start by pointing out all labmax flaws..then we can go from there.!
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Pharmacom Labs PHARMA Test E300 - GC-MS/MS - 2016-01 - performed by ChemTox via AnabolicLab.com
- Thread starter AnabolicLab.com
- Start date
AnTabolic73
Well-known Member
Why did anaboliclab go with Chemtox for this test, I thought it was just for testing mast?
Could the different testing methods be why there's such a discrepancy between the two enanthate samples?
Could the different testing methods be why there's such a discrepancy between the two enanthate samples?
I was thinking the same thing. The first test was done with HPLC and the results were reported as 306.05 mg/ml. The second was done with GC-MS/MS with results reported as 363 (not 363.00) mg/ml.
There has been plenty of talk on this board over the years concerning the inaccuracy of GC-MS/MS. I doubt the testing was off by 60+ mg/ml, but it would be nice to know what to expect. They tested/screened 4 samples, so were the results 363mg/ml all four times?
The results of GC/MS vs HPLC methodologies are comparable from what I understand. I am not qualified to discuss the relative merits and drawbacks of each although I believe there is a good amount of research on the topic.
The reason we chose ChemTox to test for multiple AAS in the testosterone enanthate samples is cost.
SIMEC uses HPLC-UV for steroid analytics. This requires a repeat analysis for each additional compound tested. The costs would multiply accordingly.
OTOH, ChemTox uses GC/MS for steroid analytics. This allows the testing of multiple AAS compounds in parallel with a single analysis. GC/MS testing has an advantage at least in this one regard.
I would be interested to see the same vial tested by Chem Tox and Simec... Wonder how/if the results would vary...?
AnabolicLab had repeat testing performed on the testosterone enanthate products by Geneza Pharma and Pharmacom Labs:
Geneza Pharma GP Test Enanthat 250
278.50 mg/ml - 1 sample obtained in Apr 2015 with “lot number” GP143H
275.00 mg/ml - 1 sample obtained in Sep 2015 with “lot number” GP143H
Pharmacom Labs PHARMA Test E300
306.05 mg/ml - 1 sample obtained in Apr 2015 with "product number" 604331
363.00 mg/ml - 1 sample obtained in Sep 2015 with "product number" 604331
The obvious question: are comparisons being made within the same lot/batch? Does 604331 represent a lot or batch number? Or is it simply the code that identifies the product itself and includes multiple batch/lots of the same product?
My apologies for being nit-picky, the correct % is 21% overdosed.
mercury
New Member
HPLC and GC/MS are two different instruments they operate on different principles.
The applications for both instruments is different. Some substances cannot be even tested on GC/MS for example HGH, this is why you are having problem to find lab to test for HGH.
HPLC (or HPLC/MS) will give better resolutions for some while GC/MS for others.
That notation was confusing. It referred to the complete order with ChemTox: 4 samples of testosterone enanthate + 4 samples of methandienone.
AnTabolic73
Well-known Member
But didn't simec do both Geneza tests?
No, that was typo on the website. Thanks for alerting me.
The latest lab analysis/report was performed by ChemTox.
From Frank's description of the compounding process I gather they use a dynamic mixing chamber with measured flows of powder, oil, etc. rather than a static chamber with measured amounts all mixed at once. He also said it takes time (multiple runs) to get the flows adjusted properly for a specific concentration. He even said oil viscosity can have (did have) a measurable impact on concentration. It makes me wonder if fluctuations or manual adjustments can result in relatively large concentration swings within the same batch.
the problem with testing sustanon is that you would have to run individual tests for each ester. it would be very expensive
DedLift
New Member
So here's my question: let's say I've got a few vials of this with the same batch number. Do I go with the assumption that it's overdosed and pin less?
tough to say. in the pharmacom thread pharmacom replied stating that like the deviations from a perfect product with the Bayer test e, that slight deviations occur even within same batches to some degree.
DedLift
New Member
Yeah, this is why I prefer my Shit just be dosed properly. That's not just a little over and its going to make it tough to dose exactly 500 IF mine is even dosed the same which it might not be. Thanks for the response @crossfitisgay
DedLift
New Member
Thanks @Millard Baker . If it hadn't been for anabolic lab, I'd have no idea that I could possibly be taking over 100mg's more than I intended. Plan on making another donation soon
G.I. Bro
Well-known Member
100mg of additional test!?! Oh the humanity. What a dangerous predicament. I'd say pin away and enjoy, lol. In your case, 600mg instead of 500. RED LINING IT! Most of the UGL out there is underdosed, so I'd prefer this side of the QC coin.
Unless you were estrogen sensitive... then dosing an Ai becomes dofficult. Or you could be using this for trt with bp issues... or using for trt and develop bp issues because your maintenance dose was supra physiological. Or it would fuck up half life calculations for pct... I get where you are coming from, but an incorrect stated usage on a label is dangerous when overdosed. Period.
Similar threads
