absolutely, under the correct conditions with the individual when it concerns their age, years on training, diet etc etc.... 250 is more then enough for a few cycles to go around.. There's lots or learning , and curves to keep an eye on while listening how the body changes while under hormonal influences..The metabolism will shift and change, so many things there we're even a factor prior maybe now become sensitive..Its all about learning and getting the most out of your experience..
250mg/mL of long esterfied testosterone, it can yield decent gains depending on the commitment of the individual and how much the apply to their diet, and training.. Even adding 10 x that amount with no structured diet or training, one can expect worthless results..
You're going to get a plethora of different opinions. In my opinion 250mg is fine for a first cycle, stay as low as possible for as long as you can until you're not gaining from it. It also depends how well you respond to AAS, you could be a hyper responder who doesn't need all that much.
How old are you? How long have you been training? What are your goals?
I personally don't think 250mg a week is ideal for a first cycle. 400-500 is more ideal and standard. I personally never go above 250mg a week of test. I always add in other compounds like dbol, tren, npp ect. I really just you test as a base, which you should always do. I also don't PCT because I'm on TRT. I also have ran enough Test cycle to know I don't like 400,500,600 mg of Test.
For my first cycle I had to decide what was worth stopping my natural test production.. If you use a 250mg per week you are shutting down your natural production same as if you were using a 1000.. So the question is- Is it going to be worth the shut down for the gains you can expect from a 250 mg per week cycle. If so then go for it..
If you start at 250 in 3 weeks you'll be bumping it garunteed. And that is not an issue either. nothing wrong with increasing dose through out a cycle.
All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.