MESO-Rx

Anabolic Steroids

Pharmacom Test E 500

S

Steve84

Well-known Member
Again some more anonymous testing done..

I had some bloods lower than I expected so I sent a sample of my open bottle for testing to Analyzer.

Label Claim
Test E 500MG/ML

Actual
461MG/ML
 

Attachments

i think so???
@Analyzer

They aren't Simec but I think they are good to trust!

Underdosed so I'm sure PCOM might dispute but I still have some of this shit left in the bottle.
 
Underdosed according to Lab Testing? Not necessarily so, my friend.

What is the plus/minus error percentage of the testing procedure? If I remember correctly, isn't the error percentage of the testing allowing for +/- 10% either way? If so, then this is not technically underdosed. 461mg compared to label claim of 500mg leaves a 9.22% discrepancy, technically within the 10% acceptable error range.

That is, if my memory of the range for error being 10% is correct. Might wanna ask @Analyzer ?
 
Steve84 said:
Haha 10% is an acceptance rule of deviation.

Meaning technically it's underdosed still.
Click to expand...

Steve, I very well might be misunderstanding the +/- error rule interpretation, but I thought that meant that the testing results themselves have a built in range of error OF THE TESTING RESULTS OF 10% in either direction (ie, the testing results could be inaccurate by as much as 10% either way).

I could be wrong though...
 
bickel29 said:
Steve, I very well might be misunderstanding the +/- error rule interpretation, but I thought that meant that the testing results themselves have a built in range of error OF THE TESTING RESULTS OF 10% in either direction (ie, the testing results could be inaccurate by as much as 10% either way).

I could be wrong though...
Click to expand...
I think you're right. I believe the pharmaceutical standard is +/- 10% which would mean it's not under/overdosed unless it's less than 450 or over 550

Edit: that's still a large margin of error though
 
turcao said:
I think you're right. I believe the pharmaceutical standard is +/- 10% which would mean it's not under/overdosed unless it's less than 450 or over 550

Edit: that's still a large margin of error though
Click to expand...

I'm with ya Turcao, does seem like a large margin, but this is what the scientific folks (the smart folks) are telling us is acceptable, so i suppose we kinda gotta accept it.
 
I think the guy was referring to the testing results being +/- 10% of error. Not the product.
So I disagree he is wrong.

Product wise we look at 10% okay...but at dosing of 500mg/ML, 40MG is a huge variance in my opinion.
Now the shit bites like a mother fucker, so am I really complaining no... but I would have liked to see more 480-520 type of range for it to be within.
 
bickel29 said:
Underdosed according to Lab Testing? Not necessarily so, my friend.

What is the plus/minus error percentage of the testing procedure? If I remember correctly, isn't the error percentage of the testing allowing for +/- 10% either way? If so, then this is not technically underdosed. 461mg compared to label claim of 500mg leaves a 9.22% discrepancy, technically within the 10% acceptable error range.

That is, if my memory of the range for error being 10% is correct. Might wanna ask @Analyzer ?
Click to expand...

Overall error for oil samples is usually within +/- 5%. Analytical methods I use are very accurate, however there are many operations during sample and standard preparation which are source of higher uncertainty of the analysis. Measuring exact volumes of oil samples and volatile solvents are quite tricky.

The fact is, that a lot of oil samples I tested over last week appear underdosed by about 10%, so I am afraid I have some source of systematic error. Result I get for this sample during preliminary test 10 days ago was was 509 mg/ml without correction for oil density, @Steve84 can confirm I have sent him this value before, so real value might be closer to 500. I have prepared fresh standards and changed way I use for calculation of results, so maybe there is something I am doing wrong. Give me couple of days to take a look at it.
 
Steve84 said:
This thread isn't about bloods... it's actual product testing.
Click to expand...
You said you had bloods lower than expected so obviously we’re gonna ask where those are..... yes it’s about testing but if a test says the product is good and your bloods are junk I want to see the bloods lol
 
Athlete127 said:
You said you had bloods lower than expected so obviously we’re gonna ask where those are..... yes it’s about testing but if a test says the product is good and your bloods are junk I want to see the bloods lol
Click to expand...

Actually that's why you test the product to see how your body is sensitivity wise.
Some people claim 10x levels.

I had some issues pinning consistently, but I was about 4 weeks into my test, about 400-47d5mg/week (Approx) and I only did test level of 1650 approximately.
I felt that was low, but my bloods probably weren't peaked yet.

And that's why I tested the product. Turns out I'm not a 10x test level guy.
But my bottle of test I was using, dosed accurately as per the lab results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Opti’s Test E HPLC Report
Replies
3
Views
221
oldie59
O
B
Baseline Nutrition Domestic Distributor (AAS Oils/Tabs/Peptides)
2
Replies
25
Views
554
bigead
B
G
Mast E vs Mast P brewing
Replies
8
Views
213
Gemini Bandit
G
K
MuscleCandy - TEST E 500: Toxic AF *STAY AWAY*
2
Replies
32
Views
904
Spaceman Spiff
Spaceman Spiff
Dirthand
Readalots Enhanced Testing
52 53 54
Replies
1K
Views
22K
readalot
readalot

Sponsors

Latest posts

Back
Top