I got gyno from superdrol/tren prohormone stack worst idea ever lol
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
[astro Labs] Bloodwork 9-30-2014
- Thread starter dper726
- Start date
runner-runner
New Member
I am not sure what people expect test levels to be in the real world. Lets take the Deca out of the equation (could be giving a false high), and just look at the 1g of test per week. Holy shit how high do you think test levels should be if 6510 is not high enough? Start looking around at peoples blood work and see how many people come back over 5000...
Well i think Dr. Scally set forth the 10x rule as normal, so i don't know why you think that is a great number. I have seen a few results from people with what they thought was pharma grade gear hit those numbers with far less than a gram. I'm not Dr. Scally but if i had to guess i would say the gear is 60-70%. If it doesn't bother you what the rest of it is that is not test, then i'm sure gains will be just fine on it. It would personally bother me.
I'm sure some people can shoot some numbers out that blow those away with less gear than a gram. I have seen a few the past few weeks that far exceeded this. Hell the first post in this section is a guy taking 500mg a week that hit 4305. I'll stick with Dr. Scally's 8-10x rule thanks. Going with that i would expect to see 8000 or above, which it is not.
I'm sure some people can shoot some numbers out that blow those away with less gear than a gram. I have seen a few the past few weeks that far exceeded this. Hell the first post in this section is a guy taking 500mg a week that hit 4305. I'll stick with Dr. Scally's 8-10x rule thanks. Going with that i would expect to see 8000 or above, which it is not.
runner-runner
New Member
Well I will be awaiting your blood work to see this 10x rule happen in the real world. If you see 1 out of 100 peoples blood work come back 10x that does not make it normal, that makes it an exception.
I am not talking about bro science "I know people who have been higher". I am meaning real test results posted, and with that I stand by you simply do not see many people over 5000 often. Your body is not 100% efficient so 5-7x is a real world estimate. Think about people on TRT that get 200mg a week are they testing at 2000? No they are around 1000. That is with pharma test injected at a doctor's office.
I am not talking about bro science "I know people who have been higher". I am meaning real test results posted, and with that I stand by you simply do not see many people over 5000 often. Your body is not 100% efficient so 5-7x is a real world estimate. Think about people on TRT that get 200mg a week are they testing at 2000? No they are around 1000. That is with pharma test injected at a doctor's office.
insertnamehere
New Member
I'm on Doctor prescribed and monitored TRT. I do 120mg of TC and 500iu HCG per week, in split doses. My TT is around 1400, 36 hours after pinning 60mg of TC and 96 hours after pinning 250iu HCG . There's a real world example for you
And BTW, I think Dr Scally based that x10 rule on his real world experience with clinical data.
Look man, you can argue all you want. I don't have enough data to say what i would expect to see every cycle on a gram or 500mg or so forth. What we do have is actual data from at least one set of tests right here in meso where a guy is taking 500mg a week and has 4305 as his total test. Then we have Dr. Scally saying 8x-10x is the rule as he has seen it. Conversely we have you saying that is not normal.
What exactly are your credentials to dispute those two sources? Do you have lab tests or years of expertise in the field backing you? I'd be more than willing to listen to your reasoning as to why you are right and everyone else is wrong. The simple fact of the matter is that if you are right it is most likely due to crap gear or stuff being underdosed.
Here are a few tests of late from a few folks. I don't know anything about their credibility and i am just taking it as raw data for what it is worth:
300mg of test e.
Geneza test e 300mgs every 3 days...week 5
Hulks test c 500mgs a week
1.5 grams test e, source not named
There is more data out there. I guess it is up to each of us to decide what is factual and what is fake. I personally believe the last one especially. They guy has nothing to gain or lose by posting that. Almost 13000 on 15. grams a week. Serious numbers, and well within the 8-10x numbers Dr. Scally put up. Seems like real world data to me.
What exactly are your credentials to dispute those two sources? Do you have lab tests or years of expertise in the field backing you? I'd be more than willing to listen to your reasoning as to why you are right and everyone else is wrong. The simple fact of the matter is that if you are right it is most likely due to crap gear or stuff being underdosed.
Here are a few tests of late from a few folks. I don't know anything about their credibility and i am just taking it as raw data for what it is worth:
300mg of test e.
