Testosterone Nation
SEARCH

Advanced | Members

HOME    T-NATION FORUMS    TMUSCLE STORE     LOG IN
TMUSCLE Store
Surge Recovery

Recovery Time Between Cycles?
Rating
1 2 | Next Last
 

deafwoody
Level 0

Join date: Nov 2008
Location:
Posts: 85

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?

Report Post
 

Bill Roberts
Level 5

Join date: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 7408

No, rather the factors are:

1) Natural T production should be strongly back

2) If not planning on using HCG during the cycle, testicle size should be fully or nearly fully back

3) 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.

Report Post
 

whotookmyname
Level 0

Join date: Nov 2008
Location:
Posts: 595

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.


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.

Report Post
 

deafwoody
Level 0

Join date: Nov 2008
Location:
Posts: 85

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

Report Post
 

deafwoody
Level 0

Join date: Nov 2008
Location:
Posts: 85

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.

Report Post
 

Bill Roberts
Level 5

Join date: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 7408

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.

Report Post
 

deafwoody
Level 0

Join date: Nov 2008
Location:
Posts: 85

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.

Report Post
 

BONEZ217
Level 2

Join date: Feb 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 4755

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.


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.

Report Post
 

deafwoody
Level 0

Join date: Nov 2008
Location:
Posts: 85

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?

Report Post
 

BONEZ217
Level 2

Join date: Feb 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 4755

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?


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).

Report Post
 

BUSHMASTER
Level 4

Join date: Sep 2007
Location:
Posts: 141

Bonez you forgot to say that winstrol does the same damage whether in the injectable or oral form because both are 17aa's

Report Post
 

BONEZ217
Level 2

Join date: Feb 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 4755

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


True. Thank you.

Report Post
 

deafwoody
Level 0

Join date: Nov 2008
Location:
Posts: 85

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?

Report Post
 

chillain
Level 4

Join date: Jan 2005
Location:
Posts: 1577

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.





Report Post
 

Bill Roberts
Level 5

Join date: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 7408

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.

Report Post
 

Brook
Level 0

Join date: Jul 2008
Location:
Posts: 4262

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

Report Post
 

egnatiosj
Level 1

Join date: Feb 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 443

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


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

Report Post
 

Bill Roberts
Level 5

Join date: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 7408

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.

Report Post
 

BONEZ217
Level 2

Join date: Feb 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 4755

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.


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.

Report Post
 

Smitty22
Level 3

Join date: Dec 2008
Location:
Posts: 33

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....

Report Post
 

pickapeck
Level 0

Join date: Jan 2007
Location:
Posts: 158

I did this taper biz in the 80s. It just prolongs recovery in my experience.

Report Post
 

Bill Roberts
Level 5

Join date: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 7408

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????


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.

Report Post
 

Bill Roberts
Level 5

Join date: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 7408

And on being confident natural T is back:

If you get to the point where it would be time to start the bridge -- in other words levels have fallen to being commensurate with ongoing 100 mg/week usage -- and you are confident your T levels must be better than they would be at a mere 100 mg/week and it being a half-week after the last injection, then this would be some degree of basis to have confidence.

Myself I don't start a bridging dose till I have spent a little time at nothing but natural T production just to be entirely sure.

When running cycles such as ones that are suppressive for no longer than 8 weeks, using fast-actings or orals at the end, recovery is so fast that at worst there are typically a couple of days of feeling somewhat low. Or if having only 8 weeks of suppresson but using only for example enanthate and therefore discontinuing at week 6, there are generally no low days at all.

The unhappiness so many experience comes from wanting to do cycles that are longer than generally should be the case anyway. E.g., four 7 week cycles (not that anyone does 7 week cycles, but for illustration) are going to do more for you in the same period of time as two 14 week cycles.

But short-sighted greed often results in guys choosing cycle lengths such as that.

(Even in the case of having a specific date to meet, I wouldn't recommend 14 weeks. Two on, two off, and 10 on, assuming availability of short-actings, would be a better choice. However in the case of 12 weeks, if there were a contest at that point I would not rule out 12 straight though when there's an opportunity to plan well ahead rather than being forced to meet a non-optimal calendar situation I don't favor ending with more than 10.)

Report Post
 

Dynamo Hum
Level 0

Join date: Jul 2008
Location:
Posts: 1809

Wow Bill! That is some heavy duty shit!! What a way to start a new year...

Report Post
 

Brook
Level 0

Join date: Jul 2008
Location:
Posts: 4262

I know. i love him.

Report Post
1 2 | Next Last