Bluelight

Thread: Why You Should Not Frontload a Cycle

Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. Collapse Details
    Why You Should Not Frontload a Cycle 
    #1
    Moderator
    Performance Enhancing Drugs
    CFC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Yoo Kay
    Posts
    3,025
    Bluelight
    This is taken from a post I made on another thread, but really I should stick it in its own thread...

    ***

    Why you should never frontload ('kickstart') a cycle: homeostasis



    Basically, all bodybuilders are in a battle against homeostasis. We try to overcome the body's tendency to not gain mass by eating more food, training more frequently or harder, taking more supplements, and so on. The idea being that more of [whatever] sends a stronger message for protein synthesis. Let's call all these compounds and techniques 'growth factors'.

    Well eventually, as we all know, these growth factors stop working. We ramp up the training intensity, take more creatine and so on, but growth plateaus regardless. You may be on a bulk cramming down the burgers, but the body finds a way to overcome this and prevent the growth message getting through - probably by elevating myostatin levels, among other mechanisms.

    At this point bodyfat may go up quickly, but LBM gain is closing in on zero net growth. So we have to take a break, usually shrink back a bit, and let the body get used to the absence of all these growth factors - creating a new 'normal' or set-point.

    In the process myostatin and all the other inhibitory mechanisms drop back too - with a slight lag, hence the loss of mass. At this point, hopefully we're holding more mass than when we started the last bulking cycle, and now we're ready to go and repeat it all over again, in the hope of retaining even more at the end of it; rinse repeat; rinse repeat.

    Steroids fit into this homeostatic cycle in exactly the same way as the other growth factors, albeit to a much higher degree. The growth benefit they confer is not an absolute factor. For instance 300mg of test doesn't build, say, 3 kg of muscle, nor does 600mg build 6kg. Steroids don't work like that.

    Just like with increasing training intensity or food intake, it's the relative change compared to what you were doing or taking before that accounts for their benefit.


    To make this obvious, let's use an example:


    Person A has been on a cycle of 1000mg test for a while and his growth has plateaued. So he increases the dose by 500mg for the next 10 weeks (it could just as easily be a different compound he's adding instead, btw). And suddenly, he experiences some new growth. Just what we want and what we would expect.

    Person B has also been training for years and his growth is at a plateau. So he's just starting a cycle, which is 500mg test total for 10 weeks.

    In other words, they are both doing exactly the same thing in adding 500mg testosterone to their bodies after hitting a plateau.

    But all other things being equal, who is going to gain more from that 500mg over the next 10 weeks?


    No prizes for guessing Person B.


    Person B is experiencing a dramatic change in his testosterone levels of several multiples of what he produces naturally. Meanwhile Person A was only increasing his testosterone level by 50%. For Person A to even have a chance at a similar result, he'd probably need to take something like 3-4000mg, which would be a relatively similar increase.


    So what does this mean for our normal gains-hungry bodybuilder?


    Well if you take this fundamental physiological fact, and now programme it into a regular cycle, you can see that ultimately the most effective strategy for overcoming homeostasis on AAS must be to continuously create as much relative change as you can. To be constantly tapering-up the dose from the lowest effective level.

    Now I ask anyone, if you intend to frontload your cycle with 1000mg of testosterone for a few weeks (or an oral steroid or whatever), how the fuck do you plan on creating much relative change after? You're starting out so high, the only way up is through the stratosphere. And since it's only a frontload, your serum levels may actually start to decline after peaking in the first month!

    So fine, you'll bloat up quickly at first and it will look like an amazing idea because the changes come on fast and you'll leave Mr Tortoise behind. But good luck if you thought those bloated 10lbs were solid real muscle. And good luck maintaining that pace for a solid 12 weeks of continuous real growth while your testosterone levels flatten out or even decline. This is one reason most cycles stop being productive after about 8 weeks or so - the body's homeostatic mechanisms kick in so quickly that you're fighting a losing battle from that point onwards.

    Meanwhile Mr Tortoise, who started out low and slow but keeps upping the dose, soon overtakes you despite still being on less AAS, all the while staying harder and drier and never once resembling the bloated watery Pufferfish you became thanks to your frontload.


    Which is why I say frontloading is logically one of the most retarded practices there is.


    By boosting AAS levels up to a peak within the first weeks, you are literally killing off your future growth potential. You're wasting your most effective tool for growth (relative change) by throwing it all in at the start. And you're deluding yourself that the rapid changes you saw were real keepable gains post-cycle.

