Bloodwork and the 10x rule of thumb

[pmac928]

Ok so I'm just a little confused about this 10x rule. I know variables play a part when it comes to lab work. Time of last pin, quality of gear,weight? I've also read a few threads on meso and it seems some guys numbers are just all over the place regardless of her quality. Can anyone elaborate more
On how we come to this conclusion? I have a co worked who is running roughly 1g a week of test c. His labs came back at 4900. While it seems those are good numbers I in noway think you should need that much testosterone to achieve that level. And said the gear is def underdosed. He seems to think otherwise.

 

[Sabian]

While it does seem a little low def other contributing factors. Do you know how long he was running a gram before bloods where drawn. How long after last pin???

 

[Sabian]

Highest I ever got was 7x

 

[flenser]

There are so many opinions on this you will never get a consensus.

I know I get 9X-10X regardless of the factors everyone says impacts the results. All the factors except concentration, that is. If I know the concentration, I can predict TT within about 5%. When I get blood work, I can determine the concentration within about 5%.

A lot of confusing claims about different ranges for different people have been made. The only way to prove them is with multiple runs with tested gear of a known concentration resulting in the same TT verified by blood work. I have yet to see anyone getting below around 7X do this.

When someone posts low low TT results, there is always something they did wrong that is pointed out. They pinned twice a week, or they didn't wait long enough to give blood, or they injected delts instead of gluts. Reading all that crap gives me a headache. It all seems intended to throw doubt on the one affordable test that predicts concentration.

Your friend got <5X, and assuming he got blood work within a few days of injecting and he doesn't weigh 350lbs, his gear is very under dosed IMO.

 

[Docd187123]

There are so many opinions on this you will never get a consensus.

I know I get 9X-10X regardless of the factors everyone says impacts the results. All the factors except concentration, that is. If I know the concentration, I can predict TT within about 5%. When I get blood work, I can determine the concentration within about 5%.

A lot of confusing claims about different ranges for different people have been made. The only way to prove them is with multiple runs with tested gear of a known concentration resulting in the same TT verified by blood work. I have yet to see anyone getting below around 7X do this.

When someone posts low low TT results, there is always something they did wrong that is pointed out. They pinned twice a week, or they didn't wait long enough to give blood, or they injected delts instead of gluts. Reading all that crap gives me a headache. It all seems intended to throw doubt on the one affordable test that predicts concentration.

Your friend got <5X, and assuming he got blood work within a few days of injecting and he doesn't weigh 350lbs, his gear is very under dosed IMO.

A blood test isn't meant to predict concentration of the steroids you pin. It is meant to accurately represent the concentration of the steroids in your blood at that given time.

 

[flenser]

A blood test isn't meant to predict concentration of the steroids you pin. It is meant to accurately represent the concentration of the steroids in your blood at that given time.

But the two are highly correlated, at least they are in my body.

 

[Docd187123]

But the two are highly correlated, at least they are in my body.

Sure, I'll certainly agree that they're correlated, and even that there's a linear relationship between dose and blood levels, but that just shows a relationship and certain dependency between the two.

 

[flenser]

Sure, I'll certainly agree that they're correlated, and even that there's a linear relationship between dose and blood levels, but that just shows a relationship and certain dependency between the two.

I may be a little dense this morning. You are saying there are other factors besides the linear relationship? If so, I agree, but my experience has been the factors commonly used to discredit test results are not significant contributors to those results.

 

[Docd187123]

I may be a little dense this morning. You are saying there are other factors besides the linear relationship? If so, I agree, but my experience has been the factors commonly used to discredit test results are not significant contributors to those results.

