[Bloodwork] Watson Test Cyp

[brutus79]

Yeah I'm sure it does. I would always be happy if my TT was at 7x, someone my size probably can't get to 10x, just too much blood in our bodies. That said, we will see. I'm starting my next blast in a week or so, and I'll get 6 weeks bloods again. My summer blast will be all watson, as I've been stockpiling my TRT scripts, so I have 4 unopened vials and like 2ml of one left. by the summer i'll have 6 vials unopened to blast with, i'll get bloods on both cycles and we'll see.

I never knew I was so big... I think you helped me with my body dysmorphia for today! I was seeing 6'2" 262 this morning and lamenting the fact I am scrawny- more gear more food more training. Now I feel like a "big motherfucker"!

That's the way it seems right? I mean a 30 percent change in TT values based on splitting the dose to 2 times a week is pretty significant if you ask me. thats like if you are injecting 500mg a week and you're at 3500 TT then break it down into 250mg 2x/wk and your TT is at like 2400 TT...

Also I'm a big motherfucker, so I'm sure my size has a lot to do with all of this, which I expect.

 

[dmt31]

I never knew I was so big... I think you helped me with my body dysmorphia for today! I was seeing 6'2" 262 this morning and lamenting the fact I am scrawny- more gear more food more training. Now I feel like a "big motherfucker"!

Lol... dude, my BDD is vicious, but enough people walk up to me every day and tell me how ridiculous I am, that I just accepted it as fact now... Mind you, I was a fat shit my whole life, and was about 330lbs and couldn't bench 135lbs a little over a year ago before i got back into lifting/gear.

 

[brutus79]

I tend to test around dose x5 every blood draw that I get. IN contrast I have a friend who tests at dose x8 and he uses the same exact clinic and pharmacy.

I wonder what the variables are? Absorption ability? Does lean mass contribute to that etc..

Stop lying! Nobody would be friends with a mouthy little faggot like you. I can sense your inferiority complex electronically- right or wrong in this particular war you wage you are worthless here and insignificant your entire life.

 

[ruckin]

Thanks for sharing, dmt. I'm looking forward to your bloods from your blast this summer. That info will be even more helpful.

 

[jackmeoff1]

Stop lying! Nobody would be friends with a mouthy little faggot like you. I can sense your inferiority complex electronically- right or wrong in this particular war you wage you are worthless here and insignificant your entire life.

Look son! Another keyboard warrior.

I am the one with an inferiority complex, says the guy who needs to validate himself by being an internet bully.

I can sling shit back but honestly, you aren't worth my time. I am placing you on ignore, so save your breath, tuff guy.

 

[devildog93]

I never knew I was so big... I think you helped me with my body dysmorphia for today! I was seeing 6'2" 262 this morning and lamenting the fact I am scrawny- more gear more food more training. Now I feel like a "big motherfucker"!

Yes, i think 262 counts as a "big motherfucker" , in any state. Any time you should consider playing the line instead of linebacker you are a big motherfucker.

 

[I_know_nothing]

Im pretty sure they will tell him to prove he is on TRT he needs to submit the prescription, his SSN, address, mothers maiden name, the pharmacists handing him the vial, a picture of him injecting from the vial.

After he proves all that they will start a new thread accusing him of being Spetz because he posted from a computer 5 states from Spetz's sisters uncles cousins house.

Sorry OP. not trying to be a dick..I am just poking a little fun.

@Dr JIM @CensoredBoardsSuck

in addition to these bloods, these two studies may also indicate a hard rule (10x or whatever) may not be able to capture the whole story:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3394124/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038775/

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

@Dr JIM @CensoredBoardsSuck

in addition to these bloods, these two studies may also indicate a hard rule (10x or whatever) may not be able to capture the whole story:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3394124/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038775/

Any commentary by me that is directed at you, a deceiving, agenda-driven troll who is using multiple aliases, and JerkOff, your accomplice in the deception and a sexual deviant who is fucking his own cousin, shall be strictly limited to "character attacks." Capiche?

 

[jackmeoff1]

@Dr JIM @CensoredBoardsSuck

in addition to these bloods, these two studies may also indicate a hard rule (10x or whatever) may not be able to capture the whole story:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3394124/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038775/

I put CBS on ignore because he really has nothing to add to any discussion. He is a troll, by definition.

I am curious of Dr Jim's thoughts on this however. Even more so I am curious on Scally's thoughts on all this. This "rule" originated from his observation and he has yet to address data in the contrary.

 

[forzudo]

I just got very similar results off 150/week of pharmacy coumpounded cyp. will post another thread when I get a picture of the results handy. in my case I tested at 713, four hours after one of my 3 weekly 50mg doses. But I am also on 550/week of mast, which may speed the clearance rate by keeping SHBG low as I understand it.

 

[Kinikuman]

@Dr JIM @CensoredBoardsSuck

in addition to these bloods, these two studies may also indicate a hard rule (10x or whatever) may not be able to capture the whole story:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3394124/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038775/

Nobody, including Dr. Scally ever said that 10x was a "hard rule". It is however a guideline that can tell you within reasonable accuracy whether or not your gear is bunk or underdosed. If you read up on the 10x rule, it is really more like 7-10x, depending upon factors like individual physiology, etc., but it is called 10x because that is easiest to remember and is the high end of the range that you should be looking for at supra-physiological doses. It does not apply to TRT level dosages because at lower levels the individual physiology plays a much larger role in blood TT levels. The 10x rule was not ever intended for use with TRT regimens. Any TT score on TRT level doses cannot be considered as support for, or evidence against the 10X rule.