Geneza test e 300mgs every 3 days...week 5
Hulks test c 500mgs a week
1.5 grams test e, source not named
There is more data out there. I guess it is up to each of us to decide what is factual and what is fake. I personally believe the last one especially. They guy has nothing to gain or lose by posting that. Almost 13000 on 15. grams a week. Serious numbers, and well within the 8-10x numbers Dr. Scally put up. Seems like real world data to me.
dper726
Well-known Member
Look man, you can argue all you want. I don't have enough data to say what i would expect to see every cycle on a gram or 500mg or so forth. What we do have is actual data from at least one set of tests right here in meso where a guy is taking 500mg a week and has 4305 as his total test. Then we have Dr. Scally saying 8x-10x is the rule as he has seen it. Conversely we have you saying that is not normal.
What exactly are your credentials to dispute those two sources? Do you have lab tests or years of expertise in the field backing you? I'd be more than willing to listen to your reasoning as to why you are right and everyone else is wrong. The simple fact of the matter is that if you are right it is most likely due to crap gear or stuff being underdosed.
Here are a few tests of late from a few folks. I don't know anything about their credibility and i am just taking it as raw data for what it is worth:
300mg of test e.
Geneza test e 300mgs every 3 days...week 5
Hulks test c 500mgs a week
1.5 grams test e, source not named
There is more data out there. I guess it is up to each of us to decide what is factual and what is fake. I personally believe the last one especially. They guy has nothing to gain or lose by posting that. Almost 13000 on 15. grams a week. Serious numbers, and well within the 8-10x numbers Dr. Scally put up. Seems like real world data to me.
DD what does the last test show for test? I am referring to the 1.5grams. I am not too familiar with others test results in the range i am injecting. Just that I have seen similar results to mine with the same dosing before. But you seem to provide good clinical research on the subject to prove me wrong.
Guess i posted all the pics wrong. The first one is 2292 on 300mgs a week. 7500 on 300mgs every 3 days on the second one. The last one is 12700 at 1.5 grams of test.
I copied and pasted the images. Guess i should have just linked them, sorry for that.
I copied and pasted the images. Guess i should have just linked them, sorry for that.
After reading these post you guys had me thinking ... So I pulled up some of my labs from when I was on TRT at 125mg wk (I had to find the order on the med label to ensure accuracy). Sure enough I found my TT to be in that x10 range.
Test cyp 125mg qwk, NO AI, NO HCG, I consistently pinned on Friday's after my labs were complete in the Doctors office until doc felt comfortable with me self injecting.
11/2 Total Test :1222; Estrodial 47.5
2/1 : Total Test: 1220; Estrodial 44.7
2/8. Total Test :1260; Estrodial 45.9
Test cyp 125mg qwk, NO AI, NO HCG, I consistently pinned on Friday's after my labs were complete in the Doctors office until doc felt comfortable with me self injecting.
11/2 Total Test :1222; Estrodial 47.5
2/1 : Total Test: 1220; Estrodial 44.7
2/8. Total Test :1260; Estrodial 45.9
FuriousWO
New Member
That's what we need pharma results to compare to!!!
dper726
Well-known Member
Interesting indeed. The question now is could it exists an UGL with comparable levels to pharma? Since these examples are being drawn from pharma testosterone.
Those examples are not from pharma grade stuff as far as i could tell. They were from a variety of ugls. Hulk, geneza, and a couple of others.
dper726
Well-known Member
Ah ok well I thought I was in the ball park range as I've done 750 before with bloods and was was about 5500 range. I'll contact others to see what they can input onto this. I certainly didn't do this to affect the labs reputation as he has been nothing but professional and always delivered and made things right on his side of error.. But I'll let him input aswell.
I think what i try to do is look at a few guys using pharma grade who seem to be in the 8-10x range. Going off that and Dr. Scally's experience gives a pretty good reference point. After that you can get a rough guess as to how good your ugl gear is through bloodwork. Kind of a bitch that you don't know how good your stuff is until after the fact, or at least halfway through, but that is about the only way to be sure at this point. At least it is cost effective.
I think as we get more and more bloodwork posted up here it will give a track record on certain ugl's and give people a better idea on what they might be getting when ordering. A purity test beforehand would be better, but in it's absence i think this is the best we can do. Right now i think it is the best defense tool we have and i definitely appreciate the legwork on this.
