Tool to Assess your TT dose response --Percentile Curves

[Type-IIx]

Fragile, are we?

I never said that the data existed, just that this is not useful. What's the point of knowing what %ile we fall into for TT dose/response?

And as you know getting that FT dose response chart (I did mention it above) is hard to come by since we still don't have harmonized FT measurement methods. Care to point me to the extensive literature we can mine for accurate confidence intervals much less asking for user data. Nope, the fact is we just recently harmonized TT and the historical precedent of

FT = f(TT, SHBG)

Is still firmly entrenched even though it is backwards.

Try getting everyone to understand FT measurement by ED or even why cFTV still is the best calculator we have. I still can't get most to understand why their direct FT test is about a factor of 7 off from what would be expected if FT/TT is typically 2 to 3%.

I appreciate your comments though.

In summary, TT dose response useless?

How have you summarized that TT dose/response is useful?

I agree that using calculated fT is valuable. From that agreement, what I think would have been a more friendly gesture from you here would have been to build common ground on our shared contempt for the literature's absence of calculated fT (rather than relying on unreliable assays) dispersion by age.

Instead, you went with a different choice - not the olive branch.

Hardly. But to your point it is clouded by SHBG variation. What we would like (yes no good deed goes unpunished-- i get it) instead is FT dose response which would then not have the SHBG baggage built in and would depend on true PK parameters...clearance and distribution volume. These later two clearly change with age and affect how men process exogenous T. Now if we can get guys to understand this instead of using terms like hyperexcretets and such we will be in business.

The correct paradigm (in contrast to above) is

TT = f(FT, SHBG)

Let me know if you want to talk shop on FT situation fron a clinical perspective. That is fun. Happy to get your feedback but I give it a C. Calling TT dose response useless is a stretch.
If anything it nice sets up the procedure to do what you what you suggest with age adjusted FT intervals. And besides the Bros can see if there gear is bunk. Handy tool.

What if the bro in question is an outlier? This data isn't useful for determining quality or veracity of gear. They still need HPLC.

 

[Fattyone]

This is like watching the two hot teachers in high school start fighting.

I don’t know what any of these words mean but I’m so turned on right now

 

[readalot]

Fragile, are we?

I never said that the data existed, just that this is not useful. What's the point of knowing what %ile we fall into for TT dose/response?

How have you summarized that TT dose/response is useful?

I agree that using calculated fT is valuable. From that agreement, what I think would have been a more friendly gesture from you here would have been to build common ground on our shared contempt for the literature's absence of calculated fT (rather than relying on unreliable assays) dispersion by age.

Instead, you went with a different choice - not the olive branch.

What if the bro in question is an outlier? This data isn't useful for determining quality or veracity of gear. They still need HPLC.

Veracity of gear? Test it. Absolutely agree. I don't use UGL but for those that do don't use chart above to test it haha. Sorry my joke was not clear.

TT dose response not useful to you. Understood.

What is the point of understanding where one is %tile wise on anything? So that we know.

Case in point. For years I read Danny Bossa and the other TOT disciples confuse the living sh@t out of dudes claiming there is this huge mystery of how much Test they need to reach a certain serum level. There is no such mystery. We can easily bracket the response for vast majority of human men. So my intention was to illuminate this for folks. My hope was it would help guys understand why 50 to 100 mg/week Test Cyp is reasonable dose range for most starting out on true TRT. 300 mg/week Test Cyp is TRT? Not likely.

You wanted an olive branch after your terse initial comments on this thread? I am surprised. The word brusque maybe better instead of terse. My bad if I interpreted your comments incorrectly. To me your comments were like someone coming in taking a sh*t in the middle of the living room. But hey it is your opinion. Just not objective. Almost tactless especially given the level of effort involved and we don't know each other.

Olive branch: Sure here you go....olive branch. I try to be generous and respect the level of effort you expend here.

I have enjoyed your work on here. Me fragile? I don't think so but you are free to believe what you like. Thanks for contributing on the thread.

 

[readalot]

Flagged again LOL. Sorry you may have to wait a little for my response to come through @Type-IIx. Take care.

