Math question about test and blood levels

[skywalk]

If you're doing 750/week of test E, how do you calculate how much test you should have via blood test, once you reach steady state levels?

what should the blood test results show, so that you know your shit isn't underdosed?

(I know it fluctuates, but a ballpark figure would be good.)

 

[thetruth81]

It's all under dosed now. the guy i use so far has the most slightly overdosed gear i've used.

 

[TheGuy85]

I would like to see an educated response to your question as well OP. A ball park range would be nice.

 

[Colt44]

If you're doing 750/week of test E, how do you calculate how much test you should have via blood test, once you reach steady state levels?

what should the blood test results show, so that you know your shit isn't underdosed?

(I know it fluctuates, but a ballpark figure would be good.)

This is from the Comprehensive PCT guide:

(In TRT studies it is generally excepted that a 100mg shot of testosterone enanthate/cyp will put blood levels at around 800-900ng/dl.)

From the studies I have read that number usually fluctuates around 750-1000 ng/dl per 100mg of testosterone.

So to ballpark, 750mg should put you around 5600 on the low end and 7500 ng/dl on the high.

So if you're below that bottom number, I'd say it is more than likely under dosed. Maybe we can get confirmation on this from @Michael Scally MD .

 

[Michael Scally MD]

A good estimate I have found to work very well clinically is to multiply the dose (TC/TE) by 10. Of course there will be some variation around the level, but this has worked out very well for PCT. For example, TC/TE 600 mg per week provides a serum testosterone of ~6,000 ng/dL. In the real world, the levels might be a a high as 8,000 ng/dL!!!

 

[Colt44]

A good estimate I have found to work very well clinically is to multiply the dose (TC/TE) by 10. Of course there will be some variation around the level, but this has worked out very well for PCT. For example, TC/TE 600 mg per week provides a serum testosterone of ~6,000 ng/dL. In the real world, the levels might be a a high as 8,000 ng/dL!!!

So test levels being subjective as they are, would you agree that multiplying by a factor of 7.5 on the low end would be a good way to determine if it's under dosed or not?

 

[Burrr]

In the PCT thread that Ape started I think he mentioned that there are diminishing returns when you get to high mg levels.

 

[amplejunkbin]

In the PCT thread that Ape started I think he mentioned that there are diminishing returns when you get to high mg levels.

Yes. Dose-response curve is logarithmic (not linear). At some point, large increases in dose produce negligible increases in serum concentrations. Also, individual response is unpredictable. Results from the simple "times 10" rule should be taken with a large grain of salt.

To definitively determine if gear is underdosed, you would need quantitative testing. With a reasonably sized sample population (e.g. previous reactions to known quantities, results from many users and a comparable standard) you could make a reasonably accurate deduction. Simply failing to beat a hazy hurdle in isolation is insufficient. At best, failure to beat this number should arouse mild suspicion.

 

[Burrr]

Fromn what I've seen, most guys running a simple 500mg a week cycle are happy with bloods in the 4000's.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Yes. Dose-response curve is logarithmic (not linear). At some point, large increases in dose produce negligible increases in serum concentrations. Also, individual response is unpredictable. Results from the simple "times 10" rule should be taken with a large grain of salt.

To definitively determine if gear is underdosed, you would need quantitative testing. With a reasonably sized sample population (e.g. previous reactions to known quantities, results from many users and a comparable standard) you could make a reasonably accurate deduction. Simply failing to beat a hazy hurdle in isolation is insufficient. At best, failure to beat this number should arouse mild suspicion.

This is incorrect. There will be an increasing dose-dependent level.

The highest serum level I have seen is ~27,000 ng/dL. Serum testosterone levels were commonly around the 7,000 ng/dL range.

There will be a leveling off of an anabolic response, but NOT serum levels with increasing dosage.

The X10 is a rough estimate that has worked very well when planning for serum testosterone measurements in the clinic as well as for PCT. I have no idea what you mean it "should be taken with a large grain of salt," but what do you propose?

 

[amplejunkbin]

This is incorrect. There will be an increasing dose-dependent level.
[...]

I do not dispute this. My observation is that doubling the dose will not always double the concentration.

[...] weekly injections of 25, 50, 125, 300, or 600 mg of testosterone enanthate for 20 wk [...] graded doses of testosterone resulted in mean nadir testosterone concentrations of 253, 306, 542, 1,345, and 2,370 ng/dl at the 25-, 50-, 125-, 300-, and 600-mg doses, respectively. [...]

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/281/6/E1172

Please, correct me if I misinterpreted this. I only did a brief search and found little in regards to the pharmacodynamics of testosterone depot. This study claims to have controlled diet and activity. All subjects received a GnRH agonist to suppress endogenous testosterone production during the study period.

I may have mispoken earlier. Maybe I can clarify. The effect of doubling the dose does not seem to double the serum concentration. Mathematically,

I feel the "times 10" rule is not without its uses; however, (and I imagine you would agree) it is far too simple to be reliably accurate. If you need to predict a ballpark stable serum concentration from doses within the typical TRT range, I imagine it is accurate enough. If you need to accurately predict stable serum concentration from an arbitrary dose, it may not be sufficient.

I respect you Dr. Scally. You seem an intelligent man and you have without question greatly contributed to this community. Please, do not hesitate to correct me. I would welcome it.

