I pay too much. $350 for 10 weeks. That includes adex and hcg
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
[HPLC/MS] AP Test E + NPP
- Thread starter dmt31
- Start date
I_know_nothing
New Member
god damn bro. your insurance doesnt cover for trt clinics like that right? would the price be more if you asked for watson cyp?
What dose they have you on? They give you an AI?
They won't do it. I might just go to my family physician and tell him what I do and ask if I can transfer the script
I_know_nothing
New Member
damn man that's frustrating. idk what it is, probably a placebo mental effect but running watson just "feels" more legit than APS compounding ya know? lolz
I don't care if they have an agenda. I care about the science and the reasoning behind the 10X rule. You are a broken record and apparently don't give two shits about learning the truth or perhaps the subject matter is too deep for your infantile brain. Talk about a learning disability. Every Time the link you post is addressed with a reasonable response you revert back to your conspiracy theory about hidden agendas. Who gives a shit if they have an agenda? You keep reverting back to this like its some crutch to lean on because you don't have any data to back it up. Classic deflection. You post a link, guy gives a reasoned response about the data and you go back to you hidden agenda crutch. Face it, your hero Jim failed. He looks frail and weak when confronted by reasoned individuals. Wipe his jizz off your chin and join the conversation in a productive way.
Okay, numbnuts. You think you've got it all figured out, so lets hear your "reasoned response." Tell us - in YOUR OWN WORDS and WITHOUT help from KN and JHSO - what, precisely, is wrong with the study posted and why it doesn't support the 10X rule.
dmt31
New Member
that doesn't sound right. even while i was waiting for my insurance to cover it, the vial of watson cost me $70 from the pharmacy and adex was $3. Now that my insurance approved it my vial is $20. each vial lasts me a little under 3 months if I'm doing my appropriate TRT dosing.
I_know_nothing
New Member
actually it depends brother, it depends on what kind of clinic you go to. some of the "shadier" clinics dont accept insurance at all, but they get a lot of BB'ers that go there because of that or people that dont wanna deal with insurance and shit. 350/10 weeks sounds about right. i know a guy who goes to a trt clinic his is about 100/wk with injects
You are both the same person... wouldn't you get tired of talking to yourself if not responding to us?
Fine. Let me break it down for you as I would a special ed kid.
1) You have cited a 2001 study. There's another 2012 study by the SAME author that seems to suggest that there's wide variability in TT serum levels. Your are ignoring the 2012 study:
"The participants were healthy men, aged 18 to 50 years, with normal testosterone levels (300-1200 ng/dL.)....
Among participants who received placebo plus testosterone enanthate, the mean testosterone level was 385 ng/dL (95% CI, 261-508 ng/dL) for 50 mg/wk, 822 ng/dL (95% CI, 658-986 ng/dL) for 125 mg/wk, 1702 ng/dL (95% CI, 1201-2203 ng/dL) for 300 mg/wk, and 3578 ng/dL (95% CI, 2876-4279 ng/dL) for 600 mg/wk. "
You tell me bud...what am I missing here?At base levels of 1200 TT wouldn't the subject(s) exceed 4279 with a dosing protocol of 600 mg/wk? In asking a genuine question but you and your buddy want to deflect instead of engaging in earnest dialog.
2) Your idol Jim suggests that the 10X rule is applicable to those who don't run an AI or HCG. That's HUGE. Don't you think a lot of guys who have been striving to reach peak levels of 10X would like to know that isn't ever going to happen if you run an AI with your cycle which MOST GUYS DO???
I_know_nothing
New Member
@Moose someone finally fucking addresses the 2012 study, thank you. my question is though, there's no mention in the methods section or results sections of when exactly they did the blood draws? i know in the 2001 study it was one week after injections but there's no mention in the 2012 study. i figure it must no be nadir levels in the 2012 study because they were significantly higher than the 2001 study. however, what undeniable though is that with a 95% CI ranging from 2876-4279, that's a huge fucking range- indicating that a range so small such as (just an example) 8-10x does not cover 95% of the population.
you know what's funny moose? i actually read their link that @CensoredBoardsSuck keeps posting. and do you know how i know they are not even capable of reading through a simple scientific paper and my explanation? i actually pulled a quote right out from that link that may help support their case. but instead of using that and addressing that they continue to ignore any science and reason.
you know what's funny moose? i actually read their link that @CensoredBoardsSuck keeps posting. and do you know how i know they are not even capable of reading through a simple scientific paper and my explanation? i actually pulled a quote right out from that link that may help support their case. but instead of using that and addressing that they continue to ignore any science and reason.