@Fattyone glad you are getting some enjoyment. Hang tight for next post to clear Meso customs. The spam filter here must think I am a bot or something. Millard can just make me a Vet or something if he wants but we all have to pay dues on each forum haha.

 

[readalot]

How have you summarized that TT dose/response is useful?

While the dogs are sniffing on my other post I will highlight this again...

Tool to Assess your TT dose response --Percentile Curves

Continuing the dose response thread over here. This would be a great place to crowdsource data. https://forums.t-nation.com/t/tool-to-assess-your-tt-dose-response-percentile-curves/277628 https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/readalot-aka-tareload-introduction.134419973/post-3171563 I...

thinksteroids.com

I doubt you missed it. You are a sharp fella.

From here pretty easy to use estimated TT range and known SHBG (sorry guys you will have to measure) to compute Vermeulen FT (typically with 10 to 20% of equilibrium dialysis measurement). Reasonable reference range based on equilibrium dialysis is 10 to 25 ng/dl if I am being generous. So what is usefulness in all this? Gets guys comfortable with TT vs dose then invoke cFTV. Or just spend the $43 on a TT/FT combo LCMS/MS plus ED at Quest via DiscountedLabs (for US people).

Why do we measure things and put together charts? Cause it is fun and useful. Contributes towards literacy in this field which men sorely need. Then guys don't show up on forums bitching that Xyosted is woefully underdosed in 50, 75, and 100 mg prefilled syringes haha.

I am sure we can add more value working together than bickering.

 

[readalot]

Alas another flagged post. Wow this is getting boring and annoying.

I guess new members are supposed to only ask "hey man can I stack this test and sarms together on my first cycle?"

"AM I GTG?"

 

[Type-IIx]

While the dogs are sniffing on my other post I will highlight this again...

Tool to Assess your TT dose response --Percentile Curves

Continuing the dose response thread over here. This would be a great place to crowdsource data. https://forums.t-nation.com/t/tool-to-assess-your-tt-dose-response-percentile-curves/277628 https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/readalot-aka-tareload-introduction.134419973/post-3171563 I...

thinksteroids.com

I doubt you missed it. You are a sharp fella.

From here pretty easy to use estimated TT range and known SHBG (sorry guys you will have to measure) to compute Vermeulen FT (typically with 10 to 20% of equilibrium dialysis measurement). Reasonable reference range based on equilibrium dialysis is 10 to 25 ng/dl if I am being generous. So what is usefulness in all this? Gets guys comfortable with TT vs dose then invoke cFTV. Or just spend the $43 on a TT/FT combo LCMS/MS plus ED at Quest via DiscountedLabs (for US people).

Why do we measure things and put together charts? Cause it is fun and useful. Contributes towards literacy in this field which men sorely need. Then guys don't show up on forums bitching that Xyosted is woefully underdosed in 50, 75, and 100 mg prefilled syringes haha.

I am sure we can add more value working together than bickering.

I chuckled at your Xyosted comment (btw, I am not a TRT clinician or anything like it). However, I know you're smart enough to also know (but probably just hate) my (perhaps curt) stance, as it's far from unique. I'm an advocate of the blunt instrument approach. If dose requires it, just titrate it to objective measures first and mid-interval levels (i.e., biochemical) second without regard to individual TT dose/response.

 

[Type-IIx]

Veracity of gear? Test it. Absolutely agree. I don't use UGL but for those that do don't use chart above to test it haha. Sorry my joke was not clear.

TT dose response not useful to you. Understood.

What is the point of understanding where one is %tile wise on anything? So that we know.

Case in point. For years I read Danny Bossa and the other TOT disciples confuse the living sh@t out of dudes claiming there is this huge mystery of how much Test they need to reach a certain serum level. There is no such mystery. We can easily bracket the response for vast majority of human men. So my intention was to illuminate this for folks. My hope was it would help guys understand why 50 to 100 mg/week Test Cyp is reasonable dose range for most starting out on true TRT. 300 mg/week Test Cyp is TRT? Not likely.

Well, fair enough, but I'm not going to argue with guys on a bodybuilding forum about their "TRT+" not being true TRT too emphatically because they don't give a shit and just want the doc to up the dose. They'd cruise on 600 mg if they could. There are guys here actually prescribed 300 mg test, 200 mg nandrolone, 25 mg/d oxandrolone, and 50 mg/d oxymetholone, and they tell their wives they're natural.

You wanted an olive branch after your terse initial comments on this thread? I am surprised. The word brusque maybe better instead of terse. My bad if I interpreted your comments incorrectly. To me your comments were like someone coming in taking a sh*t in the middle of the living room. But hey it is your opinion. Just not objective. Almost tactless especially given the level of effort involved and we don't know each other.

Olive branch: Sure here you go....olive branch. I try to be generous and respect the level of effort you expend here.

I have enjoyed your work on here. Me fragile? I don't think so but you are free to believe what you like. Thanks for contributing on the thread.

Thank you, seriously. I can be abrasive but it's usually because I haven't trained that day.

 

[LittleBigManDaddy]

I am not sure this concept makes sense. Injecting test is a mechanistic, not body, process, so there isn’t really a “response” to it. If anything, lower TT in response to higher doses would indicate that the hormone is being metabolized or shuttled into tissue more quickly rather than simply circulating. That is to say, the injected testosterone has to go somewhere, it doesn’t just leave or circulate outside of the blood system.

Free test, E2, DHT etc are body response related in a way that total test shouldn’t be.

 

[readalot]

I am not sure this concept makes sense. Injecting test is a mechanistic, not body, process, so there isn’t really a “response” to it. If anything, lower TT in response to higher doses would indicate that the hormone is being metabolized or shuttled into tissue more quickly rather than simply circulating. That is to say, the injected testosterone has to go somewhere, it doesn’t just leave or circulate outside of the blood system.

Free test, E2, DHT etc are body response related in a way that total test shouldn’t be.

Take a look and read the information posted above. FT is produced and eliminated in a functional endogenous system. FT (after cleavage from the ester) is introduced and eliminated in an exogenous T setting.

FT is bound to SHBG on the order of sec to minutes. Analysis above is for mean serum TT levels vs weekly equivalent cyp/enanthate dose after steady profile (5 half lives) has been reached.

See my comments to Type-IIx.

Thanks for joining the thread.

 

[readalot]

Thank you, seriously. I can be abrasive but it's usually because I haven't trained that day.

Glad we could work that out. At some point I am going to ask you your motivation for the posts you make on here. Seems like the equivalent of a guy standing in the middle of a subway station trying to teach tensor analysis. I like it!

 

[readalot]

There are guys here actually prescribed 300 mg test, 200 mg nandrolone, 25 mg/d oxandrolone, and 50 mg/d oxymetholone

After years of posting about TRT/TOT/erythrocytosis blah blah I have just about given up harping on harm reduction. Seeing your energy and bandwidth on here gives me hope. I struggle not migrating hard to the dark side.

The quoted sounds like my next clinic "blast" haha. Watch that hdl-c/trig ratio you guys.

Thanks for the info. I was not aware of any clinic (at least still open) that scripts 300 mg/week. As we can see from my unuseful (j/k haha) figure above, that would put almost everyone firmly in the supra land. But those clinics probably only write that script for the 9 sigma male (lol).

 

[Type-IIx]

After years of posting about TRT/TOT/erythrocytosis blah blah I have just about given up harping on harm reduction. Seeing your energy and bandwidth on here gives me hope. I struggle not migrating hard to the dark side.

The quoted sounds like my next clinic "blast" haha. Watch that hdl-c/trig ratio you guys.

Thanks for the info. I was not aware of any clinic (at least still open) that scripts 300 mg/week. As we can see from my unuseful (j/k haha) figure above, that would put almost everyone firmly in the supra land. But those clinics probably only write that script for the 9 sigma male (lol).

If you poke around you'll find guys reporting insane dosages. I've seen 400 mg/w Deca being Rx'd (Apr 2023).

 

[JeffroCat]

Alas another flagged post. Wow this is getting boring and annoying.

I guess new members are supposed to only ask "hey man can I stack this test and sarms together on my first cycle?"

"AM I GTG?"

I agree. This is getting boring and annoying.

 

[LittleBigManDaddy]

Take a look and read the information posted above. FT is produced and eliminated in a functional endogenous system. FT (after cleavage from the ester) is introduced and eliminated in an exogenous T setting.

FT is bound to SHBG on the order of sec to minutes. Analysis above is for mean serum TT levels vs weekly equivalent cyp/enanthate dose after steady profile (5 half lives) has been reached.

See my comments to Type-IIx.

Thanks for joining the thread.

The process by which exogenous testosterone is metabolized, and its difference from endogenous is not exactly a mystery. My issue is with what you are attempting to quantify, and the means by which you presume to do so. Obviously, the difference between high and low TT levels in a trough are going to be directly related to several bodily processes, notably binding, aromatization, usage by tissue and metabolism speed, along with some factor of how quickly an individual body cleaves the original input from its esters. I think, I assume, everybody understands and agrees with that.

The problem is that you seem to be defining “high responder” by how much goes, or stays, in the bloodstream after these processes. The “goes into” part of the equation is moot because it is solely mechanistic. Unlike endogenous test it doesn’t really depend on how the body is functioning. On the other hand, how much remains is a factor of body processes, and it seems odd to label those whose bodies utilize exogenous testosterone at a greater rate as lower responders.

To make an analogy, it is like calling somebody who has more food left after brushing a “high responder” to tooth brushing.

 

[readalot]

The problem is that you seem to be defining “high responder” by how much goes, or stays, in the bloodstream after these processes. The “goes into” part of the equation is moot because it is solely mechanistic. Unlike endogenous test it doesn’t really depend on how the body is functioning. On the other hand, how much remains is a factor of body processes, and it seems odd to label those whose bodies utilize exogenous testosterone at a greater rate as lower responders.

I would avoid using the term "high responder" or "low responder" when digesting the information in this thread. I certainly did not introduce such language as helpful (quite the opposite - see quotation below)...

In summary, TT dose response useless? Hardly. But to your point it is clouded by SHBG variation. What we would like (yes no good deed goes unpunished-- i get it) instead is FT dose response which would then not have the SHBG baggage built in and would depend on true PK parameters...clearance and distribution volume. These later two clearly change with age and affect how men process exogenous T. Now if we can get guys to understand this instead of using terms like hyperexcretets and such we will be in business.

My goal was to quantify mean serum TT levels (confidence intervals) vs weekly dose. That is what I accomplished. The pharmacokinetics of exogenous esterfied test are set by the two parameters in bold above. Esterfied Test exhibits flip flops kinetics which means it is actually the absorption rate that is rate controlling step for the serum TT and FT transient.

My observation is you are confused or take issue by/with the term "response" in the title of the thread which invokes the term dose response - a standard pharmacokinetic term. That is how the serum TT levels responds to a given Test ester dose. I want people to be aware of how mean weekly serum TT levels (and FT levels) correlate to mean weekly ester dose. That is it. At steady state Test in equals Test out and the rest of the math above just lets you convert between the different transients with different injection frequencies. For example, at 100 mg/week your mean TT level will be the same whether you are injecting ED or E7D. Makes no difference. Of course peak/trough ratios will vary quite a bit (see table I shared above).

Now how the body responds to a given serum TT / FT level in terms of anabolism/muscle growth/etc is outside the scope of what I am doing in this thread. This thread is strictly a pharmacokinetic and statistical analysis. The pharmacodynamics are strictly ignored (for good reason).

Perhaps editing the title to read "Pharmacokinetic Dose Response" would be more clear if I could edit the thread. It was implied by using the TT term "TT Dose Response" where TT (Total Test in serum) is solely set by pharmacokinetic parameters.

Dose-Response Relationships - Dose-Response Relationships - MSD Manual Professional Edition

Dose-Response Relationships and Clinical Pharmacology - Learn about from the MSD Manuals - Medical Professional Version.

www.msdmanuals.com

Flip–flop kinetics - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Hope this helps. Thanks for your comments.

 

[LittleBigManDaddy]

I would avoid using the term "high responder" or "low responder" when digesting the information in this thread. I certainly did not introduce such language as helpful (quite the opposite - see quotation below)...




My goal was to quantify mean serum TT levels (confidence intervals) vs weekly dose. That is what I accomplished. The pharmacokinetics of exogenous esterfied test are set by the two parameters in bold above. Esterfied Test exhibits flip flops kinetics which means it is actually the absorption rate that is rate controlling step for the serum TT and FT transient.

My observation is you are confused or take issue by/with the term "response" in the title of the thread which invokes the term dose response - a standard pharmacokinetic term. That is how the serum TT levels responds to a given Test ester dose. I want people to be aware of how mean weekly serum TT levels (and FT levels) correlate to mean weekly ester dose. That is it. At steady state Test in equals Test out and the rest of the math above just lets you convert between the different transients with different injection frequencies. For example, at 100 mg/week your mean TT level will be the same whether you are injecting ED or E7D. Makes no difference. Of course peak/trough ratios will vary quite a bit (see table I shared above).

Now how the body responds to a given serum TT / FT level in terms of anabolism/muscle growth/etc is outside the scope of what I am doing in this thread. This thread is strictly a pharmacokinetic and statistical analysis. The pharmacodynamics are strictly ignored (for good reason).

Perhaps editing the title to read "Pharmacokinetic Dose Response" would be more clear if I could edit the thread. It was implied by using the TT term "TT Dose Response" where TT (Total Test in serum) is solely set by pharmacokinetic parameters.

Dose-Response Relationships - Dose-Response Relationships - MSD Manual Professional Edition

Dose-Response Relationships and Clinical Pharmacology - Learn about from the MSD Manuals - Medical Professional Version.

www.msdmanuals.com

Flip–flop kinetics - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Hope this helps. Thanks for your comments.

Again, I understand the concept and understand what you are trying to do, and I even think it has use, I just think that it is fraught in that, unlike a lot of pure dose/serum concentration responses from medicines, you are dealing with multiple complications from esters, conversion and metabolism that make it nearly useless. Not totally useless, but much less useful than a drug where you are looking simply at half life, or simply at oral bioavailability or whatever for serum concentration.

I guess I am a bit sensitive to this because in my own field, economics, we are constantly dealing with the same issues of multiple heterogeneities in looking to construct models showing the outcomes of single or multiple inputs. In the end it becomes nearly impossible, which is why, as a field, we basically suck.

 

[AbstractMind]

I’m so lost

 

[readalot]

I understand the concept

Respectfully, from your comments I would conclude you don't. You are slightly familiar with the concepts but don't understand them.

looking simply at half life

That is exactly what I am doing....two parameters control: clearance and distribution volume. See references in early post or here:

https://pharmacy.ufl.edu/files/2013/01/5127-28-equations.pdf

Clearance dependent on absorption rate constant that can be related to apparent elimination half life, which for TC is approximately 4.5 days (mean).

Fortunately this work is not quite as difficult to make useful or accurate as application of economic theory.

Thanks for your comments. Seriously. It is how people learn.

In summary,

Read this reference from post 4 above:
1st order one compartment PK model

https://doi.org/10.1002/psp4.12287

The accuracy and "usefulness" of the analysis is self evident from the actual forum member data compared to the confidence limits which are also pulled from academic research (multiple studies across 30 years with lots of trial particants). All I really did was put the table together to allow users to play along with their dosing frequency.

In the end all the dose response chart really shows is the spread in distribution volume, first order apparent elimination half life, and SHBG. But the equations are great as it let's you see the "multipliers" the Bros are always worried about.

It really isn't too complicated if you take the time to work through it and have a background in this area. If you don't then yes it will be tough. Somewhat like asking a 600 lb person to come off the bench in an NBA game.

Enjoy everyone.

 

[readalot]

I’m so lost

Excellent. That is always the first step on the path. Thanks for coming to the thread.