In response to the question of determining concentration of gear:
Using the "times 10" rule alone is, in my opinion, not sufficient to reliably determine dose from serum concentration. Unless you have more data on hand (e.g. historical responses to known quantities), this is not advisable.

 

[johnnyBALLZ]

This is incorrect. There will be an increasing dose-dependent level.

The highest serum level I have seen is ~27,000 ng/dL. Serum testosterone levels were commonly around the 7,000 ng/dL range.

There will be a leveling off of an anabolic response, but NOT serum levels with increasing dosage.

The X10 is a rough estimate that has worked very well when planning for serum testosterone measurements in the clinic as well as for PCT. I have no idea what you mean it "should be taken with a large grain of salt," but what do you propose?

Give or take a bit the 10x rule always proved to be true with my blood work/dosages..

 

[Burrr]

what factors would influence a variance in these levels from person to person?
aromatisation?
injection location?
SHBG?
ester of the test injected?
how bout the method of testing> roch vs. ms

 

[Burrr]

thetruth81, got any bloods from that overdosed gear?

i've only looked at a few dozen midcycle bloods from folks, but I've never seen bloods come in at >=10:1
Most people get the cheap blood work from privatemdlabs, and only report the result as >1800

 

[BIGMESC]

These levels are based on Test E a longer ester.

What would the levels look like with say Prop at the same total mg a week? 500mg
the same? Less?

 

[Burrr]

I hope we can keep this discussion going!
at what ratio can you safely declare the TC/TE under dosed? 5:1?

 

[MR10X]

The times 10 rule sounds pretty accurate.I had my levels checked after 2 months of 120mg test E and it came back 1580,i think mine is slightly overdosed ^^^^ avatar

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Yes. Dose-response curve is logarithmic (not linear). At some point, large increases in dose produce negligible increases in serum concentrations. Also, individual response is unpredictable. Results from the simple "times 10" rule should be taken with a large grain of salt.

To definitively determine if gear is underdosed, you would need quantitative testing. With a reasonably sized sample population (e.g. previous reactions to known quantities, results from many users and a comparable standard) you could make a reasonably accurate deduction. Simply failing to beat a hazy hurdle in isolation is insufficient. At best, failure to beat this number should arouse mild suspicion.

I do not dispute this. My observation is that doubling the dose will not always double the concentration.


http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/281/6/E1172

Please, correct me if I misinterpreted this. I only did a brief search and found little in regards to the pharmacodynamics of testosterone depot. This study claims to have controlled diet and activity. All subjects received a GnRH agonist to suppress endogenous testosterone production during the study period.


I may have mispoken earlier. Maybe I can clarify. The effect of doubling the dose does not seem to double the serum concentration. Mathematically,

I feel the "times 10" rule is not without its uses; however, (and I imagine you would agree) it is far too simple to be reliably accurate. If you need to predict a ballpark stable serum concentration from doses within the typical TRT range, I imagine it is accurate enough. If you need to accurately predict stable serum concentration from an arbitrary dose, it may not be sufficient.

I respect you Dr. Scally. You seem an intelligent man and you have without question greatly contributed to this community. Please, do not hesitate to correct me. I would welcome it.

In response to the question of determining concentration of gear:
Using the "times 10" rule alone is, in my opinion, not sufficient to reliably determine dose from serum concentration. Unless you have more data on hand (e.g. historical responses to known quantities), this is not advisable.

___

Thanks for the link. Do you realize, probably NOT, that the study supports ALL that I have posted and NONE of what you posted!!!

We will ignore your already backtracking from "At some point, large increases in dose produce negligible increases in serum concentrations" to "I may have mispoken earlier. Maybe I can clarify. The effect of doubling the dose does not seem to double the serum concentration. Mathematically,"
You went from "negligible" increases to have "mispoken" [sic].

But, still WRONG. There is a linear relationship between the dose administered and the serum level. You even demonstrate this fact by the values posted taken directly from the study.

weekly injections of 25, 50, 125, 300, or 600 mg of testosterone enanthate for 20 wk ... graded doses of testosterone resulted in mean nadir testosterone concentrations of 253, 306, 542, 1,345, and 2,370 ng/dl at the 25-, 50-, 125-, 300-, and 600-mg doses, respectively.

Hint: 2,370/1,345 = 1.76; 1,345/542 = 2.48; 542/306 = 1.77; 306/253 = 1.21

Do you know why one would not expect a linear relationship at the lower end?
And, at the upper end with even greater doses, the linear relationship might prove even greater?
Regardless, if you plot this, one obtains a linear relationship. [And, this even comes with a surprise (later).]

Further, the study supports the 10X rough estimate.

Hint: "nadir"

Now, if one was to check for PCT or UG would it be of import to know the timing of the test to the drug administration?

Another point, what do you have to offer or propose as a method? I did not read anything except the obvious costly analysis, which is beyond almost all and as I will show later not necessary.

There is another point I will address later.

 

[Burrr]

I see the linear progression, double the mg dose coincides with roughly double the ng/dl level

And 600mg per week results in a nadir (low point) level of 2370 ng/dl.

Would this leave us with a 4:1 ratio at the lowest test level of the week?

 

[Michael Scally MD]

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/281/6/E1172

___
I am curious if you even read the study. Or, did you just copy/paste from another board.

It is very clear that you did NOT read the study nor understand the study. This is glaringly obvious.