Which factors have you tested? How many times have you tested each fsctor to see if there is an actual statistical significance? Have you tested the factors that may make larger changes than others? Some of these other factors might be additive in that the variance they bring to the results might stack on top of each other. You mentioned a 5% window above, that's a 500ng/dl window which is pretty significant in itself. I'm not saying all these other factors can excuse absolutely shitty blood results, but some ppl are trying to say they think some gear is under or over dosed based on getting a 6.3x results vs a 7.2x result (browsing random numbers for my example). And also, if I'm not mistaken, Dr. Scally never intended for his 7-10x rule to apply to trying to ascertain testosrerome concentration, but merely an attempt to gauge proper pct start time. The difference in application, and thus accuray, is significant.

 

[flenser]

Which factors have you tested? How many times have you tested each fsctor to see if there is an actual statistical significance? Have you tested the factors that may make larger changes than others? Some of these other factors might be additive in that the variance they bring to the results might stack on top of each other. You mentioned a 5% window above, that's a 500ng/dl window which is pretty significant in itself. I'm not saying all these other factors can excuse absolutely shitty blood results, but some ppl are trying to say they think some gear is under or over dosed based on getting a 6.3x results vs a 7.2x result (browsing random numbers for my example). And also, if I'm not mistaken, Dr. Scally never intended for his 7-10x rule to apply to trying to ascertain testosrerome concentration, but merely an attempt to gauge proper pct start time. The difference in application, and thus accuray, is significant.

I haven't intentionally tested any factors until recently. If you're making the case that I am not correctly applying the scientific method, then I agree completely.

I have results, using pharmacy test, from pinning once and twice a week, taking blood at 24 and 48 hours (thought not twice a week at 24 hours) most pinning quads, a few pinning delts. My TT is always around 9.5X.

I have also cycled with UGL Test and used the TT from blood work to predict the concentration. Then used that prediction to accurately predict the TT I would get in a future cycle using the exact same gear.

I have seen MUCH larger deviations than 5% posted in this forum that were written off as the affect of the factors I mentioned above. I would be fine with that, but for the apparent reason those factors are always talked about: diverting attention away from the primary determinant of TT, dosage.

Dr. Scally's intent doesn't impact his very useful findings. I learned the algebra required to solve for concentration in middle school.

 

[Docd187123]

I haven't intentionally tested any factors until recently. If you're making the case that I am not correctly applying the scientific method, then I agree completely.

Not necessarily that you're not doing the scientific method but with an n=1 sample size, it's basically impossible to show statistical significance or in other words, to show that your results are anything other than chance. This isn't a knock on you, you know I respect your posts and thoughts very much I hope, just pointing out what sticks out at me.

I have results, using pharmacy test, from pinning once and twice a week, taking blood at 24 and 48 hours (thought not twice a week at 24 hours) most pinning quads, a few pinning delts. My TT is always around 9.5X.

I have also cycled with UGL Test and used the TT from blood work to predict the concentration. Then used that prediction to accurately predict the TT I would get in a future cycle using the exact same gear.

I have seen MUCH larger deviations than 5% posted in this forum that were written off as the affect of the factors I mentioned above. I would be fine with that, but for the apparent reason those factors are always talked about: diverting attention away from the primary determinant of TT, dosage.

Not my intent to divert away from the actual results but to address potential holes in the logic used to reach whatever conclusions are reached from nose results.

Dr. Scally's intent doesn't impact his very useful findings. I learned the algebra required to solve for concentration in middle school.

Yes the intent does matter. Just like how when you want to apply a study to soemthing, you must replicate the same conditions to achieve similar results. The more you deviate from the "standard" so to speak, the more room you allow for variance in your results. In this case, the intent was to decide when to start PCT. Erring too high and starting pct late is much better than erring too low and starting pct too early.

As many have noted, the 10X is a rough estimate. The 10X is an easy number to recall. It is by no means a hard and fast rule, but using 7-10X is probably almost always the case. Also, the main reason I use the higher multiple is for ASIH (PCT). It is much better to over estimate rather than under when trying to restore the HPTA.

 

[gr8whitetrukker]

And also, if I'm not mistaken, Dr. Scally never intended for his 7-10x rule to apply to trying to ascertain testosrerome concentration, but merely an attempt to gauge proper pct start time. The difference in application, and thus accuray, is significant.

