[HPLC/MS] AP Test E + NPP

[Big Mike]

What dose they have you on? They give you an AI?

Weekly:
140mg Test
500IU HCG
.25 Adex


And I pay roughly $18 a week for everything.

 

[Moose]

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???

Still haven't heard a response to #2 above though. Seems pretty significant.

 

[I_know_nothing]

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 (▪) 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.

ok let me try to address your post point by point

you are correct that baseline TT does not affect the TT levels with test supplementation because their test production is shut down, that's pretty simple. i agree 100% with this

as for "always nadir" levels this is untrue, but in the majority of times it is nadir levels. (page 332 of the book chapter, top of the page). this is because often they'll take bloods right before they do the next injection. as for nadir levels = steady state levels, that is false. figure 11.1 from the book chapter linked shows steady state levels, when a patient reaches steady state it is when their TT levels oscillates more or less with a fixed amplitude, so for testosterone, which has a half-life the steady state TT levels is a range. so reiterating, nadir levels =/ steady state levels, but often researchers will use it as a gauge because it's unrealistic to take bloods every 12 or 24 hours.

it is obvious that nadir levels correspond with testosterone levels, that's a given. more test taken = more test in system. so with a P value of 0.0001 this means that it is more or less undeniable that there is a relationship between nadir levels and amt test injected. that's all a P value tells you: it tells you if there's a relationship or not. to be more accurate a high p value indicates that the results you see are due to randomness but a low p value indicates that there is a correlation between the independent and dependent variable(s). now the r=0.9 value tells us more of the exact nature of of the relationship. the r value gives us a measure of the linear correlation between two variables (here im assuming it's nadir TT values and test dosage. a value of 0.9 is actually not that great, certainly not good enough for us to have a 10x rule. it'd be much more appropriate to have a range with r=0.9. this r value simply is not large enough (close to one) for one to state a blanket "rule" without a range.

great find on the 2005 study. the 2001 bhasin study had patients 18-35 (if i remember correctly) while the 2012 study had 18-50, so there were definitely older patients in the study. im skeptical if patients 35-50 really had such a huge impact that the mean TT levels for 600mg from the 2001 study and 2012 study was increased by over 1000 ng/dL. but that's for another debate. if you look at the 2001 and 2012 TT levels you can see the 95% CI significanly increases as the dosage increases. this suggest that at higher doses of test dosage the range of TT levels increases. this is clear from the graphs. as a result, this only supports my assertion that for supraphysiological levels, you have to apply a larger range- the 95% CI on 600mg is almost 1500 ng/dL! so a simple 10x rule or even 8-10x cannot be applied, it needs to be a larger range at higher doses.

lemme know what you guys think @Moose @Burrr @jackmeoff1 if you need me to explain anything just let me know. sorry it's a bit science/math heavy. please just try your best to read through it and ill re-explain anything you need. i may have made a mistake too, so correct me if im wrong anywhere

 

[I_know_nothing]

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.

that graph can't really be applied to us. that graph is for single dose pharmacokinetics, we're all involved in multi-dose

 

[I_know_nothing]

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.

yes that is absolutely correct, i address that in my post a few posts up

 

[I_know_nothing]

Still haven't heard a response to #2 above though. Seems pretty significant.

im not exactly sure if there's any clinical studies that involve the use of AIs...

 

[jackmeoff1]

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.

This is with a Trt clinic. They are expensive

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

(a fragrant dollup of eau de horse is mercifully excised)

it is obvious that nadir levels correspond with testosterone levels, that's a given. more test taken = more test in system. so with a P value of 0.0001 this means that it is more or less undeniable that there is a relationship between nadir levels and amt test injected. that's all a P value tells you: it tells you if there's a relationship or not.

Congrats. You looked up the definition of P values on Wiki. You even gave us a nice cut n paste of the definition. Unfortunately, you still don't understand what it is specifically telling us in this study. It's also clear you haven't read the full text of the study.

now the r=0.9 value tells us more of the exact nature of of the relationship. the r value gives us a measure of the linear correlation between two variables (here im assuming it's nadir TT values and test dosage. a value of 0.9 is actually not that great, certainly not good enough for us to have a 10x rule. it'd be much more appropriate to have a range with r=0.9. this r value simply is not large enough (close to one) for one to state a blanket "rule" without a range.

Looked up correlation coefficients too, huh? You don't understand that either. An r > 0.8 is generally considered STRONG. In a study such as this, an r = 0.9 most certainly isn't considered "not that great."

im skeptical if patients 35-50 really had such a huge impact that the mean TT levels for 600mg from the 2001 study and 2012 study was increased by over 1000 ng/dL.

Who gives a shit what you're skeptical of. The research speaks for itself.

Go back to wiki and study up on stats some more. In a year or two, you might understand enough to actually know what you're talking about. In the meantime, and as usual, you are full of shit.

