[HPLC/MS] AP Test E + NPP

[I_know_nothing]

If we could get 7x to 8x from an UGL that has shown up here lately I think everyone would be ecstatic. Unfortunately we haven't been getting those numbers brother. There's no reason to get defensive about how we treat the labs here. You don't understand what has happened to several of our members here over the last couple years. And Dr. JIM is doing something about it. So instead of questioning him with an attitude you should show some respect.

@Boilermech i know the dr is highly respected, but i am a very blunt mf. im sorry if that comes off as disrespect but i call it as i see it. i dont talk bullshit and i get straight to the point. i want to contribute to this forum but i aint gonna sugarcoat anything for anyone just because they got a title next to their name.

im not getting defensive, rather im just trying to be the devil's advocate. otherwise we would all just have one mentality. there has to be people who challenge the status quo. just like how you guys challenge this "well let's just trust UGL's mindset" im here to be a devil's advocate for some of the unreasonable aspects we've seen here.

all im saying is that if people on trt have bloods that aren't 10x, how can you expect UGLs to have the same?

 

[Boilermech]

@Boilermech i know the dr is highly respected, but i am a very blunt mf. im sorry if that comes off as disrespect but i call it as i see it. i dont talk bullshit and i get straight to the point. i want to contribute to this forum but i aint gonna sugarcoat anything for anyone just because they got a title next to their name.

im not getting defensive, rather im just trying to be the devil's advocate. otherwise we would all just have one mentality. there has to be people who challenge the status quo. just like how you guys challenge this "well let's just trust UGL's mindset" im here to be a devil's advocate for some of the unreasonable aspects we've seen here.

all im saying is that if people on trt have bloods that aren't 10x, how can you expect UGLs to have the same?

Here brother read.
https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/10x-rule.134360639/#post-1161296

 

[I_know_nothing]

@Boilermech great clarification, Scally says 10x is an easy number to remember but 7-10x is more reasonable. that is something that needs to be emphasized more to new members. 10x is just easy to remember and the upper bound, we need to emphasize it is 7-10x. everyone is different that is undeniable, and we have seen that time and time again many factors affect TT levels.

take a look at this graphic that has been floating around (the papers they use are in the bottom right): https://i.imgur.com/NaAfc4q.png

here you can see it is far from 10x. admittedly i have only read the abstracts and not the full papers yet but from the abstract it seems as we can extrapolate a bit to our circumstances.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

@Boilermech great clarification, Scally says 10x is an easy number to remember but 7-10x is more reasonable. that is something that needs to be emphasized more to new members. 10x is just easy to remember and the upper bound, we need to emphasize it is 7-10x. everyone is different that is undeniable, and we have seen that time and time again many factors affect TT levels.

take a look at this graphic that has been floating around (the papers they use are in the bottom right): https://i.imgur.com/NaAfc4q.png

here you can see it is far from 10x. admittedly i have only read the abstracts and not the full papers yet but from the abstract it seems as we can extrapolate a bit to our circumstances.

He said 10X because that has proven to be a very accurate, not because it's easy to remember. Your graph is for nadir levels, that's why it's "far from 10X." The peak levels will be 10X or higher - sometimes much higher.

 

[I_know_nothing]

He said 10X because that has proven to be a very accurate, not because it's easy to remember. Your graph is for nadir levels, that's why it's "far from 10X." The peak levels will be 10X or higher - sometimes much higher.

let me take a look deeper into the research papers, will report back tomorrow. if im wrong then my bad for providing bad graphics. i still do not agree with the 10x blood levels however

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

let me take a look deeper into the research papers, will report back tomorrow. if im wrong then my bad for providing bad graphics. i still do not agree with the 10x blood levels however

Your objection/rejection has already been addressed.

^I personally think those estimates are a little high...if you look at guys who are able to get watson test cyp prescribed at 200mg/wk they usually turn back bloods of about 1500. Those levels are definitely low but I dont know if Ive ever seen 500mg/wk turn out 5,000 test levels even from rx test.

