Blast and cruise v cycle on/off

[Hilly]

Yeah fair points mate - although I'm not sure we're quite as "opposite" as you may think........

However - because i like questioning everything basically - ok, so nolva and clomid aren't exactly benign substances, but then neither is testosterone in high doses, there seems to be an assumption that you would automatically drop to zero testosterone when coming off a cycle, which isn't necessarily true. I completely agree that long-term, low testosterone is a bad thing...absolutely no question. But for a few weeks...I don't think there's any evidence for it being any worse than having unaturally high testosterone for a few weeks.

I do see what you mean - and I suppose if you're planning to go back "on" within a couple of months then there's probably little point in coming off. I guess I just don't agree with throwing the body out long term with anything whatsoever.... and trust me - I speak from experience, both personal and very close to me, that long term using anything that messes up your natural system can go very wrong. I'm a firm believer in giving teh body time to recuperate fomr anything you throw at it. It's been a long journey to learn that lesson and I still struggle with it - frequently - but rather that than the effects of hammering it for too long.


Of course....what constitutes "too long" is open to interpretation............ interesting stuff though

Interesting for sure. I like this sort of discussion.

Thats very true re not possibly being low T for very long. However i feel its more the sharp dips down and then if your lucky up that cause the body heameostasis to switch so much thats the bad thing.

When i cycle or advise on others there wll always be a taper down or usually and then a lower dose or pct and off. The issue is for me we dont have access to bloods to know whats going on.

I wish i was lucky enough to be able to get my bloods checked when ever i wanted them to in regards to T levels and alsorts to be honest. I would be amused so much i wouldnt have time for a job.

However i dont so i feel instead of guessing/hoping i dont have low t for so long i would rather cruise. Plus it allows me to use these cruise periods far more effectively in relationship to being a competitive bodybuilder. the body will heal better than it would trying to go through pct. If im gaining i can still keep cals higher and hope for a little even just a smidge of muscle or i can use it to cut a little bodyfat without the risk of loosing muscle if i was going through pct.

this methods allows me to use a 6-12 month period far far more effectivly than doing a pct or 2 would. i suppose this sentance would be my main reason as a competitive athlete for blasting and cruising although i hate those terms lolol.

I do agree for alot of people its just a term them use to justify not coming off. But then alot of people come off and stay off for 6 weeks after a **** load of test and deca and are never really off anyway.

far to many variables but always nice to discuss

hilly

 

[kuju]

Interesting for sure. I like this sort of discussion.

Thats very true re not possibly being low T for very long. However i feel its more the sharp dips down and then if your lucky up that cause the body heameostasis to switch so much thats the bad thing.

When i cycle or advise on others there wll always be a taper down or usually and then a lower dose or pct and off. The issue is for me we dont have access to bloods to know whats going on.

I wish i was lucky enough to be able to get my bloods checked when ever i wanted them to in regards to T levels and alsorts to be honest. I would be amused so much i wouldnt have time for a job.

However i dont so i feel instead of guessing/hoping i dont have low t for so long i would rather cruise. Plus it allows me to use these cruise periods far more effectively in relationship to being a competitive bodybuilder. the body will heal better than it would trying to go through pct. If im gaining i can still keep cals higher and hope for a little even just a smidge of muscle or i can use it to cut a little bodyfat without the risk of loosing muscle if i was going through pct.

this methods allows me to use a 6-12 month period far far more effectivly than doing a pct or 2 would. i suppose this sentance would be my main reason as a competitive athlete for blasting and cruising although i hate those terms lolol.

I do agree for alot of people its just a term them use to justify not coming off. But then alot of people come off and stay off for 6 weeks after a **** load of test and deca and are never really off anyway.

far to many variables but always nice to discuss

hilly

See? Told you we weren't that opposite! Haha!!! I'd be like you mate...access to bloods and other testing whenever I wanted would leave me no tiem for anythign else - i'd be using myself as a guinea pig all day (in a sciencey way...not a ...you know....wrapped up with cellotape way...). It's bad enough having access to someone who is happy doing my BP, ECG and DEXA......which reminds me I need another hit of DEXA

I completely agree about people going back on too soon and therefore not really being off as such; and in those instances I would probably argue that cruising at HRT levels is at least no worse than the wild fluctuations. But for me that's an argument for staying off longer, not staying on.

