MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Qualityraws test e / tren e - mid cycle blood results
- Thread starter rram
- Start date
From what I've read everyone is different regarding test levels. The results vary wildly from what I've read on some of the TRT sites. Also, keep in mind that hitting the gym really hard can elevate your AST and ALT. If you're sore after a workout then you're probably going to have elevated ALT and AST. Here's a reference for the AST and ALT info.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2291230/
4leafclover
New Member
Nothing varies from what I've read on TRT or what a dose should be, when accurately dosed. They have done extensive clinical trials on TRT dosing, and the level it provides, hence them knowing what to prescribe. @ 200mg a week, they should be 2000k test or slightly above (I believe upto 400 above, I'll have to check my research files again to be double sure).
Dr. Scally has also commented on this, and he would know best, since that's his job, and he says the 10x rule of thumb generally applies, but he has seen much higher levels than 10x come back, but 10x is a conservative number.
If you're talking tren, Burr posted some great information on how to get an accurate test done. But if you're talking testosterone, there is no guess work, unless your talking supratheraputic levels, where not so much research has been done.
Dr. Scally has also commented on this, and he would know best, since that's his job, and he says the 10x rule of thumb generally applies, but he has seen much higher levels than 10x come back, but 10x is a conservative number.
If you're talking tren, Burr posted some great information on how to get an accurate test done. But if you're talking testosterone, there is no guess work, unless your talking supratheraputic levels, where not so much research has been done.
I hear you loud and clear and I'm not looking to challenge anyone regarding the science behind TRT, especially a doctor. That said, if there were no variation in the results people experienced regarding dosing for TRT then the 10X rule of thumb would simply be called the 10X Law and there wouldn't be a market for lab testing anyone's testosterone levels. It makes sense to me that other variables like the timing of the labs following the last injection and the levels of all the other hormones tested in the panel would be a factor. Just a couple of examples of the posts I'm referring to for the sake of context.
https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/trt-elevated-e2-and-aromasin.134357227/
https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/low-estradiol-without-ai.134357228/#post-1070661
If I use my prescription Watson from the Walmart pharmacy test Cyp and take bloods 8 weeks in and 2 days after the last injection, my multiplier is about 8.4.
Therefore a minimum of 10x may not apply but it's a good approximation. That said, it wouldn't surprise me to hear a FDA regulated us pharma company is screwing up their process.
For what it's worth comparing my own brew made with QR measured almost identical.
I've changed my 100mg/wk dose down to 80mg/wk and my 8.4 multiplier remained (stayed linear).
Just a data point.
Therefore a minimum of 10x may not apply but it's a good approximation. That said, it wouldn't surprise me to hear a FDA regulated us pharma company is screwing up their process.
For what it's worth comparing my own brew made with QR measured almost identical.
I've changed my 100mg/wk dose down to 80mg/wk and my 8.4 multiplier remained (stayed linear).
Just a data point.
Good info Beedix and one i will be looking at when i get bloods done. I would think everyone should have their own number and 10x may be the approximation. At least you know where yours is now and what it should be.
Hey
Hey devildog, can you post up your blood results so we can compare quality of product and see if most people are getting similar mutiplier numbers.
I'm not currently on cycle. When i run another i will definitely be getting bloodwork as i have no idea what my normal number would be.
4leafclover
New Member
I get the context, but the 10x rule is used for PCT and is used by Dr. Scally, they have an actual range for TRT. Since you made me look it up, here it is... Last injection timing, and injection site do play a factor, but they are calculated into this range.
Llewellyn (2010) A dose of 200mg per week produces blood levels of 2000-2400 ng/dL after several weeks of use (PCT: post cycle therapy, part 2).
I would highly recommend reading this book, as it is the most comprehensive review of all steroid research that has been conducted that I have seen thus far. Anabolics by Llewellyn, William.
Also Dr. Scally has noted that you should be near the 10x range, nothing you can do besides using bunk or under-dosed gear would drastically affect the number in a lower range. He has commented that he has seen higher numbers from his clinical experience on smaller doses, but I haven't seen him post anything saying from a clinical perspective that he has seen things come back lower than that range.
He also does indicate a timing formula for when to take your blood work, and when to dose and in what protocol. You can view his thread in the PCT area of this forum. If you are interested in his research, he has also posted a free search engine of research papers.
Mysticism debunked. Carry on.