___
You can think whatever you want all you want!!! The range can even go much higher. And, more often above 1,500 ng/dL.

How do I know?

Please Allow Me To Introduce Myself -

 

[I_know_nothing]

@CensoredBoardsSuck

"As many have noted, the 10X is a rough estimate. The 10X is an easy number to recall. It is by no means a hard and fast rule, but using 7-10X is probably almost always the case" -Scully

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

@CensoredBoardsSuck

"As many have noted, the 10X is a rough estimate. The 10X is an easy number to recall. It is by no means a hard and fast rule, but using 7-10X is probably almost always the case" -Scully

What's your point? Scally's quote doesn't support your the assertion that you've been making all night - that 5-6X is the real factor. Not even close. If 7-10X = 5-6X, why not say it = 4-5X? Or 3-4X? Oh, wait... you did:

This is very true, if we consider 6-7x average then 9-10x is just as likely as 4-5x.

Your argumentative posts and eagerness to discredit this point would normally convince me that you are an ugl on the defensive over underdosed gear, however, I can see where you erred by misinterpreting the graph you posted so you get a pass - for now.

You very well could have an agenda, though. We shall see.

 

[I_know_nothing]

What's your point? Scally's quote doesn't support your the assertion that you've been making all night - that 5-6X is the real factor. Not even close. If 7-10X = 5-6X, why not 4-5X? Or 3-4X?

Your argumentative posts and eagerness to discredit this point would normally convince me that you are an ugl on the defensive over underdosed gear, however, I can see where you erred by misinterpreting the graph you posted so you get a pass - for now.

You very well could have an agenda, though. We shall see.

last post before i head out for the night. looking through the Bhasin et al 2001 you'are correct nadir levels, i missed that crucial word on skimming the abstract. in the methods it says they did the bloods 1 week after injection (if i remember correctly) deff not peak blood levels.

i was looking through some of @Michael Scally MD 's post and saw this one: https://thinksteroids.com/community...bitor-on-fat-free-mass.134317712/#post-801252

Here is the link to the full study: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1105045

their objective isnt really aligned to what we want but we can look at the placebo group for some TT test levels at 25,50,100,300, and 600 mg/wk. what's interesting though if you look at their mean graphs for TT levels it's much higher than the study from Bhasin et el 2001. however the interesting thing is that the above study is also "Shalender Bhasin". it's the same PI from the 2001 study as this 2012 study. so one has to wonder what testing protocol he's using. unfortunately i could not find it in the study, so if anyone else could take a look at it and see if the study mentions when they took the tests. at first glance it seems as if they took it at a different time then the first study because the TT level on the second test are much higher.

@CensoredBoardsSuck @Michael Scally MD i'm not saying 5-6x should be the standard. i just dont believe a hard 10x should be the standard here. i havent seen the evidence, if you could re-explain it to me Dr. Scally that would be great. but i've seen too many post from users here and other forums that dont show 10x blood levels (unless they're lying about their results...). im more comfortable with a range, having a hard 10x, especially when it's the upper bound of Scally's 7-10x range, seems unreasonable. im not going to address any attempts at relating me to UGL's or pushing underdosed gear- im just looking for why for the hard 10x or even 8-10x when people's results vary so greatly? even on watson/bayer

 

[I_know_nothing]

What's your point? Scally's quote doesn't support your the assertion that you've been making all night - that 5-6X is the real factor. Not even close. If 7-10X = 5-6X, why not say it = 4-5X? Or 3-4X? Oh, wait... you did:



Your argumentative posts and eagerness to discredit this point would normally convince me that you are an ugl on the defensive over underdosed gear, however, I can see where you erred by misinterpreting the graph you posted so you get a pass - for now.

You very well could have an agenda, though. We shall see.

as for your first point, im saying if the 2nd quartile is 7-10x that means that the 1st quartile, let's say 5-6x for argument's sake, and the 3rd quartile, let's say 11-12x, are just as likely. now this comes down to what exactly Scally is saying- if he's saying 7-10x is the upper range then maybe 7-10x is the 3rd quartile. but he he's saying 7-10x is the 2nd quartile then that means lower results are more than likely similar than upper results. this does not mean 7-10x=5-6x=4-5x=3-4x, that's not what im saying at all.