With regard to the wild dip in T levels - surely that's no worse than the wild elevation? Especially when you get into the levels that some people do....but then when you're taking 10+ times your natural production or more all bets are off anyway I'd say - nobody has the slightest measure of evidence about what happens at those levels and how the confounding variables can get even more confounded. I will always advocate the lowest dose possible for the shortest time possible because, based on the scant evidence we have, it is likely to be a safer protocol in the long term.

I think right now is the most interesting time in terms of this kind of reserahc. We've got some stuff planned and there's some serious studies now starting up to look at long term effects. Harrison Pope for instance, has just won a $2.5 million grant for a 5 year study into the effects of AAS use.....REALLY interested to see what that produces!

Lots of other little studies gettign going as well - I think partly because we now have access to a wider population of AAS users who are willing to engage with clinical trials and see what's really going on.........

I for one, cannot f'in wait!!!!

 

[bulldog]

See? Told you we weren't that opposite! Haha!!! I'd be like you mate...access to bloods and other testing whenever I wanted would leave me no tiem for anythign else - i'd be using myself as a guinea pig all day (in a sciencey way...not a ...you know....wrapped up with cellotape way...). It's bad enough having access to someone who is happy doing my BP, ECG and DEXA......which reminds me I need another hit of DEXA

I completely agree about people going back on too soon and therefore not really being off as such; and in those instances I would probably argue that cruising at HRT levels is at least no worse than the wild fluctuations. But for me that's an argument for staying off longer, not staying on.

With regard to the wild dip in T levels - surely that's no worse than the wild elevation? Especially when you get into the levels that some people do....but then when you're taking 10+ times your natural production or more all bets are off anyway I'd say - nobody has the slightest measure of evidence about what happens at those levels and how the confounding variables can get even more confounded. I will always advocate the lowest dose possible for the shortest time possible because, based on the scant evidence we have, it is likely to be a safer protocol in the long term.

I think right now is the most interesting time in terms of this kind of reserahc. We've got some stuff planned and there's some serious studies now starting up to look at long term effects. Harrison Pope for instance, has just won a $2.5 million grant for a 5 year study into the effects of AAS use.....REALLY interested to see what that produces!

Lots of other little studies gettign going as well - I think partly because we now have access to a wider population of AAS users who are willing to engage with clinical trials and see what's really going on.........

I for one, cannot f'in wait!!!!

Second that! This can only be a good thing - LONG overdue!!

 

[Rick]

IMO this couldn't be farther from the truth.

Plenty of people never come off n have kids. Loadsa pros with kids etc.

This is very true, i think if there is genetic predisposal to infertility AAS can contribute to the pre exscisting condition but if you are a healthy male conceiving even while on AAS is possible... i know many.

 

[kuju]

This is very true, i think if there is genetic predisposal to infertility AAS can contribute to the pre exscisting condition but if you are a healthy male conceiving even while on AAS is possible... i know many.

I think this is a bit of an issue though. Not the fertility thing- there are as you say, plenty of people who conceive on cycle. But we have absolutely no concept of how big or small a proportion of the total population of AAS users that actually is. Same applies to the many I know who are experiencing very severe issues in NOT being able to father kids. The problem is - on both sides of that particular debate - people look for evidence to support their view.......when of course, a good scientific methodology is to look for evidence that you're wrong.

So the issue is that all sides of the debate look at a few case studies as evidence of...whatever. Case studies are interesting and demonstrate proof of concept, but they are not, in themselves, an evidence base.

There may well be a genetic pre-disposition to fertility problems.....but how would you know if you have the pre-disposition before starting AAS? I'm not aware of any work on that so ..assuming there isn't any work that's been done on that...there is no evidence at all and no genetic markers that could be tested for. So it may well be true - but it's no more helpful than saying the colour of the midwife's eyes when you were born was an instrumantal factor. The fact remains that it's a lottery and one that could lead to a permanent loss. Whether it's caused by or just exacerbated by AAS..is to a larger extent...irrelevant. The fact is, there appears to be a strong relationship between the two and that alone should give a cautionary note, because the bottom line is that people have no idea if it will happen to them until it does. If you ge away with it for a while...doesn't mean you always will. I've had a few conversations with guys who couldn't understand why they managed to have kids on a cycle but "all of a sudden" something went wrong. Sometimes they blamed a change in gear, or cycles...or (weirdly) diet. SOmetimes there seemed to be no rational explanation.

