Darius Pharmacom Test-E Bloodwork (underdosed a bit)

[Burrr]

And when you say that you get 7-8x you mean for the weekly average correct? Because that's what I get too. Between 7.5-8.5x on weekly average

Every mid cycle blood I've ever done has come out in that range.

 

[inforthegains]

I would imagine, yes. I have a baseline that I know good test E/C gives me more or less 7-8x. But, of course there's many variables at play. Such as Ai's, HCG, etc.

I understand your points here, BTW.

And when you say that you get 7-8x you mean for the weekly average correct? Because that's what I get too. Between 7.5-8.5x on weekly average

Every mid cycle blood I've ever done has come out in that range.

this has really clarified things immensely

so expect around 7x of weekly dose on average, more or less

 

[Dr JIM]

I think that is exactly what people aren't getting.

I don't have access to Autocad at the moment so I quickly drew this graph up in MS Paint. The graph is just a rough drawing and is not to scale but should help convey the pharmacokinetics.

Red represents the peak and nadir TT levels for once a week dosing and black represents the peak and nadir for 1/2 dose twice a week. Total weekly dose is the same for both dosing regimens and user is at steady state.

As you can see, a full weekly dose results in a higher peak TT and lower nadir than divided doses. Half a dose given twice weekly results lower peaks than full doses given once weekly, but higher nadir levels. Obviously, the lower peak from twice weekly dosing will have a negative impact on the 10X rule. Again, graph is NOT to scale.

Divided doses also result in less fluctuation in serum TT.

I hope this graph makes sense.

Excellent post CBS !

 

[strongsafety41]

Every mid cycle blood I've ever done has come out in that range.

This isn't too far off of the 10X rule. I think when Scally posted the rule it had a range of 8-10X weekly dose.

 

[Dr JIM]

No of course that was not my intent in my post, to discount bloods entirely. Not at all. I am here on Meso for the bloods.

But in light of what I keep reading, especially in this thread, I am wondering if the TT measurement is as important as it is always made out to be, if individual variance can have such a huge effect on it.

Who said ANYTHING about INDIVIDUAL variance?

The problem is relatively simple, people are constantly deviating from the control group by dosing twice weekly, adding an AI, HCG, any ANY other AAS that can result in the offloading of TT from Albumin or SHBG.

If you fellas want reproducible data follow the TRT studies inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Jim

 

[Wunderpus]

Who said ANYTHING about INDIVIDUAL variance?

The problem is relatively simple, people are constantly deviating from the control group by dosing twice weekly, adding an AI, HCG, any ANY other AAS that can result in the offloading of TT from Albumin or SHBG.

If you fellas want reproducible data follow the TRT studies inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Jim

Jim, I really am curious HOW much HCG can/will skew the results?

 

[Dr JIM]

Have you seen the HCG data in studies where it was used for infertility?

Start there for now.

NO I'm not saying it's the same as those using AAS but it's worth a look see, IMO

 

[inforthegains]

Who said ANYTHING about INDIVIDUAL variance?

The problem is relatively simple, people are constantly deviating from the control group by dosing twice weekly, adding an AI, HCG, any ANY other AAS that can result in the offloading of TT from Albumin or SHBG.

If you fellas want reproducible data follow the TRT studies inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Jim

I merely meant individual variance as in the variance in TT results between individuals who are cycling the same weekly dose...

But yes I absolutely see what you mean regarding the effect of AIs, HCG, multiple doses per week, etc. on the results.

 

[Dr JIM]

I think the take home point is mates whom are not following the TRT study criteria, in which those patients who were taking an agent that could effect TT levels were omitted, should expect LESS reliable results.

HCG as used in infertility patients can increase TT levels to normal age matched ranges and a similar effect is seen with AI's.

Of course mates using AAS are NOT matched controls but nonetheless the potential impact of these agents on TT levels should simply not be ignored.

 

[inforthegains]

I think the take home point is mates whom are not following the TRT study criteria, in which those patients who were taking an agent that could effect TT levels were omitted, should expect LESS reliable results.

HCG as used in infertility patients can increase TT levels to normal age matched ranges and a similar effect is seen with AI's.

Of course mates using AAS are NOT matched controls but nonetheless the potential impact of these agents on TT levels should simply not be ignored.

Thanks @Dr JIM

My question then is, do we have any amount of (or can we begin to compile some) data on the dose- and protocol-dependent effects of ancillaries and pinning protocols in regards to cycling?