I think as we get more and more bloodwork posted up here it will give a track record on certain ugl's and give people a better idea on what they might be getting when ordering. A purity test beforehand would be better, but in it's absence i think this is the best we can do. Right now i think it is the best defense tool we have and i definitely appreciate the legwork on this.
runner-runner
New Member
I will admit it looks like plenty of people are getting up to 10x or above on TRT. Looking through different databases (peer-reviewed and not) I could not find any type of published study that was looking directly at this (increase percentage of test levels for a given dosage). There are articles that are looking at TRT and the health effects, but none are focusing on the increases at given doses. My curiosity was peaked as in my experience 5-7X seems to be the normal range (in recreational use not TRT lower doses).
I found a few articles co-authored by Dr. Scally, but none were relevant to this. They were looking at diagnostic criteria for diagnosing steroid dependence, and another was about protecting consumers through health supplement regulations. I had hoped to maybe find something even with a small number of participants looking at before/after test results while on TRT. There are not large published studies on higher doses of AAS out there because it is not acceptable in the medical community.
I am not trying to argue just discuss because this is interesting to me, my initial post was because of the comments saying the OP's numbers were not that great. I stand by they are solid. There is no way to define a linear progression (2x the dose, equals 2x the test), because for everyone one blood work that might support this, two others refute this. In the tests you posted @devildog93 the 2293 on 300 is 7.6x and the 12700 on 1.5g is 8.4x, leaving both of them pretty short of 10x. The 300mg every 3rd day at 7500 is a great result and over 10x.
Just some guesses at this point...You need to factor in the natural production of people on TRT. Even if their production is low 200-400 that is a big percentage of a 1200 total test result.
Like I said not trying to start an argument, I appreciate @devildog93 taking the time to post the blood work results and weighing in on this topic. In my humble opinion a person looking for information and seeing 10x as the guideline will be disappointed when they get their blood work back. With all of this said we are not factoring in other compounds being taken which may or may not change this numbers in a big way. How much does taking an anti estrogen or another compound change things when your talking about big 5000+ numbers? A little, a lot? Is my 5x number probably low, yeah I will say that. Is 10x too high, I believe that. Is 6-8x a better range to look for?
I found a few articles co-authored by Dr. Scally, but none were relevant to this. They were looking at diagnostic criteria for diagnosing steroid dependence, and another was about protecting consumers through health supplement regulations. I had hoped to maybe find something even with a small number of participants looking at before/after test results while on TRT. There are not large published studies on higher doses of AAS out there because it is not acceptable in the medical community.
I am not trying to argue just discuss because this is interesting to me, my initial post was because of the comments saying the OP's numbers were not that great. I stand by they are solid. There is no way to define a linear progression (2x the dose, equals 2x the test), because for everyone one blood work that might support this, two others refute this. In the tests you posted @devildog93 the 2293 on 300 is 7.6x and the 12700 on 1.5g is 8.4x, leaving both of them pretty short of 10x. The 300mg every 3rd day at 7500 is a great result and over 10x.
Just some guesses at this point...You need to factor in the natural production of people on TRT. Even if their production is low 200-400 that is a big percentage of a 1200 total test result.
Like I said not trying to start an argument, I appreciate @devildog93 taking the time to post the blood work results and weighing in on this topic. In my humble opinion a person looking for information and seeing 10x as the guideline will be disappointed when they get their blood work back. With all of this said we are not factoring in other compounds being taken which may or may not change this numbers in a big way. How much does taking an anti estrogen or another compound change things when your talking about big 5000+ numbers? A little, a lot? Is my 5x number probably low, yeah I will say that. Is 10x too high, I believe that. Is 6-8x a better range to look for?
I think the reference point for good gear is 8-10x and has been decently established. Those first two sets of numbers are near that range, and might i point out that they are not pharma grade gear, so not near 100% purity. I would say 90% purity would be the best you could expect and those numbers were attained through that. Even being conservative i would reference them as 100% and measure any gear i take against them.
You can use any scale you want, but just know that whatever gear you are taking is a certain percentage of the reference. While 6000 or whatever might be a good number or one that you are shooting for, if it takes a gram of gear to get there you are likely shooting 60% gear right? Are you happy with that? If so, great. I am not, mostly due to the fact i don't know what the other 40% is. This isn't just to hold labs to a certain standard, but also to protect us from garbage that we have no idea what it is.