 

[Hilly]

See? Told you we weren't that opposite! Haha!!! I'd be like you mate...access to bloods and other testing whenever I wanted would leave me no tiem for anythign else - i'd be using myself as a guinea pig all day (in a sciencey way...not a ...you know....wrapped up with cellotape way...). It's bad enough having access to someone who is happy doing my BP, ECG and DEXA......which reminds me I need another hit of DEXA

I completely agree about people going back on too soon and therefore not really being off as such; and in those instances I would probably argue that cruising at HRT levels is at least no worse than the wild fluctuations. But for me that's an argument for staying off longer, not staying on.

With regard to the wild dip in T levels - surely that's no worse than the wild elevation? Especially when you get into the levels that some people do....but then when you're taking 10+ times your natural production or more all bets are off anyway I'd say - nobody has the slightest measure of evidence about what happens at those levels and how the confounding variables can get even more confounded. I will always advocate the lowest dose possible for the shortest time possible because, based on the scant evidence we have, it is likely to be a safer protocol in the long term.

I think right now is the most interesting time in terms of this kind of reserahc. We've got some stuff planned and there's some serious studies now starting up to look at long term effects. Harrison Pope for instance, has just won a $2.5 million grant for a 5 year study into the effects of AAS use.....REALLY interested to see what that produces!

Lots of other little studies gettign going as well - I think partly because we now have access to a wider population of AAS users who are willing to engage with clinical trials and see what's really going on.........

I for one, cannot f'in wait!!!!

im jelous you have access to dexa. always wanted it doing. the ecg is a bonus for sure

i agree with the wild elevation point also this is why i very rarely ramp things up. i always taper up. its just the way i lay most of my "own" cycles as im not in a rush to gain loads quickly i prefer a steady increase then decrease.

I do agree jumping in at 1g test and 600 deca is never doing any1 any good and altho not using at all is better and those doses are never going to be healthy i feel if one is at a level were those doses are warrented then starting at say 300 test and 300 deca and working upwards is how i would do it.

the SHIC theory interests me although i just cant see how ramping that much gear in for any space of time is going to be healthier and using a lower dose for longer.

However i havnt tried one "yet" and the gains may be worth the negative for some but im going abit off course here

 

[kuju]

The DEXA is amazing...... it showed a clear increase in LBM with a drop of about 1% in BF last time I did it - plus my bone mineral density was up so i'm well into teh upper reaches of that - no osteoporosis for me in old age!! (Of course I may pop my clogs long before old age gets a look in given the way I live sometimes but that's another story )

I've got a feelign i'm about to lose access to it though. Not happy about that!!

 

[DC55]

If your young free single.....and use purely for recreational use. 16 week course followed by 16 weeks on low dose test is what I do. Unless your only gonna do one course a year, then might as well blast and cruise, but do it properly. PCT is harsh on your body so doing a 16 week course, 4 week PCT, waiting a month and doing it again is POINTLESS!!! IMO

Personally I know i'm fertile as when I was a wee lad of 19 my g/f had two miscarriages. Cr@p I know but......

When I do decide to settle down and have kids then i'll come off and avoid using harsh PCT drugs. There are alot of more advanced drugs out there to get you going again. Running HCG throughout is wise. Once im off and trying for kids. I'll be using a VERY high dose of proviron.

 

[kuju]

If your young free single.....and use purely for recreational use. 16 week course followed by 16 weeks on low dose test is what I do. Unless your only gonna do one course a year, then might as well blast and cruise, but do it properly. PCT is harsh on your body so doing a 16 week course, 4 week PCT, waiting a month and doing it again is POINTLESS!!! IMO

Personally I know i'm fertile as when I was a wee lad of 19 my g/f had two miscarriages. Cr@p I know but......

When I do decide to settle down and have kids then i'll come off and avoid using harsh PCT drugs. There are alot of more advanced drugs out there to get you going again. Running HCG throughout is wise. Once im off and trying for kids. I'll be using a VERY high dose of proviron.

This absolutely is NOT me in any way having a dig at you mate - but there's a few things that I would question in your post....

If you're using for purely recreational reasons - do you really need to do more than one cycle a year? You can do two - with PCT and get amazing results...and I have yet to see any convincing evidence that would be harder on the body than blast and cruise for the year.

You say "low dose test" - but what do you take for "low dose"? Because if it's greater than 100mg per WEEK (and that's an absolute maximum) then it's just a low dose cycle......but still a cycle....it's not "cruising" as far as your body is concerned.

PCT is harsh on your body - is it? What's the evidence base for that? More importantly - where is the evidence that it is harsher than just staying on? I agree that PCT drugs are strong and some have sides...I would also agree that 4 weeks off and then going back on isn't a great idea but that's not an argument for staying on, it's an argument for taking longer off. It is an undeniable and absolutely unequivocal fact that time off all chemicals being shoved into your body is a good thing from your body's perspective.