 

[I_know_nothing]

(a fragrant dollup of eau de horse is mercifully excised)




Congrats. You looked up the definition of P values on Wiki. You even gave us a nice cut n paste of the definition. Unfortunately, you still don't understand what it is specifically telling us in this study. It's also clear you haven't read the full text of the study.



Looked up correlation coefficients too, huh? You don't understand that either. An r > 0.8 is generally considered STRONG. In a study such as this, an r = 0.9 most certainly isn't considered "not that great."



Who gives a shit what you're skeptical of. The research speaks for itself.

Go back to wiki and study up on stats some more. In a year or two, you might understand enough to actually know what you're talking about. In the meantime, and as usual, you are full of shit.

when im referring to r=0.9 meaning not that great im saying that there is no way you can associate an exact 10x rule when a range should be more appropriate. i'll need to back and and read how they derived the r value because the 95% CI was so large on the 300 and 600mg there's no way the r value could be so high

the research does speak for itself. you can clearly see from the graphs that as the dosage increases the CI drastically increases. suggesting that 1. increases in dosage causes a greater variance in TT levels and 2. a 10x rule does not accurately reflect at higher dosages.

 

[I_know_nothing]

@CensoredBoardsSuck

just looked over the results sections of both Bhasin studies would you please refer to where it says r=0.9 for nadir TT and dosage levels? i thought i did see r=0.9 but it was r=0.94 for "The measurements of fat-free mass by DEXA were highly correlated with values obtained from underwater weighing (r = 0.94, P < 0.0001).". for the hormone part all it says is p<0.0001. i honestly trusted you there for your r=0.9 comment, but unless you can point that out, looks like ill need to be double checking all your posts for false data :/

in the second bhasin study there is no mention whatsoever of r or p values for TT and dosage. like i mentioned before, their objective wasn't to look at TT values they were investigating a Dual 5-ReductaseInhibitor on fat free mass.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

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.

Not that one but the one below it (that KnowNothing intentionally neglected to mention) certainly does.

Perhaps KN's omission, along with him continuously obfuscating this issue in spite of overwhelming evidence, will finally convince you that he does have an agenda.

"In a clinical
trial for male contraception 20 healthy men were injected with 200 mg/
wk of testosterone enanthate for 12 weeks (Cunningham et al. 1978). Minimal
serum concentrations of testosterone at steady state, i.e. the testosterone
serum concentration just before the next injection, were measured at
31.2 nmolll to 39.5 nmolll after weekly injection of 200 mg testosterone
enanthate. Very similar data were obtained in recent contraceptive studies
when normal men received 200 mg/wk testosterone enanthate injections for
18 months (Anderson and Wu 1996; Wu et al. 1996). The data of these studies
fit well with the computer-calculated minimal testosterone serum concentrations
of 40 nmolll and maximal testosterone levels of 78 nmolll after multiple
injections of testosterone enanthate at a dosage of 250 mg/wk."​

that graph can't really be applied to us. that graph is for single dose pharmacokinetics, we're all involved in multi-dose

 

[I_know_nothing]

"In a clinical
trial for male contraception 20 healthy men were injected with 200 mg/
wk of testosterone enanthate for 12 weeks (Cunningham et al. 1978). Minimal
serum concentrations of testosterone at steady state, i.e. the testosterone
serum concentration just before the next injection, were measured at
31.2 nmolll to 39.5 nmolll after weekly injection of 200 mg testosterone
enanthate. Very similar data were obtained in recent contraceptive studies
when normal men received 200 mg/wk testosterone enanthate injections for
18 months (Anderson and Wu 1996; Wu et al. 1996). The data of these studies
fit well with the computer-calculated minimal testosterone serum concentrations
of 40 nmolll and maximal testosterone levels of 78 nmolll after multiple
injections of testosterone enanthate at a dosage of 250 mg/wk."​

sorry CBS but you're misinterpreting what the author is saying, he's saying the minimal serum concentrations of testosterone at steady state. so what the author is saying is that the steady state is again when it fluctuates up and down at a fixed amplitude (i.e. blood levels stabilized after a few weeks of injections). so my definition of steady state is correct. the author is saying the minimal level at steady state and obviously the minimal level at the steady state is the TT levels right before the next injection.

edit: maybe this will further clarify...

the brackets indicate what the statement after the comma is applying to

you are thinking this: Minimal serum concentrations of testosterone at [steady state], i.e. the testosterone serum concentration just before the next injection

the author actually means this: [ Minimal serum concentrations of testosterone at steady state], i.e. the testosterone serum concentration just before the next injection,

let me know if you need for me to clarify or further explain this

 

[I_know_nothing]

Not that one but the one below it (that KnowNothing intentionally neglected to mention) certainly does.

