Test & E2 comparison – at 150mg vs 250mg/week Test C doses

[JK1]

Two sets of bloods, both Test Cyp, but different sources.Lets assume both are dosed accurately.

250 mg/week:
Total T 69.9 nmol/L (≈ 2015 ng/dL),
Free T 1.52 nmol/L (≈ 44 ng/dL),
E2 405 pmol/L (≈ 110 pg/mL)

150 mg/week:
Total T 69.2 nmol/L (≈ 1995 ng/dL)
Free T 1.60 nmol/L (≈ 46 ng/dL),
E2 199 pmol/L (≈ 54 pg/mL)

Yes a heavy aromatiser. Never had any high-E2 symptoms.

Looks like I’m hitting saturation around 150 mg, with 250 dose just aromatising harder without raising T.

Any thoughts, opinions welcome.

 

[IndividualMan]

in what world is saturation reached at 150mg/week?
how long did you run the 250 before taking bloods?
this makes me consider Dr. Deans theory about a maximum amout of cyp/hexahydrobenzylcarb/Phenylprop ester being able to be cleaved off. (something about the spacial configuation of the ring not being compatible with all esterases? idk.) makes ya wonder

 

[Photon]

Two sets of bloods, both Test Cyp, but different sources.Lets assume both are dosed accurately.

250 mg/week:
Total T 69.9 nmol/L (≈ 2015 ng/dL),
Free T 1.52 nmol/L (≈ 44 ng/dL),
E2 405 pmol/L (≈ 110 pg/mL)

150 mg/week:
Total T 69.2 nmol/L (≈ 1995 ng/dL)
Free T 1.60 nmol/L (≈ 46 ng/dL),
E2 199 pmol/L (≈ 54 pg/mL)

Yes a heavy aromatiser. Never had any high-E2 symptoms.

Looks like I’m hitting saturation around 150 mg, with 250 dose just aromatising harder without raising T.

Any thoughts, opinions welcome.

When are labs pulled for each?
Trough?

 

[JK1]

When are labs pulled for each?
Trough?

Yes, trough.

 

[JK1]

in what world is saturation reached at 150mg/week?
how long did you run the 250 before taking bloods?
this makes me consider Dr. Deans theory about a maximum amout of cyp/hexahydrobenzylcarb/Phenylprop ester being able to be cleaved off. (something about the spacial configuation of the ring not being compatible with all esterases? idk.) makes ya wonder

Yes, apologies - i was writing that in a rush and not fully engaging with the meaning of 'saturation'. I was thinking more along the lines of flattening of the dose–response curve as opposed to “every receptor is literally full”. Correct me/ point me in the right direction on this one!

Nearly 7 weeks at 250 (shy of 2 days).

Never heard of Dr Deans take on that. Might go try and find it.

 

[muscledudee]

taake some ai and get ur e3 into normal reference range bro, if u have chrashed estrogen will affect ur lipids only!!! dont get afraid of science based nerds

 

[JK1]

taake some ai and get ur e3 into normal reference range bro, if u have chrashed estrogen will affect ur lipids only!!! dont get afraid of science based nerds

Thanks. So your aim is to always have e2 in range.

Its an interesting one with people having very different takes on it.

I'm aware that some people dont like taking an AI (thats not me by the way).

Seen others who don't have anything against AI use but dont mind E2 some arbitrary amount above ref range.

Then others who say they dont treat the number when it comes to E2 only symptoms which means they dont care how high it gets.

I dont have a particular position.

I actually did use exemestane in various low dose and frequency schedules. Couldn't say I felt any different from doing that while I was on 300mg and unfortunately I didnt get bloods to see what was happening (due to other life circumstances).

 

[muscledudee]

Thanks. So your aim is to always have e2 in range.

Its an interesting one with people having very different takes on it.

I'm aware that some people dont like taking an AI (thats not me by the way).

Seen others who don't have anything against AI use but dont mind E2 some arbitrary amount above ref range.

Then others who say they dont treat the number when it comes to E2 only symptoms which means they dont care how high it gets.

I dont have a particular position.

I actually did use exemestane in various low dose and frequency schedules. Couldn't say I felt any different from doing that while I was on 300mg and unfortunately I didnt get bloods to see what was happening (due to other life circumstances).

a man would never need a lot more estrogen! maybe a slight bit over just for more igf1 conversion but never too high, all science nerds says primo for controlling e2 like ai or masteron to act like a serm (means control a little bit e3 but mainly not getting gynecomastia but not have low estrogen) and all this to check when its the higher e2 that they can have so with the same amount hgh will get the maximum igf1 number. in thoery eveything makes some sense like science based lifiting and progressive overload, but only on paper ! in the real world higher e2 will make em have more problems (like bloodpressure and all the nerds take bloodpressure medication year round with just normal cycles) also every guy who does high dht cycles year round ends up bald and crocodile skin.... do basic things, look what drug u tollerate better and get less side effects with normal dosages, do a regural split to focus on u and not ididotic upper lower etc... also with food same basic things. People end up looking bad because all the new ''methods''. Thats why u always see super good guys that NAIL THE BASICS and not overcomplicated em

 

[JK1]

Yes, trough.