You say you know you're fertile because of something that happened in the past.....but what about now? What abotu a year from now? Two years form now? You say you're going to eventually come off...but avoid PCT drugs (except HCG)...but you will use a powerful androgen at high doses. What do you think the proviron will do to restore HPTA function and more importantly FSH levels? (which is the important bit if you're planning kids)

What drugs would you use to restore HPTA and especially spermatogenesis, if you don't use standard PCT drugs? I'm just curious here....I haven't heard of other things that do the job better than nolva, clomid and hCG. Triptorelin seems to be a bit hit and miss based on user accounts.

Again - REALLY not having a dig......reading your post raised these questions...but they are genuine questions...if you have great answers then i'm more than happy to learn

 

[JW007]

This absolutely is NOT me in any way having a dig at you mate - but there's a few things that I would question in your post....

If you're using for purely recreational reasons - do you really need to do more than one cycle a year? You can do two - with PCT and get amazing results...and I have yet to see any convincing evidence that would be harder on the body than blast and cruise for the year.

You say "low dose test" - but what do you take for "low dose"? Because if it's greater than 100mg per WEEK (and that's an absolute maximum) then it's just a low dose cycle......but still a cycle....it's not "cruising" as far as your body is concerned.

PCT is harsh on your body - is it? What's the evidence base for that? More importantly - where is the evidence that it is harsher than just staying on? I agree that PCT drugs are strong and some have sides...I would also agree that 4 weeks off and then going back on isn't a great idea but that's not an argument for staying on, it's an argument for taking longer off. It is an undeniable and absolutely unequivocal fact that time off all chemicals being shoved into your body is a good thing from your body's perspective.

You say you know you're fertile because of something that happened in the past.....but what about now? What abotu a year from now? Two years form now? You say you're going to eventually come off...but avoid PCT drugs (except HCG)...but you will use a powerful androgen at high doses. What do you think the proviron will do to restore HPTA function and more importantly FSH levels? (which is the important bit if you're planning kids)

What drugs would you use to restore HPTA and especially spermatogenesis, if you don't use standard PCT drugs? I'm just curious here....I haven't heard of other things that do the job better than nolva, clomid and hCG. Triptorelin seems to be a bit hit and miss based on user accounts.

Again - REALLY not having a dig......reading your ost raised these questions...but they are genuine questions...if you have great answers then i'm more than happy to learn

Well firstly Clomid is a fckin sh1t drug, apart from fact its designed for women only, and in this country its not administered for any other purpose than womens fertility, it effects eyesight, mood and all manner of other nasty sht in men.

So in all your anti cruise stance, a drug [testosterone] that has been clinically tested to a high degree and is prescribed for all manner of ailmnets including long term HRT replacement, you would rather someone take an untested, un unapproved drug instead with who knows what sides as no ,long term studies

Even Nolvadex has not been aroved for use with men in this country in any form.

SO what pct protocol would you actually advise out of interest?

 

[kuju]

Well firstly Clomid is a fckin sh1t drug, apart from fact its designed for women only, and in this country its not administered for any other purpose than womens fertility, it effects eyesight, mood and all manner of other nasty sht in men.

So in all your anti cruise stance, a drug [testosterone] that has been clinically tested to a high degree and is prescribed for all manner of ailmnets including long term HRT replacement, you would rather someone take an untested, un unapproved drug instead with who knows what sides as no ,long term studies

Even Nolvadex has not been aroved for use with men in this country in any form.

SO what pct protocol would you actually advise out of interest?

I wouldn't actually "advise" any pct protocol - technically speaking....purely because I can't advise someone to take a particular substance. Well not publicly anyway. I agree that clomid seems to have some unpleasant sides but the fact is there IS a body of evidence to show the effectiveness of Clomid, Nolva and HCG in restoring both HPTA and particularly FSH levels. The body of evidence around testosterone is indeed very high quality and there is a wealth of evidence to show the effects...even on long term use....are well tolerated for most people. At therapeutic doses.

There is very little evidence around the long term use at bodybuilding doses. If someone is cruising at 100mg per week for instance......that's well beyond the evidence base for HRT so the HRT trials are then of limited value (if any) as an evidence base for the safety of cruising at that dose.

