[HPLC/MS] AP Test E + NPP

[Burrr]

IKN, it was me that misinterpreted the graph.
It was a single dose of test e, and then 5 weeks later a single dose of test c.

 

[I_know_nothing]

IKN, it was me that misinterpreted the graph.
It was a single dose of test e, and then 5 weeks later a single dose of test c.

thanks for that brother, that's how i interpreted it when i read it but im 100% capable of making mistakes

what do you think the other part of my "analysis" though? point out any flaws or weaknesses, peer review is one of the core foundations of science!

 

[Burrr]

IMO, the calculated peak levels suggested on the graph are probably accurate, +/- at least 250mg/dl.
I think that those peak levels are held for such a short period of time that trying to time your bloodwork to measure that peak is very hit or miss, and will vary from person to person.
I know what I routinely get on my bloodwork 24 hours after a pin, so I am able to compare apples to apples every time.

 

[I_know_nothing]

IMO, the calculated peak levels suggested on the graph are probably accurate, +/- at least 250mg/dl.
I think that those peak levels are held for such a short period of time that trying to time your bloodwork to measure that peak is very hit or miss, and will vary from person to person.
I know what I routinely get on my bloodwork 24 hours after a pin, so I am able to compare apples to apples every time.

good observations brother. i,too, have confidence in the computer stimulation calculations, im not sure where they got the data for the stimulations but i would love to take a look at that data as well.

your second point is one point i touched upon a few posts ago. i do not have enough background though to characterize exactly how long peak levels are held. a good comparison for the dosing of different UGL labs is to get bloods X hours after being on 6-8 weeks pharma and compare that to 6-8 weeks on UGL.

 

[BIGMESC]

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."​

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

For those following along and not understanding the nmol/l numbers the conversion to US standard ng/dl is to divide by .03467 or from ng/dl to nmol/l x .03467

The studies purpose was to determin the dose that would keep a subjects blood levels at a steady state above 40nmol/l or 1150ng/dl the high end of normal.

So the above graph and its discription show a study of 20 men who are on 200mg test once a week.
After obtaining a steady state the lowest level just prior to next pin was 31.2-39.5nmol/l or in US stantards
899.9 ng/dl or a x4.5 to 1139ng/dl or a x5.5 times dose, also know as nadir

In the conclustion of the study it was determined that at a 250mg weekly dose.
The high right after the next dose was +/- 78nmol/l or 2250ng/dl or x9 the dose.

Hope this helps my US brothers follow along.

All this discussion about the x7-x10 rule OF THUMB is good because it is just that a rule of thumb meaning a guideline or place to start.

If you are starting out in this lifestyle or plan on maintaining this lifestyle I strongly urge you to get bloods. Baselines, peaks, troughs, and post.
This is the only way that you can determin your own bodies reaction to levels of test and the quality of your gear.
Idealy with Pharm grade gear you could with peak and trough blood work determine a baseline for yourself to determine the quality of ugl gear.

 

[Burrr]

Big mesc, wasn't that 78nmol number the peak for 250ml a week? 9x dose?

 

[BIGMESC]

Shit your right will edit - done

 

[Burrr]

The article references two studies, the graph is based on 200mg a week and the calculated peak was based on 250mg a week.

 

[BIGMESC]

I think one thing we can all agree on based on this study is if you are bloods come back as under a X4.5 your gear is underdosed or you are a freak of nature, either way your screwed.

 

[BIGMESC]

The article references two studies, the graph is based on 200mg a week and the calculated peak was based on 250mg a week.

Yes, My understanding is the original data was for the purpose I described finding a min steady state above 40nmol/l and this article is using that data to verify the computer simulation of testosterone serum concentrations.
I should of made that clear.

One other thing is this is all based off of TEST E

 

[I_know_nothing]

@BIGMESC thanks for the clarifying post brother, deff helpful for all those out there are having trouble following along and correct they are all based on test E.

i just want to reiterate several points that im trying to push across:

1. a simple TT number and dosage administered is not enough information to determine if gear is underdosed or bunk in most cases (2-3x dose TT? sorry buddy ya got fucked).

2. users need to compare everything to themselves for the most accurate information. of course if you have no other info than someone else's bloods then by all means use all the info you have available. but at the end of the day only a comparison with yourself is a true "apples to apples" comparison

3. the idea that a strict 10x rule as a golden standard is a idea we need to shift away from- especially at higher dosages (>300mg/wk). there is too much variance in blood TT levels to say 6x,7x,8x "underdosed" compared to 10x.

 

[BIGMESC]

@I_know_nothing

Just a comment on your #3. above, if someone is on less than say 300mg/wk and lets use a x5 standard for sake of discussion then they are at 1500ng/dl slightly above the high end of the natural test range.

I would call this TRT or HRT definitly not pushing into the supraphysiologic range that myself and most non TRT guys are looking for.

If this is the case then why not just go on TRT and have all of this monitored by a doctor with Pharma test and regular bloodwork?

One other thing to consider in using dose to determine blood levels is an individuals metabolisim to assimilate the deposit, the location of that deposit and obviously the timing of the blood work.

