lifeofdefiance

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 4 replies - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Replies
  • lifeofdefiance
    Member
    Quote Originally Posted by MuscleInkView
    I respect your input and appreciate that you’ve advised OP to wait, if for no other reason than his limited training experience.

    The problem with citing anecdotal experiences is that we can find any example to support our reasons to cycle or not. Does everyone who cycles before the magic number 25 endure complications? No. Does this mean then that everyone who cycles before their endocrine system has reached maturity will not have any complications? No. Just as you cited examples of kids (sorry, young men) who cycled at young ages and haven’t had any problems (at least not that they know of YET), there are plenty of threads here from young guys who have screwed themselves up. Moreover, some of our vets here would be the first to tell you THEY DID cycle at a young age and now have permanent problems to deal with.
    I’ve met people who have smoked and never developed cancer. I’ve met people who smoked and developed cancer. I’ve met people who never smoked and did develop cancer. So what do we conclude from this? Well, I certainly would never condone smoking.
    I’m not trying to imply that taking steroids is just as dangerous as smoking….however there are risks regardless and such risks are most certainly weighted more heavily against those who manipulate their endocrine system with steroids before it has fully developed.

    Again, I respect and appreciate your view and input, but I’d be very reluctant to encourage younger guys to cycle before they have reached maturity. You can take all the precautions you want and be as meticulous as possible, but you have no way of really knowing what the risks are of shutting down a developing HTPA….until it may be too late.

    That’s true and you bring up some good points. I guess all I’m really saying is that I think there are certain circumstances when it’s alright for someone to use steroids before 25, but only if they have many years of training and have assessed the risk and are willing to put the proper dedication into cycle. Obviously though waiting is the best case, unless you are very dedicated to training and dead set on running a cycle. I can’t say I regret cycling before 25, but if complications had arose, I definitely would, so I see where you’re coming from certainly. I think a lot of the bad stigma comes from so many young people running cycles with absolutely no clue of what they’re doing and then messing up their hormones due to lack of PCT. Not saying that they aren’t at a higher risk, but I’ve read far too many threads from younger people who just injected some stuff into themselves with absolutely no concept of what it even was and so that plays a large role in their screwed up hormones.

    To conclude, most people under 25 just aren’t at a point in their life (experience or maturity wise) to run a cycle, but I do think their are some exceptions to that.

    lifeofdefiance
    Member
    I agree with waiting but not necessarily because of your age. Yes, you are young, but I did my first cycle at 21 and was fine. I’ve also known several friends who have cycled even younger with 0 complications. As long as you know what you’re doing and you are diligent about being meticulous with your cycle (down to every little detail) I don’t think there’s anything wrong with cycling at 20. Sure there are risks, but those never really go away, even when you’re older. At 20, you’re likely not gonna grow anymore so for most people that’s hardly a concern.

    But like others have said, you’ve only been going at it for 2 years. At least wait 4 or so because then you will have a better idea if the risks are really worth it to you. I’ve known plenty of people that just got sick of the gym after a couple years and quit. Not saying that’s gonna be you, but you never know what life might have coming up. No sense risking your health and spending a bunch of money to cycle when it might not be worth jack shit to you another 5 years down the road.

    lifeofdefiance
    Member
    Quote Originally Posted by warmouthView
    I dont think it would be better gains, just quicker results, quicker to PCT. After about 6-8 weeks of a short ester, the risk to reward becomes high and the results start to halt (for me anyways). With long esters it is typically ran 12 weeks of so.

    ok thanks, I was kind of thinking this might be the case, wasn’t sure though.

    lifeofdefiance
    Member
    Ya I understand that, I was just assuming that given equal diets and training, one could receive better gains on a short ester potentially since it kicks in faster = more weeks with higher blood levels. But I didn’t know if that would be a noticeable difference or negligible.
Viewing 4 replies - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)