I should stress that I'm not ANTI cruising per se...although I can see how it looks like that...... what I am is pro evidence bases. The reality is that although the clinical evidence base for long cycles, even at what BB's call moderate doses, is small...it does still exist and it is growing; both in quantity and quality. Both here and in teh US researchers are seeing more older people who have used for very long cycles who are suffering side-effects that took years to manifest and are proving impossible to undo. In particular - significant cardio damage.

JUST TO STRESS THE POINT: I am NOT saying that everyone will get heart disease etc etc...... what I AM saying is that the evidence is starting to show a massively increased risk the longer you are on. So I advise caution........but that's it. That's really all I'm saying - be aware there are long term ramifications and be cautious. The boy doies nto respond well to being thrown out of homeostasis by large margins or for long periods and no matter what you do the body will always "win".

Conversely - the evidence to show that cruising is somehow "better" for the body than cycling is completely and utterly non-existent. It simply doesn't make sense that giving the body proper time off is worse for it than simply continuing the use of drugs that throw it out of whack. You can throw a lot at the body and it will cope admirably but you have to work with it and that should mean time off from whatever it is.

Think of it like this.....exercise is healthy right? It's a good thing to do, it keeps us young(ish!), it gives us energy, it improves a host of physiological functions - there is no doubt it is beneficial. But what if you train for 4 hours a day...every single day. Never take a break. Is it still going to be beneficial? Probably not. At some point it will become damaging. We need water to survive.....try drinking 20 gallons a day and see how long you live. The list goes on.......



There is an evidence base around the use of nolva, clomid and HCG. Ok they're not great drugs but there isn't a single scrap of evidence that I know of (please correct me if there is) to show that it's more harmful than continued use or simply not doing PCT in the first place.


With regard to the other stuff I said in that quote....evidence of past fertility means nothing, high dose proviron is not going to restore HPTA (unless there is evidence for that?!! Genuine question..) and surely not doing any PCT at all after a long long cycle is going to end badly for many people?



Just to make ti absolutely clear:

I am NOT anti cruise........because I have only a little evidence it's potentially a "bad thing". BUT...I do have some and the evidence that it's perfectly safe - or even in some way "better" than cycling is completely non-existent. Everything i've heard in relation to that is hearsay and conjecture. Even the educated guesses are at best only that...a guess. So - for me personally...until I see some evidence of it I'm going to er on the side of caution and advise others to do the same. I am MORE than happy to be proven wrong - I am here to learn and I am quite sure some of the stuff I believe is possibly not true. That's fine.

But it's in my nature to question things - even when the questions aren't popular. And when it comes to gear use people SHOULD question what they're told. Too many people blindly follow what someone else says just because they sold them the gear or because they're massive. "He's enormous so he must know exactly what these drugs are going to do in my body" That's not a health viewpoint I think. Which is not to say experienced users have nothing of value to pass on...far from it....this is part of why I engage with BB's and PL's and other strength athletes so much...to learn from them. But that doesn't mean I should blindly accept the popular idea that run round the internet without stopping to think about it...so I'll question things because that's what I do and because I want others to as well. It's harm reduction. If, havign done that, people still want to go ahead....more power to them....i'm never going to stand in judgement on them because of that choice.

 

[Dig]

@kuju there is never going to be evidence that compares the effects of cycling, vs cruising on 100mg test vs cruising 300mg+ of test so all people can ever do is make assumptions and guesses.

Cycling off for extended periods, fully recovering and training naturally afterwards for a decent period of time is quite obviously most beneficial health wise, i dont think anyone is arguing that fact? Would be akin to saying it is healthier to not use aas in the first place, just common sense!

As i expect you know thru your work **generally** people either:

1) Come off and use pct drugs such as clomid, nolva etc and then jump back on cycle BEFORE they are recovered, thus basically wasting the use of pct drugs (imo)

2) Come off, use no pct drugs and jump back on cycle after a short (4-8 wk) period off

3) Cruise on a low-high dose of test and/or various other compounds blurring the line between a 'cruise' and a 'cycle'

Those are really the 3 options most people (i think) are discussing and looking for the best method out of those (best of a bad lot you might say).

I know many guys off the forums do have extended time off but most guys who get flamed on forums for lack of knowledge and using too much gear often represent the thought process of many guys in the gym who dont bother reading around on the subject.

Just seems you are hanging onto the 'cycle, come off, stay off a while and then repeat' which is obv a very valid/sensible viewpoint but not that relative to the average aas user that i know who rarely do that.

BUT perhaps the people i know are in the minority although i seriously doubt it!

