result of the high levels of sex hormones it senses. The pituitary is not inhibited at all: in fact, it is actually sensitized, and will respond to LHRH (if any is provided) even moreso than normally. After two weeks however, the pituitary also becomes inhibited, and even if LHRH is provided, the pituitary will produce little or no LH. This then is a deeper type of inhibition. After this point, there seems to be no definite further “switching point” where inhibition again becomes deeper and harder to reverse. As a general rule, I would say that there seems to be little difference between using AAS for 3 weeks vs. 8 weeks: recovery is about the same either way. Between 8 and 12 weeks, it becomes more and more likely that recovery will be difficult and slow, though even at 12 weeks it is common for recovery to not be too problematic, taking only a few weeks. Cycles past 12 weeks seem much more likely to cause substantial problems with recovery. In the hundreds of consultations I have done for people with recovery problems, very few (I can recall two) were for very short cycles such as 6 weeks, while most were for usages of 12 weeks straight or more.

If you can site me just a smidgin of evidence that any of the above is true I will look into those links. For him to say all that he MUST have read it somewhere in the literature if not then its nothing more than his own theory which doesn't mean much.

Specifically I'd like to see proof that shutdown does not occur at the two week mark but at 3 weeks it's the same as 8 weeks (thats what he said) .

You gotta understand, where I come from people back up such claims and with actual science otherwise they are not taken too seriously.

"Where AAS doses are sufficient for good gains, an interesting pattern is seen. For the first two weeks of the cycle, only the hypothalamus is inhibited, and it produces much less LHRH as a result of the high levels of sex hormones it senses. The pituitary is not inhibited at all: in fact, it is actually sensitized, and will respond to LHRH (if any is provided) even moreso than normally. After two weeks however, the pituitary also becomes inhibited, and even if LHRH is provided, the pituitary will produce little or no LH. This then is a deeper type of inhibition. After this point, there seems to be no definite further "switching point" where inhibition again becomes deeper and harder to reverse."

www.anabolic-bible.org/ShowPage.aspx?id=73

I'm with you - I don't want to rely on bro-science when it comes to putting stuff in my body.
I unfortunately I don't quite know what to google to get legit medical study results - not sure whether it is the luteinizing hormone or what which signifies pituitary inhibition.
I've found a couple of references to corticosteroids in medical journals, citing that usage exceeding 2 weeks may inhibit the HPA axis, which is the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis, through a negative feedback loop (inhibition incurring due to no need for it to be active due to drugs already providing checmicals), which is pretty much what we're looking at here - except with anabolics and not cortisol.

Well, it's down to the guy preaching the method to back up his claims not you to go find. But again I see no value in on/off/on/off 2 week cycles. Of course SOME gains will happen because you are putting anabolics in your body but is this a smart way to go about it? Not in my books.

A mild beginner cycle would be test cyp for 8 weeks and a basic pct or test prop for 6 weeks if you ok injecting ED. Nothing new, most of this has been figured out already.

hxc wrote:

00pump wrote: Again.. Those cycles are terrible, look through the sample cycles on the site and use the search function for further information. If you want to try cross reference threads on steroid.com, then rather sign up on there and ask for advice.. You have been told by extremely experienced people it's a bad idea but you trying to push that terrible idea, I can assure you, you will not change our thinking.

I'm sorry, but that's a rubbish response.
Very "think our way or GTFO".

I realise that I have a low post count and generally low post counts are used to identify idiots or newbies, but I can assure you that I am not one. I'm yet to start a cycle because I'm pretty cautious, so I've been researching for the past year and only now feel reasonably comfortable with the idea (no, the shorties aren't going to be the first cycle either)

I am also however willing to bet that you've not even skimmed over the posted links so you won't even know if there's anything there that you agree with.
I'm not pushing anything either. I found something interesting and I thought I would share it, the information is now there and you can choose to continue to ignore it, or we can discuss the merits of it in an educated fashion (which would exclude the "we won't change our way of thinking" rhetoric and maybe consider reading stuff before bashing it in it's entirety)

Dude,I really think you need at least 3 solid cycles under your belt before you know what you are talking about.
Your lack of experienced counts against you,sorry to say.
The cycles that we have done,have been tried and tested and works every time,we have evidence and experience to back that up.
I like your approach though,to a certain extent....unconventional is not really a bad thing,I think...so why don't you be our 'lab rat' especially seeing that you so convinced of your point and let us know how it goes;)

my last 5c,if you don't mind....honestly I think your afraid of AAS that is why you justifying shorter cycles....
listen to the vets here and trust me you'll be just fine...nothing to be scared of...

Imagine the fucked up blood levels and emotional issues you will have with those cycles. That tren cycle is like a horror story waiting to happen.