For those of us not on TRT and being monitored we are experimenting on ourselves. We need to, through experimentation find out how fast we assimilate from a cetain deposit location to pinpoint our peaks.

Two people using the exact same dose but having different metabolisms and using differnet deposit locations could have peaks at 24 hours or 72 hours.
This can cause a large variation in blood levels on the high end but really should not effect the low.

I am leaning toward having blood work done just prior to my next pin and monitoring my lows.
I think this will give me a better reading on where I am at, instead of searching for that elusive peak.

 

[I_know_nothing]

@BIGMESC agreed on most of your points. however, i think that there may be some individuals who cruise on less than 300mg/wk and do not want to deal with a TRT clinic or endo, just another consideration

your last point is actually a good idea. use the nadir levels as a gauge rather than peak levels, it seems like that's what clinical studies are doing. didnt really think about that - in fact that could be a really good new method for everyone to do bloods. however, there would have to be some experimentation done since the clinical studies only do 1 injections per week while most of us do E3D or EOD (which is better for blood level stabilization). but logically if you were to be consistent with the timing (aka 12pm E3D or 1pm Sunday) then if you took bloods right before your next pin, it would be your nadir levels.

 

[Dr JIM]

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.

There you go finally a PEAK level that can be easily extrapolated using the 10 times rule.

Check it out, folks these subjects were given 10 weeks of supraphysiological doses of TT and had their final TT level obtained, ONE WEEK LATER. Now fellas that is called the nadir or trough,mentioned for those brainless fools like KNOW NOTHING and JACK OFF.

Now simply multiply the NEJM subjects Steady State levels by TWO, to obtain their PEAK VALUES, and ta da there is the TEN FOLD INCREASE Dr S, myself, CBS and many others have been supporting bc IT'S FACTUAL!

YOU TWO BOZO'S GO HUG A SWEATY NUT SOMEWHERE ELSE,

 

[I_know_nothing]

There you go finally a PEAK level that can be easily extrapolated using the 10 times rule.

Check it out, folks these subjects were given 10 weeks of supraphysiological doses of TT and had their final TT level obtained, ONE WEEK LATER. Now fellas that is called the nadir or trough,mentioned for those brainless fools like KNOW NOTHING and JACK OFF.

Now simply multiply the patients listed Steady State levels by TWO, to obtain their PEAK VALUES, and ta da there is the TEN FOLD INCREASE Dr S, myself, CBS and many others have been supporting bc IT'S FACTUAL!

YOU TWO BOZO'S GO HUG A SWEATY NUT SOMEWHERE ELSE

the first graph does not apply as it is a single dose pharmacokinetics, we are all involved with multidose pharmacokinetics

your second study only further supports the findings in Bhasin et al 2012, you can see that the the CI includes wk 10 TT levels in your study. furthermore, your study also has a large CI (+/- 417) which is about an 800 ng/dL range. about the same we saw in Bhasin et al 2012 and 2001.

i didnt even have to read the full paper to get that info- i just looked at methods and results graph. now if you give me a few minutes to read the paper i can verify it.

@Dr JIM i suggest you re-read through the past 8 or pages. as there are many issues you have not addressed. if you are going to effectively debate me you will need to read through all my arguments instead of ignoring them. best of luck

 

[Dr JIM]

BLAA BLAA, address them yourself bc I'm done with you "two" clowns whom have yet to prove a damn thing, except your capable of propagating BULLSHIT!

 

[I_know_nothing]

BLAA BLAA, address them yourself bc I'm done with you "two" clowns whom have yet to prove a damn thing, except your capable of propagating BULLSHIT!

i have addressed them, have i not brother @Burrr @jackmeoff1 @BIGMESC that's what ive been doing this entire time. these brothers and i have been having a meaningful and progressive conversation where we each brought our own thoughts to the table about the interpretation of certain studies.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

i have addressed them, have i not brother @Burrr @jackmeoff1 @BIGMESC that's what ive been doing this entire time. these brothers and i have been having a meaningful and progressive conversation where we each brought our own thoughts to the table about the interpretation of certain studies.

The only thing you've done is prove that you don't know what you're talking about. You're so full of shit, it's obvious to anyone that's reading this thread. You fail to understand the subject matter, you certainly fail to understand statistics, and your twisting and turning, obfuscations and verbal diarrhea have failed to convince anyone of anything other than you're full of shit.

 

[I_know_nothing]

The only thing you've done is prove that you don't know what you're talking about. You're so full of shit, it's obvious to anyone that's reading this thread. You fail to understand the subject matter, you certainly fail to understand statistics, and your twisting and turning, obfuscations and verbal diarrhea have failed to convince anyone of anything other than you're full of shit.

on the contrary, several brothers have chimed in and we have had a good discussion. @Moose @Burrr @BIGMESC

if you would like to point out exactly where i have failed in logic, scientific or mathematic explanations i would be happy to clarify for you.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

on the contrary, several brothers have chimed in and we have had a good discussion.

Several member have added something to this thread. You're not one of them.

if you would like to point out exactly where i have failed in logic, scientific or mathematic explanations i would be happy to clarify for you.

Sure, I'll point it out. Start with your first post in this thread and end with the last one. Everything in between is a failure in logic, scientific and mathematical explanations.