 

[Dig]

Hypothetically if a guy came to you for advice and said 'look im currently using 2g AAS week, ive been on cycle 10 weeks. I'm going to take 3 months off (from last shot to first shot of next cycle, not 3 months off after all aas have cleared), should i bother using pct drugs, just come off altogether for that time or just drop my dose down and 'cruise' what would you say to him??

(if the guy is adamant he will be back on after that time period and wont extend the 'off' period)

Dont have to talk about which drugs, doses etc as know you already mentioned you are unable to do that

 

[kuju]

Hypothetically if a guy came to you for advice and said 'look im currently using 2g AAS week, ive been on cycle 10 weeks. I'm going to take 3 months off (from last shot to first shot of next cycle, not 3 months off after all aas have cleared), should i bother using pct drugs, just come off altogether for that time or just drop my dose down and 'cruise' what would you say to him??

(if the guy is adamant he will be back on after that time period and wont extend the 'off' period)

Dont have to talk about which drugs, doses etc as know you already mentioned you are unable to do that

Ahhhhhh............. yeah - see there ya got me.

You make an excellent point of course - the sensible option compared to what people actually do. I should probably reiterate the point though that; whilst I agree that many people will do exactly the kinds of things you mentioned above - that doesn't mean we should then just accept that and talk about them as though they are a natural and sensible choice. A forum like this is read by a great many people, the great majority of whom may not post. So if a thread on blast and cruise ONLY discusses various dosages and contains posts that claim the use of nolva and other PCT drugs is harmful....then many of those people may come away with the impression that the best course of action is to go on - stay on. Which I would argue isn't the case. They may also believe that nolva and clomid are inherently dangerous in any quantity - which also isn't the case. Personally I think many people get sides from things like nolva by simply using too high doses. There is limited evidence to show no statistical difference in main effect between large and smaller doses (can't remember the exact values...i'll try digging it out) but certainly it seems a week or two at 40mg per day is probably excessive and unecessary for just about everyone. You can get the results with less.

So - given my line of work I kind of have to jump into these things and say "WOAH.....let's not start telling everyone that PCT is bad for you and you're better off just staying on forever" - because that is, unquestionably, the message that some people will take away from some posts here. Add the chinese whispers effect and another bunch of internet myths are born...

So that's why I've been posting things in here that counter some of those beliefs....just to highlight the lack of solid evidence for a lot of it and to make people think twice before blindly following a protocol that may turn out to be more harmful.

However...as you rightly say they will do what they want in the long run anyway....and I'm quite happy with that - as long as they do so with as much solid information as possible then the choices they make are fine by me.

However - case in point - the guy above who proposed staying on until he wanted kids......and then not using any PCT drugs that are currently used - despite the strong safety record and growing clinical evidence base for their effectiveness (again - sensible dosing means avoiding some of that harshness) but he IS planning to use "VERY high doses of Proviron". TO what end mystifies me....proviron
has been shown in a couple of studies to increase sperm count...but we're talking a very specific set of cirumstances. Men with sperm counts in a particular range seemed to benefit in one study...but in that same study, men with lower sperm counts (less than 5 million) had no benefit from mesterolone therapy at 100mg per day. None. Obviously it varies between individuals but 100mg+ can be suppressive and 150+ is probably suppressive in most people...which renders its use in PCT fairly pointless at that stage. So it *could* be useful...at an appropriate dose and within certain paramaters....but you can't just go self medicating without thought and without baseline measures for physiological markers and expect to get the same results as a strictly controlled clinical study. So again - raising that question may make someone think twice and that, for me, is the important bit abotu PIED use.......think about what you're doing and try you rbest to really understand it. Get it right and the results can me dramatic and quite incredible..and also fairly safe. Get it wrong.....could be quite nasty to say the least.


As for your example - I would argue extending the off period and getting blood work to determine when to get back on....... but in your hypothetical situation where I don't have that choice? Hmmm.......I assume we're talking abotu a long estered cycle here? If so then....dunno....but yes, maybe cruising. If it was short esters - then I would say take the time off.

In fact - I would probably say take the time off and have a think about it. Once someone is off and settling into it then it's easier to stay off for a while longer.


But I do take your point

 

[actin]

Once someone is off and settling into it then it's easier to stay off for a while longer.

This is very true i've always found. In the last few years I've "extended" cycles originally intended to be 8 -12 weeks to 8-9 months in duration. Upon biting the bullet and coming off I've then managed to stay off for a year or more even though this would not have originally been intended either. Always recovered fully I might add. Given TIME the body will always endevour to return to homeostasis imo.