Last edited:
I appreciate the info. I have the book your referring to and I'm familiar with the research. I'm not sure how my statements so far can be confused with mysticism, or need to be debunked. I'm not disputing what the results should be but rather pointing out a couple of instances where they aren't. It appears based on the results of some of these guys labs that they aren't where they should be with legit prescription testosterone. Take care.
Last edited:
4leafclover
New Member
Because, it spreads a sense of distrust of valid information, if you know anything about research, then you know there are always outliers, or statistically speaking those 2.5% or 15% (depending on what model you use) that don't comply. This doesn't make them the standard, this makes them the exception. Accept them for what they are, the 1-2 cases in which the rules don't apply.
Continually posting information like the above, appears to be the same type of tactic that sources use to discredit good testing. Siting the one or two cases in which it wasn't clearly their product, or the freak of nature who doesn't absorb testosterone like the rest of the masses.
This type of information just runs interference, instead of bringing the one or two cases, follow the clinical cases (which number in the thousands) vs. the one or two abnormal cases.
The reason why it needed to be debunked is people will read this thread, and from your own posts possibly draw the conclusion that test levels are in dispute by the medical community. Which they are not, absolutely not.
There was a similar thread from a guy on here a while ago, who was trying to postulate that mass specs where like snake oil, and not commonly accepted, any new user would read his posts and then begin to question the legitimacy of the mass spec testing done from users here trying for harm reduction and giving Meso members a real fighting chance at being equipped with the knowledge to actually understand what is in their gear. When myself coming from a field that uses mass spec and having read many medical journals, knows for a fact that mass spec are scientifically proven to do what they intend to do (they do have limitations, just as the aforementioned research on TRT is inconclusive at supratheraputic doses, because research is hardly approved in "dangerous" dose ranges), also understands that testosterone levels based on TRT studies is in no way, in dispute. They know the range someone should be in, hence why they are clear to prescribe the drug for replacement therapy.
Continually posting information like the above, appears to be the same type of tactic that sources use to discredit good testing. Siting the one or two cases in which it wasn't clearly their product, or the freak of nature who doesn't absorb testosterone like the rest of the masses.
This type of information just runs interference, instead of bringing the one or two cases, follow the clinical cases (which number in the thousands) vs. the one or two abnormal cases.
The reason why it needed to be debunked is people will read this thread, and from your own posts possibly draw the conclusion that test levels are in dispute by the medical community. Which they are not, absolutely not.
There was a similar thread from a guy on here a while ago, who was trying to postulate that mass specs where like snake oil, and not commonly accepted, any new user would read his posts and then begin to question the legitimacy of the mass spec testing done from users here trying for harm reduction and giving Meso members a real fighting chance at being equipped with the knowledge to actually understand what is in their gear. When myself coming from a field that uses mass spec and having read many medical journals, knows for a fact that mass spec are scientifically proven to do what they intend to do (they do have limitations, just as the aforementioned research on TRT is inconclusive at supratheraputic doses, because research is hardly approved in "dangerous" dose ranges), also understands that testosterone levels based on TRT studies is in no way, in dispute. They know the range someone should be in, hence why they are clear to prescribe the drug for replacement therapy.
I'm impressed fellas, the commentary throughout this thread is sound, evidence based and quite useful for the average BB.
Great work!
Jim
I was going to let it go, but your response is a little too condescending for my taste. If I know anything about research? You work in a field that uses mass spec and have read many medical journals? I’m probably not on your level, but I may have spent a little time in the lab and have a degree laying around somewhere.
What I said was results vary. You quote Llewelyn as saying test levels should be 2000-2400 ng/dL after several weeks of use. That's a difference of 20%, or the difference between 10X and 12X. Is that not a variation?
I seriously doubt anyone is going to draw the conclusion that test levels are in dispute by the medical community because I mentioned that the results varied wildly on a couple of the posts I read. Moreover, it was simply an observation and I never said it was typical. That was an assumption you made on your own and ran with it. Try reading the words on the page again without using your imagination and see if the post sounds more innocuous.
I see no similarity to my posts and the post of the person you’re referencing in the mass spec/ snake oil thread and I think you’re being a little dramatic with your assertion that anything in my post “spreads a sense of distrust of valid information.” My posts in no way attempts to discredit any of the previous research on TRT. I'll say it again, nobody is disputing the research or the expertise of a physician, so you can stop the crusade.
Fuck! Be interesting. Anyone can buy Llwellyn's book. Personally, I don't derive much pleasure from coming to a board where a bunch of self-righteous members quote shit all day. I didn't make it all the way through grade school so someone could read to me. This forum is supposed to be the place where you can discuss examples like the ones I posted above? It's great to see you're referencing Llwellyn and Scally, but your dismissal of the examples I posted without any explanation is a disservice to the board in my opinion.