 

[Dr JIM]

@Boilermech great clarification, Scally says 10x is an easy number to remember but 7-10x is more reasonable. that is something that needs to be emphasized more to new members. 10x is just easy to remember and the upper bound, we need to emphasize it is 7-10x. everyone is different that is undeniable, and we have seen that time and time again many factors affect TT levels.

take a look at this graphic that has been floating around (the papers they use are in the bottom right): https://i.imgur.com/NaAfc4q.png

here you can see it is far from 10x. admittedly i have only read the abstracts and not the full papers yet but from the abstract it seems as we can extrapolate a bit to our circumstances.

What so you believe a ONE SAMPLE outlier is representative of the group as a whole, lol!

That's why it's called EVIDENCE BASED bc the outcome is the result of TT levels drawn from MANY PATIENTS, rather than the ONE ANECDOTE you SELECTED in defense of UGL!

So enlighten us all "no nothing" what IS YOUR AGENDA? One thing is clear, either you haven't been screwed by an UGL or you're shilling for one. Otherwise you yet would not be selling this "in defense of" UGL Koolaid BS!

Hmm I guess many people were comparing apples or oranges by NOT using PEAK LEVELS as is the convention whenever TT bloods are drawn.

Furthermore as I mentioned before I've not ever seen a peak level of "5-6" (that could not otherwise be explained) from patients on TRT. And that's bc the fact has already been stated, although the value ranges from 8-12 TEN IS THE NORM, period!

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

What so you believe a ONE SAMPLE outlier is representative of the group as a whole, lol!

See my post above. The TT levels in his graph are nadir levels and that's what he's been basing his argument on.

An agenda certainly seems likely, though.

 

[Dr JIM]

Yep I suppose he should have ceased the debate once he admitted "he knew nothing"

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

Yep I suppose he should have ceased the debate once he admitted "he knew nothing"

When have ugls and PC ever done that? LMAO

 

[jackmeoff1]

@jackmeoff1 even if you just post your script (cover any IDing info) and watson photo right now it would give some you cred. too many times have we seen people say "yeah ill post bloods" for them to disappear

 

[Dr JIM]

That's a vial of what could be COMPOUNDED TT and it damn sure is NOT a Watson product!

Let's see those "bloods" that prove a level of "5-5" was YOUR result noob!

 

[jackmeoff1]

That's a vial of what could be COMPOUNDED TT and it damn sure is NOT a Watson product!

Let's see those "bloods" that prove a level of "5-5" was YOUR result noob!

Yes. It is a compounding pharmacy. APS pharmacy. Look them up. They are subject to FDA regulations. This was prescribed by a physician (not an internet one, like yourself)....

I will get those bloods up.

 

[Dr JIM]

Yes. It is a compounding pharmacy. APS pharmacy. Look them up. They are subject to FDA regulations. This was prescribed by a physician (not an internet one, like yourself)....

I will get those bloods up.

Well that's my point really, why exactly would you use a compounding pharmacy for a product already available on the market in a pre=mixed form. Fact is about the only TT that is NOT available direct from the manufacturer is TESTOSTERONE SUSPENSION, which therefore requires compounding.

How about you show the labeled Testosterone ingredients on that vial?

 

[I_know_nothing]

Yes. It is a compounding pharmacy. APS pharmacy. Look them up. They are subject to FDA regulations. This was prescribed by a physician (not an internet one, like yourself)....

I will get those bloods up.

@jackmeoff1 @Dr JIM

dr. jim is right, im more interested in Watson/Bayer as they are pretty much the gold standard. do you have a script that you could show us a picture of?

 

[I_know_nothing]

@Dr JIM no disrespect doc, but i would love if you could take a look at the study i posted above and give me your input on the ideas i threw out