[Bloodwork] Watson Test Cyp

[jackmeoff1]

Evidence from my own blood work and that of others on this board using known pharma grade gear. ?

And yet you IGNORE the evidence in the contrary. This very thread for example or the referenced studies or my own blood work.

You are forming an opinion based on observation which is FINE but you are being biased by ignoring everything else.

The 7-10 thing was never proven. Some data supports it, some does not. That is a fact that you don't even have to venture off the first page of the labs section to conclude.

 

[jackmeoff1]

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.

I don't apply ANY rule. If your reading comprehension was tighter you will see that is exactly what I have been saying. There is no such thing as a dose to TT value relationship. It was an observation that folks who lack critical thinking skills misinterpreted as objective evidence.

And it's ironic you can accuse ME if not being able to communicate professionally when you and others can only resort to personal attacks when you lack a coherent rebuttal.

I'm not disregarded at all. I have tons of PM,s of members agreeing with me. They just don't want to be caught in the crossfire. Everyone (like yourself) wants to "fit in" and sometimes you do so at the expense of principle. I won't hold ya to it- it's human behavior.

Be an individual contributor my man.

 

[Kinikuman]

And yet you IGNORE the evidence in the contrary. This very thread for example or the referenced studies or my own blood work.

You are forming an opinion based on observation which is FINE but you are being biased by ignoring everything else.

The 7-10 thing was never proven. Some data supports it, some does not. That is a fact that you don't even have to venture off the first page of the labs section to conclude.

I don't ignore it. I do discount much of it, though.

 

[jackmeoff1]

I don't ignore it. I do discount much of it, though.

Which by definition is bias.

I'm a project manager for a living . I analyze data all day. You can't just throw away bad data and expect a logical outcome.

 

[johnnyBALLZ]

I'm not disregarded at all. I have tons of PM,s of members agreeing with me. They just don't want to be caught in the crossfire. Everyone (like yourself) wants to "fit in" and sometimes you do so at the expense of principle. I won't hold ya to it- it's human behavior.

Oh, the "I have tons of PMs" line!! Hahaha Bull fucking shit.. Anyone afraid of getting caught in the crossfire on the freaking internet needs to check their T level. Nobody's buying it.

I'm a project manager for a living . I analyze data all day. You can't just throw away bad data and expect a logical outcome.

I'm sure you're great at that..

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

Oh, the "I have tons of PMs" line!! Hahaha Bull fucking shit.. Anyone afraid of getting caught in the crossfire on the freaking internet needs to check their T level. Nobody's buying it.

He's just confused, Johnny. He thinks the PMs from KnowNothing, Marper, Spetz, Tiff, LardBodySkank, Bed_Head77, and countless other impostor accounts actually count. LMFAO

 

[Roid Rage]

Which by definition is bias.

I'm a project manager for a living . I analyze data all day. You can't just throw away bad data and expect a logical outcome.

You are not a project manager. Did you really expect anyone to believe that whopper of a lie?

And "bad data" is discarded in every field that I know of. How could someone make a reliable analysis with "bad data" - as you call it.

 

[dper726]

I don't apply ANY rule. If your reading comprehension was tighter you will see that is exactly what I have been saying. There is no such thing as a dose to TT value relationship. It was an observation that folks who lack critical thinking skills misinterpreted as objective evidence.

And it's ironic you can accuse ME if not being able to communicate professionally when you and others can only resort to personal attacks when you lack a coherent rebuttal.

I'm not disregarded at all. I have tons of PM,s of members agreeing with me. They just don't want to be caught in the crossfire. Everyone (like yourself) wants to "fit in" and sometimes you do so at the expense of principle. I won't hold ya to it- it's human behavior.

Be an individual contributor my man.

Personal attacks? You think I don't read all your posts in these forums? Just because I qoute you on one does not mean I missed the other posts. Where you openly delightfully make enemies by your poor choice of words.

 

[dper726]

Which by definition is bias.

Bias only because he doesn't agree with you? Your such a hypocrite and you don't even realize it. I've concluded you are here to waste our times.

 

[dper726]

And yet you IGNORE the evidence in the contrary. This very thread for example or the referenced studies or my own blood work.

You are forming an opinion based on observation which is FINE but you are being biased by ignoring everything else.