Perhaps KN's omission, along with him continuously obfuscating this issue in spite of overwhelming evidence, will finally convince you that he does have an agenda.

actually i have addressed the multi-dose analysis, would you like me to link to you where i addressed it? the multi-dosed is based off computer stimulations i believe and that is exactly what i addressed.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

just looked over the results sections of both Bhasin studies would you please refer to where it says r=0.9 for nadir TT and dosage levels? i thought i did see r=0.9 but it was r=0.94 for "The measurements of fat-free mass by DEXA were highly correlated with values obtained from underwater weighing (r = 0.94, P < 0.0001).". for the hormone part all it says is p<0.0001. i honestly trusted you there for your r=0.9 comment, but unless you can point that out, looks like ill need to be double checking all your posts for false data :/

As I said, it's clear you have not read the full text of the studies. You don't even know how many studies have been posted. FYI, there are 3 Basin studies now posted in this thread. You might want to read them before you step in it again.

 

[I_know_nothing]

As I said, it's clear you have not read the full text of the studies. You don't even know how many studies have been posted. FYI, there are 3 Basin studies now posted in this thread. You might want to read them before you step in it again.

you mentioned that 2 of the Bhasin studies that those statistics. i've checked 2/3 and both dont have it. would you care to link me to where says it on the last one? regardless you're still missing 1 more study that claims this statistic

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

sorry CBS but you're misinterpreting what the author is saying, he's saying the minimal serum concentrations of testosterone at steady state. so what the author is saying is that the steady state is again when it fluctuates up and down at a fixed amplitude (i.e. blood levels stabilized after a few weeks of injections). so my definition of steady state is correct. the author is saying the minimal level at steady state and obviously the minimal level at the steady state is the TT levels right before the next injection.

Do you even read the drivel you write before posting? I don't think so. LMFAO

let me know if you need for me to clarify or further explain this

Yeah, I'll get right on that.

 

[I_know_nothing]

Do you even read the drivel you write before posting? I don't think so. LMFAO



Yeah, I'll get right on that.

check out my edit, it may help clarify

 

[I_know_nothing]

@CensoredBoardsSuck im heading off soon. it's good that you're taking a look at the scientific evidence, that's the only way you're going to be able to go toe to toe with me. unfortunately, when viewing scientific evidence you must look at it without any bias. you need to look at it objectively. you claim that i have the agenda but clearly all i have done is provide the evidence and stated the facts. it is evident to a few members now that perhaps you are the one with an agenda.

regardless, i do not care if you do or i do. i am here to discuss the science and reasoning brother. all i ask is that you be opened minded, like i have. i have addressed where i have made mistakes and misread or misinterpreted. however, you continue to ignore any valid points i make. in science, we dont ignore the data we dont like and continue to search for data we like, that is not objective research. i am completely open to a 10x rule, it would actually make predicting bloods as well as underdosed gear extremely ease! however, the scientific data as well as many anecdotal results point to the contrary.

prove me wrong however, that's what i love about science! there is nothing that is ever set in stone, it could be a completely accepted theory one day and then completely crumble the next. best of luck brother, i will continue this discussion tomorrow

 

[Burrr]

maximal testosterone levels of 78 nmolll after multiple
injections of testosterone enanthate at a dosage of 250 mg/wk."

That works out to 9x, sounds legit to me.

This graph was after 5 weeks, shows 7x

I think we can conclude that there is a reasonable amount of +/- to be seen.

 

[I_know_nothing]

That works out to 9x, sounds legit to me.

https://thinksteroids.com/community/media/test-e-200-day-by-day.207/full?d=1420934992[/imng]
This graph was after 5 weeks, shows 7x

I think we can conclude that there is a reasonable amount of +/- to be seen.

hm, maybe i misinterpreted but i believe that graph you linked is the single dose pharmacokinetics- the levels after one injection. could you point out where it says 5 weeks? when i was reading i was trying to find that, but i couldnt, my i may have missed it.

i agree, my main point is that a hard 10x rule is too tight of a boundary. in both Bhasin 2001 and 2012 we see a significant increase in the CI as we increase the dosage. this is suggestive that as we increase the dosage the peak TT response range starts to increase in range. i believe this is why doses in the 50-200mg range often see more closer responses than doses in the 500-1000mg range.

i pointed out earlier that the chpt linked by brother lightspan does suggest around a 9x dose response max TT from computer stimulations. but there are two observations to be made here, the first is that the computer stimulation is much better at predicting blood levels than actual users. the general rule of thumb that users are given is get bloods done within x to y hours after last injection. but within that time frame the total TT blood levels may range. as a result, the computer stimulation is able to more accurately calculate the "exact" max TT. chances that a user takes their blood at precisely the right time is low. the second observation is that the multi-dose analysis does not mention CI. so while 78 nmol/L is the calculated mean, we are not given the CI. are mentioned before, the clinical studies we have available suggest that the CI increases significantly as we increase dosage.

so again my main argument is not that max test levels should be lower (i.e. in the 5-6x range) my argument that a hard 10x rule is insignificant in accounting for the majority of users. as a result, i think there are too many factors at play and too much variance to say a 7x TT response is "severely underdosed or underdosed" vs 10x TT response. of course at 5x TT response, i would argue that either the user mistimed bloods or that the test is underdosed. because 5x TT is what seems to be the levels at nadir.