When are labs pulled for each?
Trough?

Did you have a thought on this @Photon ? No worries if not. just curious...you've got interesting things to say!

 

[ChemBB]

Do you have SHBG tested, out of curiosity?

I would hesistate to make decisions based on single data-points.

Yes, in theory taking both at trough values, if the dose change was +6 weeks ago, should give accurate readings.

But the body is a complex machine. I'd try to get a second datapoint at the very least.

Also, re: saturation, the Bhasin et al. 2001 study using doses up to 600mg showed that AR receptor saturation is nowhere near this dose, it's likely closer to 1.5-2.0g.

Additionally, SHBG has a massive impact on hormone action. Like, it's more anabolic to have low SHBG and 1,000ng Test than high SHBG and 2,000ng, because a greater absolute quantity of Test is available for AR binding.

 

[JK1]

Do you have SHBG tested, out of curiosity?

I would hesistate to make decisions based on single data-points.

Yes, in theory taking both at trough values, if the dose change was +6 weeks ago, should give accurate readings.

But the body is a complex machine. I'd try to get a second datapoint at the very least.

Also, re: saturation, the Bhasin et al. 2001 study using doses up to 600mg showed that AR receptor saturation is nowhere near this dose, it's likely closer to 1.5-2.0g.

Additionally, SHBG has a massive impact on hormone action. Like, it's more anabolic to have low SHBG and 1,000ng Test than high SHBG and 2,000ng, because a greater absolute quantity of Test is available for AR binding.

Thanks! I should have added that.

On the 250mg SHBG was 50.1 nmol/l
On 150mg SHBG was 43.6 nmol/l

Thanks for the info. SHBG probably has more of an impact than I thought it did then. But a difference of 7?

I need to read rhat Bhasin et al paper. 1.5-2g! OK well thats something.

 

[Olakino]

Was the estradiol test Estradiol Serum or Estradiol Ultra-sensitive LC/MS/MS?

 

[JK1]

Was the estradiol test Estradiol Serum or Estradiol Ultra-sensitive LC/MS/MS?

It will have been serum. Just a standard panel, no fancy test on it. Why do you ask?

 

[Olakino]

It will have been serum. Just a standard panel, no fancy test on it. Why do you ask?

I have seen the standard results come back 2x the ultrasensitive. The standard assay is cheaper and faster, but not as good at determining low levels in men, children and postmenopausal women.

 

[Ateam2023]

It will have been serum. Just a standard panel, no fancy test on it. Why do you ask?

I just had a regular estrogen test that said <30 , but i took a e2 sensitive test the same day and it was 13, so thats quite the differnce, some people get similar numbers though , so its highly individualized

 

[Olakino]

I just had a regular estrogen test that said <30 , but i took a e2 sensitive test the same day and it was 13, so thats quite the differnce, some people get similar numbers though , so its highly individualized

Yes, 2x for standard Estradiol seems pretty common.

 

[JK1]

I have seen the standard results come back 2x the ultrasensitive. The standard assay is cheaper and faster, but not as good at determining low levels in men, children and postmenopausal women.

I just had a regular estrogen test that said <30 , but i took a e2 sensitive test the same day and it was 13, so thats quite the differnce, some people get similar numbers though , so its highly individualized

Yes, 2x for standard Estradiol seems pretty common.

So, to be clear, high sensitivity is reporting higher or lower than standard? higher would be expected no?

Or are you saying both. The usual caveat as you add @Ateam2023 is that take two people and get completely different results.

In as far as my result above goes - its not marked as high sensitivity. Just a standard panel for UK i think. I could ask. Its the same lab for both.

 

[Ateam2023]

So, to be clear, high sensitivity is reporting higher or lower than standard? higher would be expected no?

Or are you saying both. The usual caveat as you add @Ateam2023 is that take two people and get completely different results.

In as far as my result above goes - its not marked as high sensitivity. Just a standard panel for UK i think. I could ask. Its the same lab for both.

Like i said, its very individual person to person and e2/estrogen readings, i saw someone post a "spot on" test between the two assays, and then theres people like myself (high aromotizer) that get the kind of reading i just received, when i ran my numbers through ai it said my <30 estrogen test was likely 15-25, i dunno how it came to that number , but it said iwas in a good spot for estrogen to testosterone conversion(150 mg Testosterone weekly) , meanwhile im sitting at 13 e2 and feeling like chit, the e2 sensitivity test allows for more accurate "low readings" case in point standard estrogen test=<30 while e2 sensitivity test had me at 13 .