    The clever approach to cycling - and indeed bodybuilding in general, given our battle with homeostasis - is to always be 'confusing' the body (and overcoming inhibitors like myostatin) by upping whatever variable you're playing with (be it food intake, training intensity, supplements or AAS) from the lowest effective starting point.

    Thus I advise guys to do the complete opposite of frontloading. Start your cycle on a dose that's barely over natural levels, so you can then spend the next 12-15+ weeks gradually raising the dose, achieving the solid relative change we all want, while still staying at a sensible level and without experiencing all the negative side-effects that high doses entail.

    This should be commonsense, even on the most anecdotal level and to the most novice trainee - after all, we all know our bodies plateau sometime after we make a change. So to be constantly changing (periodising) and tapering up various compounds and strategies from their lowest effective level is self-evidently the most efficient - and healthy - way to build muscle.
    Last edited by CFC; 21-09-2016 at 05:06.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #2
    Moderator
    Performance Enhancing Drugs
    Genetic Freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,004
    What a great post CFC.... I recon we should make it a sticky...
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #3
    What is your opinion on many very short cycles of fast acting strong compounds at relatively high doses? Homeostasis is avoided but the high doses and compounds necessary are likely to produce more side effects and very short cycles might be too short for muscle mass to grow since it takes time from the genes necessary being activated and for muscle cell hypertrophy since all of the processes involved take time (sattelite cells multiplying, fusing with the muscle fibers and protein syntheses to happen.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #4
    Moderator
    Performance Enhancing Drugs
    CFC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Yoo Kay
    Posts
    3,025
    I think short blast cycles like that are a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

    You're already basically maxing out your growth potential at the start of a cycle given the relative change even a small increase in natural hormone levels brings.

    It serves no purpose at all to then go and triple that already highly effective dose for the sake of some more bloat and negative sides. Let's say you manage to put on an extra 4-5lbs in the first 2 weeks with that blast approach - it's highly unlikely any of that is actually functional muscle tissue that will be retained afterwards.

    However short low-dose cycles, those make sense and do work very effectively for anyone not wishing to experience too much shut-down or sides but to attain some decently sustainable, incremental gains.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #5
    Bluelighter Intense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    A booty
    Posts
    467
    Good write up CFC, makes sense..
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #6
    Quote Originally Posted by CFC View Post
    I think short blast cycles like that are a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

    You're already basically maxing out your growth potential at the start of a cycle given the relative change even a small increase in natural hormone levels brings.

    It serves no purpose at all to then go and triple that already highly effective dose for the sake of some more bloat and negative sides. Let's say you manage to put on an extra 4-5lbs in the first 2 weeks with that blast approach - it's highly unlikely any of that is actually functional muscle tissue that will be retained afterwards.

    However short low-dose cycles, those make sense and do work very effectively for anyone not wishing to experience too much shut-down or sides but to attain some decently sustainable, incremental gains.
    Good response, although I have to apologize for not wording my question in the best way. Relatively high doses meant doses that while being on the high side (so not going from 500 mg test to 1.5g but to 750 mg or where ever your personal tipping point is since not all people respond the same to the the same doses) are still not at the level that just causes more side effects and bloat without any real increase in muscle growth (with the exception of strength athletes where the cut off is at the point where you are just causing more and more side effects with no real performance improvements.... if that means extra bloat that isn't desirable in body building then so be it.... especially since bloat has slight effects on your lifts that are unrelated to muscle growth or better nervous system utilization of the muscle already present).
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #7
    So... Should I been titrating Clomid? I went from Total T of 260 to 750 in a week and then added Anastrozole and reached 1000-1200, which is where it stayed since... Did I also screw up my progress? I am cutting, not bulking...
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #8
    Moderator
    Performance Enhancing Drugs
    CFC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Yoo Kay
    Posts
    3,025
    If you're cutting, your aim is really just to support the balance of protein synthesis (nitrogen retention) to keep it positive, which doesn't need a lot. You're not going to gain serious muscle either way. However from your other posts my understanding was that below 1000 your mood/sense of wellbeing became poor, therefore maintaining that would be my primary focus.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #9
    Serious muscle can be gained even by women. Eventually, I want to look like Hugh Jackman in Wolverine or the dude in Spartacus. I doubt steroids are even necessary to get that big. Christian Bale got huge from Machinist to Batman in like 4-6 months without AAS. 1200ng/dL is probably top 1 percent of men. Then again, people lie...
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #10
    Moderator
    Performance Enhancing Drugs
    CFC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Yoo Kay
    Posts
    3,025
    Sorry reading what I wrote the way you have makes it look like an insult lol. What I meant was that serious muscle isn't going to be gained on a cut. I'm sure you can attain your ideal body, certainly.
    Reply With Quote
     