This is true. Scally said it himself. The 7-10x rule is NOT to measure testosterone concentration. It is a pct tool. He also said there is a very rough translation to test conc. Kinda like using a screw driver when it calls for a Phillips head...

 

[gr8whitetrukker]

For the record I've never came close to a 7-10x reading. Never. But ive never pinned all my test once a week. I always do my testing on a split dosage. There seems to be a HUGE difference on the total T readings when done 48 hrs post pin ON A 1 PIN A WEEK SCHEDULE. For the higher peak. I measure consistently with out fail at 4-5x done on a split schedule

 

[Docd187123]

For the record I've never came close to a 7-10x reading. Never. But ive never pinned all my test once a week. I always do my testing on a split dosage. There seems to be a HUGE difference on the total T readings when done 48 hrs post pin ON A 1 PIN A WEEK SCHEDULE. For the higher peak. I measure consistently with out fail at 4-5x done on a split schedule

For the last two years or so I've pinned all my test once a week. Whether that was a 150-250mg cruise dose or a 1g blast, always once a week. Prefer it that way but will get bloods sometime in the future and begin my own experiments lol

 

[mercury]

For the last two years or so I've pinned all my test once a week.

this explains your wild mood swings and damage to the brain frontal lobe like it happens to every sissy.

 

[Docd187123]

this explains your wild mood swings and damage to the brain frontal lobe like it happens to every sissy.

Hi Mercury. I see you've taken me off ignore. You love me don't you?

 

[Docd187123]

Mercury please remind us about your thoughts in this thread. If memory serves me correctly you said OP didn't have NPP and it was test cyp. That's pretty funny though bc it was tested by Simec after and it was determined to be NPP. Can you please have your frontal lobes checked out for irreversible damage?

https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/labmax-pharmacom-npp-08-sep-2015.134368611/

 

[flenser]

Not necessarily that you're not doing the scientific method but with an n=1 sample size, it's basically impossible to show statistical significance or in other words, to show that your results are anything other than chance. This isn't a knock on you, you know I respect your posts and thoughts very much I hope, just pointing out what sticks out at me.

I consider my n=1 results personal confirmation of Dr. Scally's results.

Not my intent to divert away from the actual results but to address potential holes in the logic used to reach whatever conclusions are reached from nose results.

I wasn't specifically referring to your posts. I generally agree with most of what you post, or at least the facts you present. As with Labmax, our conclusions diverge while agreeing on most of the data.

Yes the intent does matter. Just like how when you want to apply a study to soemthing, you must replicate the same conditions to achieve similar results. The more you deviate from the "standard" so to speak, the more room you allow for variance in your results. In this case, the intent was to decide when to start PCT. Erring too high and starting pct late is much better than erring too low and starting pct too early.

He said a 7-10X rule probably applied to all, and only the 10X assumption was to error on the high side. I'm not deviating from anything, but using the data as presented. The OP posted TT under 5X. I say there is a strong probability the gear is under dosed. That is far more likely than having a series of random factors all line up to produce a poor result.

 

[movingiron88]

For the record I've never came close to a 7-10x reading. Never. But ive never pinned all my test once a week. I always do my testing on a split dosage. There seems to be a HUGE difference on the total T readings when done 48 hrs post pin ON A 1 PIN A WEEK SCHEDULE. For the higher peak. I measure consistently with out fail at 4-5x done on a split schedule

In my opinion this is the most common reason for ranging results. I for one pin bi weekly and have noticed my results never hit 10x even on pharmaceutical test.

 

[jackmeoff1]

Through years of Trt blood work I never came up with a 7-10x. It's closer to 5-6x. That is pharmaceutical testosterone.

What's more is I get greater numbers 4 days post shot compared to 48 hours post shot which debunks another common bullshit meso theory of peak times.