Are you hypothesizing that the blood draws in the second study were closer to the time of injection than in the first study?
I_know_nothing
New Member
yes that's what im thinking. i believe both studies were with enough people where an outlier would not cause too big of shift in data. furthermore, often outliers are factored out when they're calculating results. if you compare the 2001 study TT results to the 2012 TT results the latter clearly had higher levels at the same dose with everything else being the same (to my knowledge). in the 2012 study they didnt mention when they drew bloods so yes i am hypothesizing that the second study had bloods drawn closer to the time of injection
That would suggest even more variability in TT at a given dose. I don't know. Pretty damning to the 10x rule if true.
I can't believe I'm about to comment to this nonsense with anything more than ridicule, it's so ridiculous.
What you're missing is too much to address in one post but lets start with this:
The 1200 to which you're referring is the top of the normal range of 300-1200 ng/dL for TT.
Assuming one of the study participants actually had a baseline TT of 1200 ng/dL before treatment began, what do you think happened to that 1200 ng/dL baseline TT once he start receiving exogenous testosterone?
Answer: The same thing that happens to you when you start an AAS cycle - it goes BYE-BYE! Exogenous Testosterone suppresses the HPTA, and with it, your endogenous TT. Duh!
So there is no 1200 + 4279 ng/dL because there is NO 1200. Get it?
As to the 10X rule and whether it applies to peak or nadir levels and the continuous obfuscation that our impostor friend with the agenda, KnowNothing, is trying to create, it IS ALWAYS NADIR levels that are used in these studies because it is the the nadir level that represents the steady state level.
The 2012 study specifically references two dose-response studies:
The difference noted in nadir levels between the 2012 study and the one done in 2001 can be reconciled by this 2005 study that compared the difference in dose response between young and old men. After adjusting for testosterone dose, changes in serum total testosterone are significantly greater in older men than young men.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Feb;90(2):678-88.
Older men are as responsive as young men to the anabolic effects of graded doses of testosterone on the skeletal muscle.
Fig. 2. Changes from baseline in serum total and free testosterone and LH levels in young (▪) and older (
) men in response to graded doses of testosterone enanthate. Healthy, young and older men were randomized to receive a long-acting GnRH agonist plus one of five different doses of testosterone enanthate (25, 50, 125, 300, and 600 mg weekly, im) for 20 wk. Serum testosterone levels were measured 7 d after the previous testosterone injection and represent nadir levels during wk 16. Data are the mean ± sem. If there was a significant age effect, the values for young and older men for each dose were compared using Tukey’s multiple comparison procedure. *, Significant differences between young and older men receiving that dose (P < 0.05). Similarly, if the linear model revealed a significant dose effect, then different dose groups were compared using Tukey’s multiple comparison procedure.
What you're missing is too much to address in one post but lets start with this:
The 1200 to which you're referring is the top of the normal range of 300-1200 ng/dL for TT.
Assuming one of the study participants actually had a baseline TT of 1200 ng/dL before treatment began, what do you think happened to that 1200 ng/dL baseline TT once he start receiving exogenous testosterone?
Answer: The same thing that happens to you when you start an AAS cycle - it goes BYE-BYE! Exogenous Testosterone suppresses the HPTA, and with it, your endogenous TT. Duh!
So there is no 1200 + 4279 ng/dL because there is NO 1200. Get it?
As to the 10X rule and whether it applies to peak or nadir levels and the continuous obfuscation that our impostor friend with the agenda, KnowNothing, is trying to create, it IS ALWAYS NADIR levels that are used in these studies because it is the the nadir level that represents the steady state level.
The 2012 study specifically references two dose-response studies:
"Based on dose-response studies in healthy men,18,19 we selected testosterone doses that would be expected to generate varying testosterone concentrations spanning the entire physiological range for men and extending well into the subphysiological as well as the supraphysiological range."
Both of these referenced studies specifically state nadir levels are highly correlated with testosterone dose - r = 0.9 and P < 0.0001.
The difference noted in nadir levels between the 2012 study and the one done in 2001 can be reconciled by this 2005 study that compared the difference in dose response between young and old men. After adjusting for testosterone dose, changes in serum total testosterone are significantly greater in older men than young men.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Feb;90(2):678-88.