These examples aren't mystical. They actually exist and don't just go away on their own. Perhaps these tests were the result of a procedural error? Normal lab results may be the norm, but abnormal labs seem to be posted often. Hell, suspicion of abnormal results were the only reason the OP posted in the first place. Maybe logically discussing possible reasons why the labs in my examples deviated from the norm would go along way in preventing witch doctors like myself from influencing the more impressionable board members... Have a good weekend.
4leafclover
New Member
This is exactly what you said, "From what I've read everyone is different regarding test levels. The results vary wildly from what I've read on some of the TRT sites."
My range is 10-12x, your range "varies wildly", I didn't say they dont go away. I said accept them for what they are, outliers. Yes they exist, but who knows the INTENT of the poster, there are many reasons, lots of shills post shit to defend their sources, lots of people order the wrong panel, lots of people get false readings on tren while on test, lots of people FAKE THE RESULTS, even SOURCES fake results using shills to further murky the water.
These reasons have been debated a lot. Like I said, the Dr. has posted many reasons in his PCT thread, and some of the other reasons have been discussed here in countless threads, just go read titan labs for 20 pages... Condescending maybe, but your post said some pretty retarded things, that you backpedaled away from.
Test does not WILDLY vary all willy nilly. If you follow the procedure for testing, or have been on test for 4 weeks, there isn't much you can do to go below the 10x rule of thumb.
You want to discuss the 1-2 possibilities, all I said was, discuss the 1k realities...
My range is 10-12x, your range "varies wildly", I didn't say they dont go away. I said accept them for what they are, outliers. Yes they exist, but who knows the INTENT of the poster, there are many reasons, lots of shills post shit to defend their sources, lots of people order the wrong panel, lots of people get false readings on tren while on test, lots of people FAKE THE RESULTS, even SOURCES fake results using shills to further murky the water.
These reasons have been debated a lot. Like I said, the Dr. has posted many reasons in his PCT thread, and some of the other reasons have been discussed here in countless threads, just go read titan labs for 20 pages... Condescending maybe, but your post said some pretty retarded things, that you backpedaled away from.
Test does not WILDLY vary all willy nilly. If you follow the procedure for testing, or have been on test for 4 weeks, there isn't much you can do to go below the 10x rule of thumb.
You want to discuss the 1-2 possibilities, all I said was, discuss the 1k realities...
Ahhh I don't know brother. Nobody's backpedaling here. Just not interested in letting someone distort the actual intent of my earlier post so they can grandstand. One of the links I posted was actually a recent one from a junior member. He didn't get much of an answer. But I get it now. If something has already been discussed elsewhere in the forum then it shouldn't be addressed elsewhere. I mean it's not like there aren't a thousand examples of what right looks like regarding TRT lab work on the Internet. I'll go sift through the Titan thread for answers. Apparently this is quote Llewellyn and don't discuss anything thread.
4leafclover
New Member
He didn't get much of an answer, because there are stickies discussing it. If they used the search function, or bothered to read the top three stickies, he would of seen an answer...
You didn't pose yours as discussion, you posed newb examples and said things wildly vary.
If you wanted comment, then ask for comment, don't pose them as fact.
Something like, I saw these posts where the tests didn't seem to add up, care to weigh in? Rather than posing "testosterone TRT results wildly vary, here are two newb posts".
This is quote facts day, and discuss what you want. Pose it as a discussion rather than answers.
You didn't pose yours as discussion, you posed newb examples and said things wildly vary.
If you wanted comment, then ask for comment, don't pose them as fact.
Something like, I saw these posts where the tests didn't seem to add up, care to weigh in? Rather than posing "testosterone TRT results wildly vary, here are two newb posts".
This is quote facts day, and discuss what you want. Pose it as a discussion rather than answers.
4leafclover
New Member
Hard for me to imply over the internet! Sorry if I seemed condescending, maybe I jumped the gun in this case, just so used to people posting crap as actual science. And being from the pharmacology field (albeit Psychology, as one of the meso members is so happy to point out of my expertise), I see a lot of absolute shit posted here and I get defensive. I also happen to be very word sensitive, comes from reading a lot of research I guess.
I should also say, this is the only forum I ever decided to register with, because I saw a lot of truth posted here as well.
I should also say, this is the only forum I ever decided to register with, because I saw a lot of truth posted here as well.