Neither of the above articles gives me any reason to doubt the validity of the rule, either. So what's your point?

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

Neither of the above articles gives me any reason to doubt the validity of the rule, either. So what's your point?

Uh-oh! You just took the bait. I hope you're prepared for a long and FRUITLESS discussion, KK.

 

[johnnyBALLZ]

Nobody, including Dr. Scally ever said that 10x was a "hard rule". It is however a guideline that can tell you within reasonable accuracy whether or not your gear is bunk or underdosed. If you read up on the 10x rule, it is really more like 7-10x, depending upon factors like individual physiology, etc., but it is called 10x because that is easiest to remember and is the high end of the range that you should be looking for at supra-physiological doses. It does not apply to TRT level dosages because at lower levels the individual physiology plays a much larger role in blood TT levels. The 10x rule was not ever intended for use with TRT regimens. Any TT score on TRT level doses cannot be considered as support for, or evidence against the 10X rule.

Neither of the above articles gives me any reason to doubt the validity of the rule, either. So what's your point?

He doesn't have a point, he has an agenda... In response to me asking why he never acknowledges bloods on this board that do meet the 10x rule he posted this:

Because im not here to add to the 10x circle jerk. I'm here to provide counter arguments.

There, by his own admission^^ he's not interested in the truth, he's only here to argue..

 

[I_know_nothing]

Nobody, including Dr. Scally ever said that 10x was a "hard rule". It is however a guideline that can tell you within reasonable accuracy whether or not your gear is bunk or underdosed. If you read up on the 10x rule, it is really more like 7-10x, depending upon factors like individual physiology, etc., but it is called 10x because that is easiest to remember and is the high end of the range that you should be looking for at supra-physiological doses. It does not apply to TRT level dosages because at lower levels the individual physiology plays a much larger role in blood TT levels. The 10x rule was not ever intended for use with TRT regimens. Any TT score on TRT level doses cannot be considered as support for, or evidence against the 10X rule.

Neither of the above articles gives me any reason to doubt the validity of the rule, either. So what's your point?

so the next step is we wait for dmt to post his test C blast blood work hm?

 

[jackmeoff1]

H

so the next step is we wait for dmt to post his test C blast blood work hm?

hw has already posted that many times. It was not near the x10 relationship or even x7.

 

[jackmeoff1]

Neither of the above articles gives me any reason to doubt the validity of the rule, either. So what's your point?

What gave you reason to accept the "rule" in the first place? Because someone said it?

Just so you are aware, Jim did in fact call this a hard "rule". When fact based evidence was called into question is where he came up short.

 

[johnnyBALLZ]

What gave you reason to accept the "rule" in the first place? Because someone said it?

Just so you are aware, Jim did in fact call this a hard "rule". When fact based evidence was called into question is where he came up short.

Maybe because that's what most of our bloods come back at on good gear?? Nobody is listening to you two dipshits, time to go ride off into the sunset together..

 

[dper726]

What gave you reason to accept the "rule" in the first place? Because someone said it?

Just so you are aware, Jim did in fact call this a hard "rule". When fact based evidence was called into question is where he came up short.

You love applying the 4x rule therefore you must love short shafting yourself and receiving the lesser quality of products. Enjoy your under dosed gear. Just because you are sitting in the bottom of the grave does not mean we should fall inside with you. Dig your own grave and keep yourself alone inside. You love stirring shit up, you don't know how to communicate professionally. Thats why you are disregarded majority of the time.

 

[Kinikuman]

What gave you reason to accept the "rule" in the first place? Because someone said it?

Just so you are aware, Jim did in fact call this a hard "rule". When fact based evidence was called into question is where he came up short.

Evidence from my own blood work and that of others on this board using known pharma grade gear. That's why I accept it. Do you have a better theory of measured TT to dosage ratios? What is your purpose in attempting to "debunk" the rule? Trying to enlighten us? Some other agenda, perhaps? One of a more economic nature?

 

[bdg77]

So, I'm not going to give much of an opinion here, you guys can discuss.

I'm on TRT, 160mg/wk. Been on TRT for quite a bit of time now. This blood was taken 52 hours after last injection, exactly 6 weeks and 1 day into me adding the Watson back into my system. I had stopped all other Test several weeks ago. I pick up my watson from the pharmacy for the record.

Really quick, I inject 80mg on Monday and Thursday to get me to 160 total per week. When I used to inject 160 all at once, my peak levels were in the mid 900's pretty routinely. I will try to get a copy of this bloodwork from my doc next time I see him as I never had it done on my own at this point. This is my first blood draw since switching over to 80mg 2x a week. Pretty interesting and significant difference in TT values.


http://i.imgur.com/83lVvka.jpg

It went down, doesn't surprise me at all. The depot size is a factor imho. Doesn't mean anybody's right or wrong about anything. I'm just taking the data at face value. The more data the better. I think there's an elephant in the room when it comes to trying to establish a one size fit's all equation. What I'm referring to is an individual's metabolism which I don't think anyone would say is even close to being the same.