[HPLC/MS] AP Test E + NPP

[I_know_nothing]

great link @lightspan @CensoredBoardsSuck thanks for that, will be reading it in it's entirely tonight.

but just took a brief glance. let's look at Fig.11.6 on page 338. Here we have a graph of TT in nmol/L vs days after injection after what i think is 7 weeks (let me know if i misinterpret that. at 200mg/wk we see the max TT is about just before day 2 at 50 nmol/L= 1440 ng/dL. this is about 7.2x dosage level.

take a look and let me know if i went wrong anywhere

ok i think i understand now, the above i think is a single dose administration of test C, it doesnt look like they have any info on multi dose administration of test C (which is strange since pharma uses test C..). but they did do multi-dose test E, it's figure 11.5. figure 11.5 is once a week test E 250mg - you can see it reaches a max of 80 nmol/L and their computer simulation estimates max of 78 nmol/L

 

[I_know_nothing]

Is my understanding correct that there IS an independent HPLC on its way from an objective 3rd party, analyzing a random Test E amp so the AP debacle can be settled once and for all? Needless to say, if the data presented here stems from AP and/or their associates, then its value as evidence may be nill.

we're not talking about AP anymore, we're just talking about 10x blood level standard right now

 

[I_know_nothing]

@jackmeoff1
@I_know_nothing




Re Read please.....Johnny has posted bloodwork backing his claim.

A few other members have come back with numbers between 7-10×.

There are notations for numbers reading as high as 12x.

Do you trust you gear, Dr., and /or bloodwork (JMO & IKN)

in science you dont pick and choose which data values you use. you can't choose all the 10-12x blood values and discredit/ignore all the bloods that show 5-8x TT levels. unfortunately, that's not how science works. if it can't explain all the values then it's flawed or needs come improvment as a theory

 

[Johnson513]

Is my understanding correct that there IS an independent HPLC on its way from an objective 3rd party, analyzing a random Test E amp so the AP debacle can be settled once and for all? Needless to say, if the data presented here stems from AP and/or their associates, then its value as evidence may be nill.

Yes... Your understanding is correct.
Boilermaker is waiting for the results... This other clown fuck has an agenda and has no idea what your talking about because it doesn't have to do with his own riddles and rhymes....

 

[jackmeoff1]

@jackmeoff1
@I_know_nothing






Re Read please.....Johnny has posted bloodwork backing his claim.

A few other members have come back with numbers between 7-10×.

There are notations for numbers reading as high as 12x.

Do you trust you gear, Dr., and /or bloodwork (JMO & IKN)

I review peoples blood work all the time. I see lots of dose x7, dose x8, sometimes dose x10. But I also see x5, x6 etcc..

That IS my point, that there is no "rule". The thought that you can base blood levels on an arbitrary multiplier is just a stupid concept. This assumes that every person processess exegenous hormones exactly the same.

Frankly, I fing it troubling that no one has ever questioned this before. If Scally told you that the sky was purple would you take it at face value?

 

[mghoward74]

in science you dont pick and choose which data values you use. you can't choose all the 10-12x blood values and discredit/ignore all the bloods that show 5-8x TT levels. unfortunately, that's not how science works. if it can't explain all the values then it's flawed or needs come improvment as a theory

Provide evidence/of why 10x is flawed.
You picked one study which you linked...but it looked like it could have been flawed.

Ex...one of the subject was excused from testing because of Illicit drug use. He could have been the one with high test numbers...but he was excused from the study correct?

Correct me if I'm wrong...maybe I read something else an referencing it to here

 

[Galileo]

Is there any specific data on the variation from person to person regarding how quickly testosterone is metabolized? For example, some people with low SHBG are more often "hyper excreters", or atleast that's what I've read, but I believe Scally has criticized this term? There MUST be variation in the values people get from the same AAS, but the question is how much.

What other factors are there, assuming a proper IM pin is done and assuming the testosterone is G2G? Blood volume, total body mass, accuracy of blood work... and then individual metabolization of the AAS.

Yes... Your understanding is correct.
Boilermaker is waiting for the results... This other clown fuck has an agenda and has no idea what your talking about because it doesn't have to do with his own riddles and rhymes....

That is very good. Here's a big virtual high-five to @Boilermerch from me.

 

[mghoward74]

we're not talking about AP anymore, we're just talking about 10x blood level standard right now

Where not supposed to be talking about anything but mass specs & LC.