Older men are as responsive as young men to the anabolic effects of graded doses of testosterone on the skeletal muscle.
Fig. 2. Changes from baseline in serum total and free testosterone and LH levels in young (▪) and older (
Last edited:
Was there anything in the studies that clearly supported the 10x guideline?
This graph is from the article lightspan posted, it suggest a 7x standard.
I routinely get 8.5x out of my twice weekly pins, but maybe I'm just better at catching my peak level with blood work at 24 hours after pinning.
This graph is from the article lightspan posted, it suggest a 7x standard.
I routinely get 8.5x out of my twice weekly pins, but maybe I'm just better at catching my peak level with blood work at 24 hours after pinning.
See, was that so hard? Hope you posted it with good cheer in your heart.I can't believe I'm about to comment to this nonsense with anything more than ridicule, it's so ridiculous.
What you're missing is too much to address in one post but lets start with this:
The 1200 to which you're referring is the top of the normal range of 300-1200 ng/dL for TT.
Assuming one of the study participants actually had a baseline TT of 1200 ng/dL before treatment began, what do you think happened to that 1200 ng/dL baseline TT once he start receiving exogenous testosterone?
Answer: The same thing that happens to you when you start an AAS cycle - it goes BYE-BYE! Exogenous Testosterone suppresses the HPTA, and with it, your endogenous TT. Duh!
So there is no 1200 + 4279 ng/dL because there is NO 1200. Get it?
As to the 10X rule and whether it applies to peak or nadir levels and the continuous obfuscation that our impostor friend with the agenda, KnowNothing, is trying to create, it IS ALWAYS NADIR levels that are used in these studies because it is the the nadir level that represents the steady state level.
The 2012 study specifically references two dose-response studies:
"Based on dose-response studies in healthy men,18,19 we selected testosterone doses that would be expected to generate varying testosterone concentrations spanning the entire physiological range for men and extending well into the subphysiological as well as the supraphysiological range."Both of these referenced studies specifically state nadir levels are highly correlated with testosterone dose - r = 0.9 and P < 0.0001.
The difference noted in nadir levels between the 2012 study and the one done in 2001 can be reconciled by this 2005 study that compared the difference in dose response between young and old men. After adjusting for testosterone dose, changes in serum total testosterone are significantly greater in older men than young men.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Feb;90(2):678-88.
Older men are as responsive as young men to the anabolic effects of graded doses of testosterone on the skeletal muscle.
Fig. 2. Changes from baseline in serum total and free testosterone and LH levels in young ([emoji830]) and older () men in response to graded doses of testosterone enanthate. Healthy, young and older men were randomized to receive a long-acting GnRH agonist plus one of five different doses of testosterone enanthate (25, 50, 125, 300, and 600 mg weekly, im) for 20 wk. Serum testosterone levels were measured 7 d after the previous testosterone injection and represent nadir levels during wk 16. Data are the mean ± sem. If there was a significant age effect, the values for young and older men for each dose were compared using Tukey’s multiple comparison procedure. *, Significant differences between young and older men receiving that dose (P < 0.05). Similarly, if the linear model revealed a significant dose effect, then different dose groups were compared using Tukey’s multiple comparison procedure.
Seriously, I appreciate the response. A smart guy like you can really help an old timer like me.
I_know_nothing
New Member
Agreed at @CensoredBoardsSuck this is the kind of discussion I came here for. Give me an hour or two while I re-read the aforementioned studies as well glance over the other mentioned studies. I have a few reservations about your analysis but I don't want to say anything quite yet...will get back to you guys soon
BIGMESC
New Member
No there is no baseline after introducing exogenous testosteron, everyone goes to nearly zero natural production.
If your base line is 1200 or 200 when you run test you have Zero natural test.
In blood work it does not measure how well you respond or how well your receptors work, it only measures the amount of test in you blood. Period.
If you want proof then look at any blood work and you will see that the LH and FSH are nearly zero.
Meaning you are not producing any of you own testosterone.
Similar threads
Sponsors
Latest posts
-
Qingdao Sigma Chemical Co., Ltd (International, US, EU, Canada and Australia domestic- Latest: Qingdao Sigma Chemicals
-
-
MESO-Rx Sponsor PCT 24X7 "1 stop shop for all day healthcare"
- Latest: ineffectual
-