The 7-10 thing was never proven. Some data supports it, some does not. That is a fact that you don't even have to venture off the first page of the labs section to conclude.

https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/bloodwork-hikma-test-enanthate.134362879/

Doctor Prescription (Regional/Nationwide HRT Clinic), Local Compounding Pharmacy

Dosing Schedule (TRT): 120mg every 5 days
Injection Location: Quads
Test Timing: 25 hours post pin during week 5 (my research shows peak @ 24 hours vs 48 hour peak for cyp - please correct me if I'm wrong)
Test Provider: Quest Diagnostics - cheapest route to bioavailable test number vs Labcorp)
Ancillary Use: 750 i.u. HCG lozenge 2x per week

Results:
Total T = 1123
Bioavailable T = 850
Estradiol = 62

Indicated Changes to protocol:
Added A-dex 0.5mg 2x per week
Added 1 additional HCG lozenge per week due to testicular atrophy (subjective, until I buy some calipers . . . kidding, maybe)

Notes:
1) Doc wants me to drop to 0.5 as a result of high bioavailable number - trying to convince him that I should test nadir levels and use Dr. Scally's indicia of 500-800 total test. Any further ammunition would be greatly appreciated.

2) I may sign up for blood testing @ 24, 48, 72, 96 hours after a shot in late march to see how my numbers move over the course of any given week. I will also be checking up on my HDL/LDL the next go around to compare vs baseline.

I hope this helps someone.

 

[BigJP]

I am pretty sure it has been established that the 10x rule can be expected only from supraphysiological levels. This was a guideline given for analyzing this particular data. So when you step outside the established guideline you are talking about a different set of circumstances and basically a completely different set of data. Discrediting the 10x marker by using a TT level that is dead in the middle of normal after it has been stated time and again that we can only apply this rule to supraphysiological levels is a blind and foolish misinterpretation of the data

 

[Burrr]

The 10x rule that Dr Scally posted was intended to give an estimate of peak values,
It was also stated to be as accurate for TRT doses or huge doses, with a linear relationship between dose and serum level. It WAS intended for TRT doses as well.
The thread where Dr Scally states this is now a sticky in the lab forum.

 

[ironwill1951]

i just got my bloods back 400 mg a week test cyp watson total test 2626 free test 48 .

 

[jackmeoff1]

i just got my bloods back 400 mg a week test cyp watson total test 2626 free test 48 .

Even more data. It would be great if you can post the results!

 

[jackmeoff1]

The 10x rule that Dr Scally posted was intended to give an estimate of peak values,
It was also stated to be as accurate for TRT doses or huge doses, with a linear relationship between dose and serum level. It WAS intended for TRT doses as well.
The thread where Dr Scally states this is now a sticky in the lab forum.

I was just about to say the same thing. The observation from which this theory evolved was based on TRT patients.

This is a good example of how these things turn into mass misconceptions.

 

[heady muscle]

i just got my bloods back 400 mg a week test cyp watson total test 2626 free test 48 .

Is this Watson Cyp from DS?

 

[jackmeoff1]

https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/bloodwork-hikma-test-enanthate.134362879/

Your reading comprehension is so poor it is almost unbelievable.

Again I consider all data. I am not making an argument that the relationship should be LOWER; I am saying that there is NOT a relationship to begin with. How is that being hypocritical? Ive said that I have seen dose x10, dose x7 and even dose x4. That FACT only serves to support my point- that there is not a standard.

How do you describe the OP blood work in this very thread? You don't and you won't! You just disregard it becasue it doesn't fit what you want to believe. You are simply finding data that supports your theory and disregarding everything else. That is the definition of bias.

 

[Hvywght35]

Obviously the only explanation is that watson is bunk as fuck!

 

[vgc]

I'm on 175mg/week, and on my latest tests, I was in the 820s ~3 days after 88mg of West Ward (made in same Portugese facility as Watson). That should be roughly my trough, though with Monday morning/Thursday night injections, I image day to day variation is pretty small. I'm 5'11 and ~200. I know a pretty big dude (6'3 and ~230), and he needs 200mg a week to get 800s.

Not everyone responds to a given dose the same way. My Endo has said that in his experience, 100-120 mg/week puts the vast majority of guys in the 700-1000 range nadir, but some guys need more. He said I wasn't the highest dosed patient he's had, but I definitely need more than average.

 

[Kinikuman]

I was just about to say the same thing. The observation from which this theory evolved was based on TRT patients.

This is a good example of how these things turn into mass misconceptions.

No, it was not based on TRT patients. The TRT group would probably never see 10x under any circumstances. It was based on high dosage AAS users - in many cases use of 1 gram or more per week. Thus the caveat for the 10x rule to apply: supra-physiological doses of AAS.