If you're comfortable with your arrangement at whatever lower purity it is then congrats. I am not willing to bend over and take 50% gear any more, ever. It isn't worth my time or effort and i am setting the bar at a certain threshold. For some this may be low while others may set it at pharma grade and nothing less. It is always a gamble, but we can limit the risks to a great extent. This is no different. So your original question asking if that is the best we could reasonably expect - i would say not just no, but hell no. I provided 4 reference tests for ugl gear that show it is possible to get better results out there if they are to be believed. The credibility of the tester has to be considered, and someone more familiar with those specific tests speaking about them would lend credibility or shoot them down, but it is a start.
You can use any scale you want, but just know that whatever gear you are taking is a certain percentage of the reference. While 6000 or whatever might be a good number or one that you are shooting for, if it takes a gram of gear to get there you are likely shooting 60% gear right? Are you happy with that? If so, great. I am not, mostly due to the fact i don't know what the other 40% is. This isn't just to hold labs to a certain standard, but also to protect us from garbage that we have no idea what it is.
If you're comfortable with your arrangement at whatever lower purity it is then congrats. I am not willing to bend over and take 50% gear any more, ever. It isn't worth my time or effort and i am setting the bar at a certain threshold. For some this may be low while others may set it at pharma grade and nothing less. It is always a gamble, but we can limit the risks to a great extent. This is no different. So your original question asking if that is the best we could reasonably expect - i would say not just no, but hell no. I provided 4 reference tests for ugl gear that show it is possible to get better results out there if they are to be believed. The credibility of the tester has to be considered, and someone more familiar with those specific tests speaking about them would lend credibility or shoot them down, but it is a start.
runner-runner
New Member
You can not assume 100% efficiency in the body even if your gear is 100% pure. Everyone is different. Some people physiologically can not process above a certain amount of test before it begins to convert. This does not mean the gear they are taken is not 100%, this means the efficiency in the body is not 100%.
Person "A" can take 500mg, person "B" can take 500mg from the same bottle and they will not have the same test levels. This is my point, you can not simply say you expect a certain level or otherwise the gear is certain % trash. It does not work that way in the body.
It would be great to have two people use the same gear and get blood tests. Even then natural levels could swing the test by 400-600. If person A is at 200 and person B is at 700 then A may end up at 4200 and B may end up at 4900 on the same gear. That is a 15% difference. By your thinking person A's gear would be 15% of unknown, even if it is out of the same bottle.
Person "A" can take 500mg, person "B" can take 500mg from the same bottle and they will not have the same test levels. This is my point, you can not simply say you expect a certain level or otherwise the gear is certain % trash. It does not work that way in the body.
It would be great to have two people use the same gear and get blood tests. Even then natural levels could swing the test by 400-600. If person A is at 200 and person B is at 700 then A may end up at 4200 and B may end up at 4900 on the same gear. That is a 15% difference. By your thinking person A's gear would be 15% of unknown, even if it is out of the same bottle.
johnnyBALLZ
Well-known Member
I agree with most of this, we all metabolize gear a little differently BUT natty test levels have nothing to do with on cycle bloods.. You are (if your gear is real) shut down therefore no natty test.. Make sense?
8-10x rule is always how my bloods come back with good test.. Nice work devildog!!
Last edited:
runner-runner
New Member
I will stand down. I still do not accept 10x as a guideline on any higher doses. Yes some will hit that, but even in the examples provided only one of the three did. Interesting debate though. Congrats to those with test levels in the 8-10x range, but for some no matter the gear used they will not hit those numbers due to physiological differences in our genetics.
That is why they have the 8-10x rule. this takes into account differences in each person. this isn't to say there are not outliers in either direction but they are the exception rather than the rule. You can come up with whatever excuses you want as to why gear is testing poorly. I don't think it is that complicated. The gear is likely underdosed or impure.
Natural test levels have no bearing on a test done with long chain esters at week 5. This is why i like to look at test e and test c. You have been shut down for quite some time by week 5 and it isn't a factor whatsoever. With only 1 compound running it simplifies things even further, leaving little room for more excuses from the supplier if things come in far below par.
Again, look at those numbers again. A large portion are hitting 8x on ugl gear which may only be 90% if we are being extremely optimistic. What would their numbers be on pharma gear? I agree that a pharma baseline would be ideal, but there are very few of us that can get pharma grade gear that we can verify is 100% legit. That would be great, and i would like to do it personally, but who can really say that gear is what it is stated. USAspetz seems to have access to some pharma test, so maybe we can start there.
