Lab max VS Roid test: which one is better?

[Den84]

as a title, if someone has bought both Please he can say which works best. Thank you

 

[JohnLong]

i've used the labmax dbol/anadrol test kit. it worked exactly the way it stated it would.

 

[Den84]

i've used the labmax dbol/anadrol test kit. it worked exactly the way it stated it would.

But for lab max there are only dbol/anadrol kit and stanozol/oxandrolon kit? I am also interested in the methenolone test And other oils

 

[Dr JIM]

as a title, if someone has bought both Please he can say which works best. Thank you

Define “best, bc since neither of these reagent assay companies have cited evidence based upon more accurate testing such as LC/MS, so it’s anyones GUESS which one is better or worse.

Fact is there’s no way to KNOW what this form of testing is good for in the absence of evidence based comparisons, but that’s the compromise when folk are unwilling to pay for definitive testing, unreliable results.

Jim

 

[Millard]

Maybe NOT the one with undisclosed reps who shamelessly and transparently attempts to discredit any member who is critical of its product, who promotes analytical lab testing methods or who is perceived as competition.

 

[janoshik]

I think Roidtest was straight up lying to their customers.

 

[Dr JIM]

Maybe NOT the one with undisclosed reps who shamelessly and transparently attempts to discredit any member who is critical of its product, who promotes analytical lab testing methods or who is perceived as competition.

Good point @Millard Baker yet folk need to understand reagent assays such as LM are screening assays at best and should not be relied upon to determine AAS quality.

JIM

 

[wsw16]

I think they're both unreliable at best. Could be just me but I don't trust them at all

 

[Brolloks]

I think they're both unreliable at best. Could be just me but I don't trust them at all

HPLC or GTFO

 

[Dr JIM]

People need to be caustious about formulating conclusions
based upon any reagent assay,

And that’s why LE is REQUIRED to conduct a confirmatory study
whenever a “field based” reagent assay is used.

For more info on what I’m rrferring to try Goolging “crossreactivity of sympatiometic field reagent trsts” for drugs such a Meth, Cocaine, ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, MDMA etc

The comparisons are applicable bc much like AAS, the chemical differences in ”sympathiomemetic amides” can be quite subtle and vary as little as one Hhydrogen or hydroxyl group.

Jim

 

[Den84]

Define “best, bc since neither of these reagent assay companies have cited evidence based upon more accurate testing such as LC/MS, so it’s anyones GUESS which one is better or worse.

Fact is there’s no way to KNOW what this form of testing is good for in the absence of evidence based comparisons, but that’s the compromise when folk are unwilling to pay for definitive testing, unreliable results.

Jim

I know that the labs test are more reliable (simec, analizer..) I have already sent a sample to analizer, and I was satisfied. But in the sample there was not the declared active substance. my idea is the following: first text the sample with roid test and if the result is positive (the declared molecule is present) then I will send the sample to analizer. It makes no sense to pay to know the dosage if In the sample there is no declared molecule.

 

[wsw16]

I know that the labs test are more reliable (simec, analizer..) I have already sent a sample to analizer, and I was satisfied. But in the sample there was not the declared active substance. my idea is the following: first text the sample with roid test and if the result is positive (the declared molecule is present) then I will send the sample to analizer. It makes no sense to pay to know the dosage if In the sample there is no declared molecule.

I still remember a member here (forget his name) tested NPP with a labmax kit a while ago. I believe it was pharmacom if I remember correctly. He got a completely negative result with the labmax test, it was then sent into simec and their test came back perfectly dosed

 

[master.on]

as a title, if someone has bought both Please he can say which works best. Thank you

Define “best, bc since neither of these reagent assay companies have cited evidence based upon more accurate testing such as LC/MS, so it’s anyones GUESS which one is better or worse.

Fact is there’s no way to KNOW what this form of testing is good for in the absence of evidence based comparisons, but that’s the compromise when folk are unwilling to pay for definitive testing, unreliable results.

Jim

Interestingly,
these simple and cheap tests are backed by proper scientific methods
https://thinksteroids.com/community...ith-cheap-ebay-chemicals-heres-how.134382879/

BTW, neither Labmax nor RoidTest want you to have any cheap, effective and proven tests.
They'd lose their revenue.

 

[Den84]

Interestingly,
these simple and cheap tests are backed by proper scientific methods
Labmax-like roid tests with cheap Ebay chemicals? Here's how

BTW, neither Labmax nor RoidTest want you to have any cheap, effective and proven tests.
They'd lose their revenue.

Very interesting your thread. So in conclusion you recommend roid test ?

 

[Dr JIM]

I know that the labs test are more reliable (simec, analizer..) I have already sent a sample to analizer, and I was satisfied. But in the sample there was not the declared active substance. my idea is the following: first text the sample with roid test and if the result is positive (the declared molecule is present) then I will send the sample to analizer. It makes no sense to pay to know the dosage if In the sample there is no declared molecule.

I would agree, since FALSE NEGATIVES are an unlikely occurance with screening assays.

It’s for this reason a WADA testing ends with a NEGATIVE assay, with few exceptions.

However bc AAS are chemically similar in many respects a POSITIVE screening asay should be followed by confirmation testing.

Thus if your primarily interested in WHICH anabolic agents is/are present a MS would be a great follow up followed by a LC if quantification is desired.

A final word of advice IMO providing the involved compound is NOT in “raw form, neither SIMEC or Analyzer should require customers to divulge WHAT AAS is “supposed” to be present or its concentration, bc that’s what YOU are paying them to ascertain.

Jim

 

[janoshik]

A final word of advice IMO providing the involved compound is NOT in “raw form, neither SIMEC or Analyzer should require customers to divulge WHAT AAS is “supposed” to be present or its concentration, bc that’s what YOU are paying them to ascertain

Very interesting your thread. So in conclusion you recommend roid test ?

The conclusion is to not trust either and especially not people on the internet which lack both the wits and the education.

 

[Mr.Leucine]

The only correct way to test assay and purity, along with dose. Is by HPLC. Chemical tests only test for the presence of a substance and can be unreliable

 

[Dr JIM]

Very interesting your thread. So in conclusion you recommend roid test ?

Based upon these LE screening devices for "drugs of abuse", false POSITIVE rates for AAS are likely to very close to what was observed this study on amphetamines.

What does a "false positive" assay mean exactly ---- a D-bol "positive" LM assay may actually represent TESTOSTERONE

 

[Mr.Leucine]

Based upon these LE screening devices for "drugs of abuse", false POSITIVE rates for AAS are likely to very close to what was observed this study on amphetamines.

What does that mean exactly ---- a D-bol "positive" LM assay may represent TESTOSTERONE

Generally these tests go for the main base structure. Basically they could trip on anything with a 4 ring hormone structure

 

[Dr JIM]

Generally these tests go for the main base structure. Basically they could trip on anything with a 4 ring hormone structure

IDK in the absence of published data but I'd like to believe "steroid assays" are more specific than that bc the 4 ring polycyclic structure of AAS are very similar among "sterol" compounds, from estrogen to aldosterone.