Unfortunately this thread took a turn for the worst

 

[jackmeoff1]

Provide evidence/of why 10x is flawed.
You picked one study which you linked...but it looked like it could have been flawed.

that is where you have it backwards. To create a "rule" you need evidence to support it in the first place. that is like saying "pigs fly, provide evidence to show me that they don't". there was never any evidence to suggest that we can base blood levels on a multiplier. It was an observation

 

[mghoward74]

I review peoples blood work all the time. I see lots of dose x7, dose x8, sometimes dose x10. But I also see x5, x6 etcc..

That IS my point, that there is no "rule". The thought that you can base blood levels on an arbitrary multiplier is just a stupid concept. This assumes that every person processess exegenous hormones exactly the same.

Frankly, I fing it troubling that no one has ever questioned this before. If Scally told you that the sky was purple would you take it at face value?

Would you feel better if Scally named it 5-10x protocol...?

He is stating what he has observed. I don't see how that so difficult to understand...

 

[I_know_nothing]

Provide evidence/of why 10x is flawed.
You picked one study which you linked...but it looked like it could have been flawed.

Ex...one of the subject was excused from testing because of Illicit drug use. He could have been the one with high test numbers...but he was excused from the study correct?

Correct me if I'm wrong...maybe I read something else an referencing it to here

wait can you please clarify? im a bit confused, i referenced two studies Bhasin et al 2001 and 2012, which one are you referring to?

 

[I_know_nothing]

Would you feel better if Scally named it 5-10x protocol...?

He is stating what he has observed. I don't see how that so difficult to understand...

that would be fine, what im arguing about here is why is it a hard 10x and everything else is underdosed? 5x-10x would be much more reasonable

 

[jackmeoff1]

Would you feel better if Scally named it 5-10x protocol...?

He is stating what he has observed. I don't see how that so difficult to understand...

It is not difficult to understand.

The disconnect lies in the interpretation.

Example: Person A runs lab x gear, gets bloods drawn and it comes back at dose x7.

At that point everyone makes a gross assumption that it is under dosed because it didn't his this multiplier- which was an observation with no basis. It wasn't meant to be used as a quantitive measure.

 

[jackmeoff1]

Is there any specific data on the variation from person to person regarding how quickly testosterone is metabolized? For example, some people with low SHBG are more often "hyper excreters", or atleast that's what I've read, but I believe Scally has criticized this term? There MUST be variation in the values people get from the same AAS, but the question is how much.

What other factors are there, assuming a proper IM pin is done and assuming the testosterone is G2G? Blood volume, total body mass, accuracy of blood work... and then individual metabolization of the AAS.



That is very good. Here's a big virtual high-five to @Boilermerch from me.

Common sense tells you that there has to be individual variation. My friend and I use the same TRT clinic, get our testosterone from the same compounding pharmacy, take the same exact protocol and our blood tests are always different, namely his are always higher than mine.

 

[mghoward74]

wait can you please clarify? im a bit confused, i referenced two studies Bhasin et al 2001 and 2012, which one are you referring to?

Let me re look at your link...sorry

 

[I_know_nothing]

Let me re look at your link...sorry

no problem, do you want me to provide the two again? they are kinda scattered around lol

 

[johnnyBALLZ]

that would be fine, what im arguing about here is why is it a hard 10x and everything else is underdosed? 5x-10x would be much more reasonable

Oh would it be, Spetz? You've been busted..

 

[mghoward74]

no problem, do you want me to provide the two again? they are kinda scattered around lol

Nope...Got the 2nd link here. I'll read the 1st again.
I've been reading alot of stuff today...I'm jumble up...sorry

 

[I_know_nothing]

Nope...Got the 2nd link here. I'll read the 1st again.
I've been reading alot of stuff today...I'm jumble up...sorry
View attachment 19231

no biggie, for the 2nd link you really only need to look at the graph with the TT levels and same with the first. my question is the head researcher/writer is the same in both the studies but for some reason the TT levels in the 2nd level are much higher than the 1st. in the 2nd one it doesnt mention when bloods are drawn but in the 1st it says they are nadir levels. so just wondering how/why are the TT levels higher in the 2nd one? let me know what you think brother

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

. I don't see how that so difficult to understand...

It's not difficult to understand at all. You're dealing with one of several impostor accounts belonging to someone whose agenda is to discredit the 10X rule in order to excuse his underdosed Test C.

This will all become clear shortly.