I see that you mentioned some HCG infertility studies.

But short of compiling cycle logs from everyone who honestly reports their cycle, protocol, and ancillary use, and comparing that to the TRT studies already published, is there a feasible way to get an idea of this?

 

[Dr JIM]

Thanks @Dr JIM

1) My question then is, do we have any amount of (or can we begin to compile some) data on the dose- and protocol-dependent effects of ancillaries and pinning protocols in regards to cycling?

I see that you mentioned some HCG infertility studies.

2) But short of compiling cycle logs from everyone who honestly reports their cycle, protocol, and ancillary use, and comparing that to the TRT studies already published, is there a feasible way to get an idea of this?

1) NIMO!
2) Sure conduct a legitimate study

 

[inforthegains]

1) NIMO!
2) Sure conduct a legitimate study

Haha message received. But even an informal compilation of data might be of some use. Probably for nothing more than satisfying curiosity, though

 

[Colt44]

Haha message received. But even an informal compilation of data might be of some use. Probably for nothing more than satisfying curiosity, though

Tried that. Too many deviate from protocol to collect any sort of consistent data.

 

[Dr JIM]

^^^^^^^

My goodness is that ever true.

Indeed some Meso mates have modified guidelines to suit their OWN needs, apparently not expecting said changes to effect the data obtained, when in fact the latter will rarely be the case.

 

[Colt44]

Completely agree.

I'd just like to collect enough data on split dosing using the same protocol to at least get an average acceptable range of serum TT on a certain dose. With enough data it can be accomplished. But as I said too many deviations.

 

[inforthegains]

Completely agree.

I'd just like to collect enough data on split dosing using the same protocol to at least get an average acceptable range of serum TT on a certain dose. With enough data it can be accomplished. But as I said too many deviations.

I getcha...and it'd have to all be data from pharm grade, as well...couldn't get any further useful data from bloods that are already being used to gauge the strength of UGL gear...

 

[Colt44]

I getcha...and it'd have to all be data from pharm grade, as well...couldn't get any further useful data from bloods that are already being used to gauge the strength of UGL gear...

But homebrewed raws that were MS/HPLC tested would be sufficient. Pharmacy grade has nothing to do with it. Exact dosage is key.

 

[inforthegains]

But homebrewed raws that were MS/HPLC tested would be sufficient. Pharmacy grade has nothing to do with it. Exact dosage is key.

Right, definitely. Any sample where the dosage is not a variable.

Certainly it could be done by a not overly large number of contributors in that manner, while also incorporating (or at least considering) data from PG cycles.

But that is quite an undertaking and I'm guessing just a pipe dream...at least I know that personally I will not be sourcing and testing raws or running PG anytime soon.

At this point we end up back at what @Dr JIM said about conducting a study, rather than just amassing an informal compilation of data.

 

[jon johnson]

[

So @Dr JIM, when I see ~2500 ng/dL TT after a biweekly 250mg pin on a 500mg/wk dose

this is gtg?

NO! I'd be pissed with bloods that low running test e 500mg/wk...even if running weak ass Dragon Pharma or UGF's Para Pharma (no label) you could prob do better than that! Lol!

Could also get those horrible lab numbers if running naps fake ass counterfeit HG amps which are prob. made by same guys who made "Our unknown secrets" (OUS) counterfeit hg gear for years until they got called out so many times that even Outlaw couldn't pretend it was legit anymore (and the feds busting them too, and confirming their amps were indeed counterfeit didn't help either)! And that's hard to do! !! I mean look at Uncle z he's been back on OM for a while now, even after being warned and banned numerous times...

People think that cause its AAS dealers, that they aren't shady (especially repackers in the US and eastern europe...like they don't cut the big ass litre bottles they get before transferring to 10ml vials...yea okkk

 

[jon johnson]

Question. Shouldnt the RBC be high from the EQ? Or is it still inactive at this stage? Ok i just saw 7 weeks the EQ should be on.

Yea, I think it should be higher too (maybe retest week 10-12) and see what levels are when it fully has kicked it.

All bloodwork I've done on EQ raised my RBC, Hematocrit, hemoglobin, like crazy...to the point I was donating blood 1x/month.

I have the same Pharmacom EQ 300mg/ml and their EQ 500mg/ml...thinking now I might have to run it a little higher at 1200-1500mgs/wk...to shoot for the 1g/wk range I want it to be really at.