  11. Collapse Details
     
    #11
    It's not possible to gain muscle on a cut unless you've never hit the gym before and even then the growth will stop after a month once caloric deficit kicks in.
    Reply With Quote
     

  12. Collapse Details
     
    #12
    Bluelighter Intense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    A booty
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by InfectedWithDrugs View Post
    Serious muscle can be gained even by women. Eventually, I want to look like Hugh Jackman in Wolverine or the dude in Spartacus. I doubt steroids are even necessary to get that big. Christian Bale got huge from Machinist to Batman in like 4-6 months without AAS. 1200ng/dL is probably top 1 percent of men. Then again, people lie...
    You don't think hugh and bale used aas?..


    Quote Originally Posted by InfectedWithDrugs View Post
    It's not possible to gain muscle on a cut unless you've never hit the gym before and even then the growth will stop after a month once caloric deficit kicks in.

    Depends on genetics. Kevin Levrone can do it. I would guess 95% of the population can not to the degree he can though, it's pretty shocking.
    Reply With Quote
     

  13. Collapse Details
     
    #13
    Moderator
    Performance Enhancing Drugs
    CFC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Yoo Kay
    Posts
    3,025
    In a way I wish we didn't have pro-bodybuilders. They are so far off the chart, genetically speaking, and as close to being physically 'superhuman' that comparisons to the rest of us are pointless and completely misleading.

    One reason I think AAS doses are so high is the mistaken belief that their achievements are just a result of AAS, rather than the combination with their exceptional genetics.

    Academically, it's like comparing Einstein or Hawking to the average Uni student and expecting similar results from reading the same papers.
    Reply With Quote
     

  14. Collapse Details
     
    #14
    Quote Originally Posted by CFC View Post
    In a way I wish we didn't have pro-bodybuilders. They are so far off the chart, genetically speaking, and as close to being physically 'superhuman' that comparisons to the rest of us are pointless and completely misleading.

    One reason I think AAS doses are so high is the mistaken belief that their achievements are just a result of AAS, rather than the combination with their exceptional genetics.

    Academically, it's like comparing Einstein or Hawking to the average Uni student and expecting similar results from reading the same papers.
    True. I also believe they can put everything they have in to lifting, essentially it is their religion. They live in the gym.
    I enjoy my family too much for that.
    Reply With Quote
     

  15. Collapse Details
     
    #15
    Bluelighter Intense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    A booty
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by jr77 View Post
    True. I also believe they can put everything they have in to lifting, essentially it is their religion. They live in the gym.
    I enjoy my family too much for that.

    Well for the bodybuilders who do it for a living 2 hrs in the gym a day verses 8-10 at a office job. You actually get more time with your kids if you choose to.
    Reply With Quote
     

  16. Collapse Details
     
    #16
    Quote Originally Posted by CFC View Post
    In a way I wish we didn't have pro-bodybuilders. They are so far off the chart, genetically speaking, and as close to being physically 'superhuman' that comparisons to the rest of us are pointless and completely misleading.

    One reason I think AAS doses are so high is the mistaken belief that their achievements are just a result of AAS, rather than the combination with their exceptional genetics.

    Academically, it's like comparing Einstein or Hawking to the average Uni student and expecting similar results from reading the same papers.
    Or pro strongmen / powerlifters / oly lifters. I could take all the AAS in the world and not do an olympic press with 230 kg.
    Reply With Quote
     

  17. Collapse Details
     
    #17
    Yeah there is so much more to good genes for BB than high T levels. I thought high healthy T levels would make me Superman, but it simply made progress quicker by 50 percent or so. Strength went up, endurance, energy, but fat loss / muscle gain is still at 1lbs per week and strict diet also needed, counting every single calorie.

    The biggest advantage of T for me was becoming a much more confident man, which helped in the dating scene dramatically. More T = more Alpha.
    Reply With Quote
     

  18. Collapse Details
     
    #18
    Greenlighter
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    2
    Nice post!
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •