Watson Test-C (Domestic-Supply) - Blood Work - 2/2015 - LabCorp

[Dr JIM]

So you admit that there is NO benchmark, yet it's good enough to use as conclusive anyways? Based on what? You don't have to answer that because the entire 10x rule has no basis itself anyways. I just wanted to point out the obvious regarding how you view data.

I guess I'm a shill for DS now, even though I almost got banned on EVO for scrutinizing them

I admit here is no benchmark for this three drug cocktail, but unlike you I can add two plus two and KNOW there is no legitimate study that even remotely indicates these drugs would lower the TT level whatsoever!

So go Whack Off or Slap the Monkey elsewhere and locate another forum to spew your bullshit bc no credible Meso member is buying what your selling!

 

[bdg77]

It doesn't look good at all. It is too low considering the factors in play. While the number is indeed acceptable on a trt basis. The results should of been a lot higher. We are attempting to conclude here the potency of the drug more then reaching trt safe levels.

At 125mg a week I am reaching 1300 on a Non pharma label

After how long though?

 

[Marper]

The formula you bone heads use to calculate If your gear is dosed properly is very flawed. I and many of the other men I talk with that all take Watson from a real pharmacy will tell you for a fact that you can't just take your dose and multiply it by 9 or 8 or whatever number you all have arbitrarily come up with and say we'll it's underdosed. Not everyone's body reacts the same way. You can't define how much and quickly my body absorbs and processes testosterone. You don't have a clue how much testosterone a man still produces after starting taking testosterone everyone is different. I know guys that take 50 mgs a week and get into the 800's (total) and others that take 200 mgs a week and only be around 1200 (total) and I'm talking legit from Walgreens Watson. One guy recently was taking 120 mgs a week and was only around 500 (total). Now I can understand a guy who is taking 750 mgs a week and he is only at 1500 then you could say yeah its underdosed but there is no such thing as mgs per week times 8 = properly dosed gear. That is just not how the human body works we are all different.

 

[Dr JIM]

The old we are all different line of logic?

Well it's BULLSHIT, bc although small variations do occur we are actually all the same physiologically and if the anecdotal cases your referencing were ever investigated that's exactly what would be discovered.

Thus the we are all different rationale morphs into; the timing of blood work, duration of TT therapy, the lab used, the methodology utilized, the REAL dose used, other PEDs being used such as AIs or HCG OR the patients TT baseline etc.

Fact is it' for these reasons EVIDENCE BASED data is what we cite as the gold standard on Meso rather than the third party hearsay or undocumented bro speak you obviously cherish and believe is more reliable.

 

[Marcus]

The formula you bone heads use to calculate If your gear is dosed properly is very flawed. I and many of the other men I talk with that all take Watson from a real pharmacy will tell you for a fact that you can't just take your dose and multiply it by 9 or 8 or whatever number you all have arbitrarily come up with and say we'll it's underdosed. Not everyone's body reacts the same way. You can't define how much and quickly my body absorbs and processes testosterone. You don't have a clue how much testosterone a man still produces after starting taking testosterone everyone is different. I know guys that take 50 mgs a week and get into the 800's (total) and others that take 200 mgs a week and only be around 1200 (total) and I'm talking legit from Walgreens Watson. One guy recently was taking 120 mgs a week and was only around 500 (total). Now I can understand a guy who is taking 750 mgs a week and he is only at 1500 then you could say yeah its underdosed but there is no such thing as mgs per week times 8 = properly dosed gear. That is just not how the human body works we are all different.

Thank you for your invaluable contribution, you have broke the mould with this find and have stated something that no one else has ever thought to say here on Meso. Everyone appreciates your service to the community. Keep it up

 

[brutus79]

Did you test the hcg with a pregnancy test

 

[Marper]

The old we are all different line of logic?

Well it's BULLSHIT, bc although small variations do occur we are actually all the same physiologically and if the anecdotal cases your referencing were ever investigated that's exactly what would be discovered.

Fact is it's the reason EVIDENCE BASED data is what we cite as the gold standard on Meso rather than the third party hearsay you obviously cherish and believe is more reliable.

Here is some hard scientific facts not what a bunch of guys on the Internet said. Link to study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11701431

For those that don't want to read I will quote the important part:

"61 eugonadal men, 18-35 yr, were randomized to one of five groups to receive monthly injections of a long-acting gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist, to suppress endogenous testosterone secretion, and weekly injections of 25, 50, 125, 300, or 600 mg of testosterone enanthate for 20 wk. Energy and protein intakes were standardized. The administration of the GnRH agonist plus graded doses of testosterone resulted in mean nadir testosterone concentrations of 253, 306, 542, 1,345, and 2,370 ng/dl"

So in this study the averages are:

25 mgs/253ng/dl = times 10
50 mgs/306ng/dl = times 6
125 mgs/542ng/dl = times 4.5
300mgs/1345ng/dl = times 3.5
600mgs/2370ng/dl =times 4

And yes they were taking GnRH agonist but that still doesn't add up to 10 times.

 

[weighted chinup]

Here is some hard scientific facts not what a bunch of guys on the Internet said. Link to study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11701431

For those that don't want to read I will quote the important part:

"61 eugonadal men, 18-35 yr, were randomized to one of five groups to receive monthly injections of a long-acting gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist, to suppress endogenous testosterone secretion, and weekly injections of 25, 50, 125, 300, or 600 mg of testosterone enanthate for 20 wk. Energy and protein intakes were standardized. The administration of the GnRH agonist plus graded doses of testosterone resulted in mean nadir testosterone concentrations of 253, 306, 542, 1,345, and 2,370 ng/dl"

So in this study the averages are:

25 mgs/253ng/dl = times 10
50 mgs/306ng/dl = times 6
125 mgs/542ng/dl = times 4.5
300mgs/1345ng/dl = times 3.5
600mgs/2370ng/dl =times 4

And yes they were taking GnRH agonist but that still doesn't add up to 10 times.

'The administration of the GnRH agonist plus graded doses of testosterone resulted in mean nadir testosterone concentrations of 253, 306, 542, 1,345, and 2,370 ng/dl"'

You're welcome.

 

[Marper]

'The administration of the GnRH agonist plus graded doses of testosterone resulted in mean nadir testosterone concentrations of 253, 306, 542, 1,345, and 2,370 ng/dl"'

You're welcome.

So you think there high results went up from 4 times all the way to 10 times?

 

[weighted chinup]

So you think there high results went up from 4 times all the way to 10 times?

Yes. They did.

Those are the absolute lowest points in TOTAL T before the next injection was administered. Nadir. Not Peak.

A Nadir value of 2,370 ng / dl would probably mean the peak value is somewhere around 6000 ng / dl. 10x. It's a linear relationship.

This is the same study that gets posted here thousands of times by guys trying to discredit the estimates supported by evidence. It's a shame no one even bothers to read it before posting it.

 

[Marper]

Here is a chart that shows from Baseline all the way to week 16:

http://m.ajpendo.physiology.org/content/281/6/E1172/T2.expansion.html

 

[weighted chinup]

All nadir values.

 

[Marper]

Yes. They did.

Those are the absolute lowest points in TOTAL T before the next injection was administered. Nadir. Not Peak.

A Nadir value of 2,370 ng / dl would probably mean the peak value is somewhere around 6000 ng / dl. 10x. It's a linear relationship.

This is the same study that gets posted here thousands of times by guys trying to discredit the estimates supported by evidence. It's a shame no one even bothers to read it before posting it.

I read the study thanks. Read the chart. That's from baseline to week 16. How about you show some scientific evidence of your 10 times rule? Anything, a study something?

 

[weighted chinup]

I read the study thanks. Read the chart. That's from baseline to week 16. How about you show some scientific evidence of your 10 times rule? Anything, a study something?

Read it again.

Your chart is all nadir values.

 

[Marper]

Final quote from the chart I posted. These values were taken at week 16 one week after injection :

• Values on each day represent the mean (±SE) of all available values on that day. However, the change represents the difference between paired values only. Treatment values represent the day 113 (week 16) values, obtained 1 wk after the previous testosterone injection. We used week 16 rather thanweek 20 values because week 20 values were not always drawn exactly 1 wk after the previous injection. LH and FSH, luteinizing and follicle-stimulating hormones, respectively; SHBG, sex hormone-binding globulin; IGF-I, insulin-like growth factor I. To convert total testosterone levels to nmol/l, multiply by 0.03467. To convert free testosterone levels to pg/ml, multiply by 3.467.
  

You can nadir all you want there is no way there values at week 10 were ten times higher than week 16.

 

[Marcus]

Treatment values represent the day 113 (week 16) values, obtained 1 wk after the previous testosterone injection.

This means that bloods were drawn outside of peak time, how the fuck is this not getting through your thick skull? How many ways can weighted chinup say it?

Edit: peak times would be roughly 24-48 hours after injection

 

[weighted chinup]

Final quote from the chart I posted. These values were taken at week 16 one week after injection :

• Values on each day represent the mean (±SE) of all available values on that day. However, the change represents the difference between paired values only. Treatment values represent the day 113 (week 16) values, obtained 1 wk after the previous testosterone injection. We used week 16 rather thanweek 20 values because week 20 values were not always drawn exactly 1 wk after the previous injection. LH and FSH, luteinizing and follicle-stimulating hormones, respectively; SHBG, sex hormone-binding globulin; IGF-I, insulin-like growth factor I. To convert total testosterone levels to nmol/l, multiply by 0.03467. To convert free testosterone levels to pg/ml, multiply by 3.467.

You can nadir all you want there is no way there values at week 10 were ten times higher than week 16.

They were taken one week after injection. ONE WEEK. LOWEST POINT IN SERUM TEST.

10x rule is for peak values.

And yes, if you actually bothered to read the study you would easily figure out that it proves the 10x estimate.

Your whole argument at this point is 'there is no way a nadir value would increase that drastically if its tested at peak instead'. It will.

 

[devildog93]

Marper, your study has been gone over many, many times here and shot to hell. It is used monthly by sources trying to justify their craptastic gear or by their shills. The guys have explained to you why it isn't what we are looking for. It looks for the lowest point while we are looking for the highest. You can find this information scattered through other posts on the forum. Dr. Scally has a lot of good info. about the 8-10x rule as well as Dr. Jim.

We have blood tests that fall into the 8-10x rule, so we know it is possible. If you want to keep up with current faulty testing go talk to naps where they are using faulty baselines to show that their raw powders are 10% pure, that seems to be the new trend. This talk of everyone different is old hat and false. It is a dead horse that has been beaten down with logic and data.

The meso blood testing protocol thread will tell you how bloods should be tested and even why. The study you put forth doesn't countermand the 8-10x rule, in fact it pretty much validates it. The difference is that you are looking at the trough while we are wanting to see the peak. When you are testing an engine on a dyno you don't want the peak hp/torque numbers from an idling motor, instead you want a full pull. It's pretty much common sense.

 

[insertnamehere]

Did you test the hcg with a pregnancy test

I did actually.

It didn't register anything when I tried it. However, I think I may have bought the wrong pregnancy test for this experiment. The application site seems to require a large amount of HCG for the site to be saturated and trigger the test to begin.

I'll look for a pregnancy test that will better suit this function. Any suggestions?

 

[bdg77]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3595893