If Im looking for a synthetic I would buy from him, but always I prefer pharmaceutical stuff if possible especially for something long term like test
Can you get Pharm grade test OTC where you live?
Yes, but only sustanon. I get it OTC in the pharmacy, but it is not official OTC
I will go to the next country to get the same way enanthate now
Science isnt about an ideology, its about data and the interpretation thereof. This post summarizes my point of view on that topic.
With regard to method variability and ref ranges these are good reads
This was before the T harmonization efforts; differences are mainly due to the different methods used
‘Of the 25 labs, there were 17 and 13 different sets of reference values for total and free testosterone, respectively. The low reference value for total testosterone ranged from 130 to 450 ng/dL (350% difference), and the upper value ranged from 486 to 1,593 ng/ dL (325% difference).’
But there is some improvement
One of the studies I’d posted and the landmark “harmonisation” study were published slightly less than one year apart of one another. I can get bloods from three different path labs here, the ref ranges (and I’ve done it before) still sometimes have over a 200% variation within upper/lower cutoff limits. NO method of assay accounts for such a massive variation (the lowest ref range being 4-20nmol…). It’s not as black and white as you or I might think
As to the populational decline within testosterone levels over the past century or so, what about that?
I apologise if I’m coming across as condescending, not the case, I’m merely challenging some of you’re beliefs that I feel to be not true… you have attained a higher degree of education compared to that of I thus I’m legitimately interested regarding what you have to say. Just because harmonised ref ranges have been established doesn’t mean these path labs are actually using these ranges. I’ve seen the cutoff limits within the harmonised studies using different methodology, not one has a cutoff of 50-100ng/dl or an upper limit of 500-below 700ng/dl… Speaking of the reference ranges, if they have been made within a populace of whose avg TT/FT is far less than what it was 100 years ago… should we just accept this?
I can link adequate data to demonstrate fertility rates within men have also dropped substantially over the past century, is this something we just accept?
Generally speaking, callout threads are good for the forum. If the callout is warranted, the call-ee is outed, any questionable input they’ve been offering is seen in the appropriate light, and any advice they offer going forward is taken with an appropriately sized grain of salt.
If the callout is unjustified, it backfires and the call-er looks petty, ignorant, and vindictive while the call-ee is supported and re-affirmed by other members.
Not really any different than the occasional callout in the Bodybuilding, Powerlifting, or Bigger/Stronger/Leaner forums when newbies with big mouths get put in their place or vets need to defend themselves from cranky upstarts nipping at their heels.
(And, FWIW, the Credentials Thread has been re-stickied and should remain in place indefinitely.)
While I don’t disagree with your points, I still think it is unfortunate. It is my perception that systemlord derives a lot of enjoyment from this forum, and I do wish there was a more pleasant way to correct his errors.
He probably does and I hope the most/all members do, but getting enjoyment isn’t all the forum is here for. Delivering useful advice is another essential factor. As is accepting advice that’s offered after one specifically asks for help, but that’s a different can of worms systemlord has trouble opening.
Any member who sees questionable advice being posted by anyone can address it on the spot in the thread it’s being given. The trouble there is that it can turn into a thread hijack, which has happened a few times before in this case.
TMI dude, haha.
I agree with your points. I just wish there was a step before a call out thread. Maybe a DM from someone like you listing the issues with their content (a warning). I understand we do not have DMs, but I think a case for them exists.
Chris himself has called him out in threads, so in a way he has, just not privately .
@Chris_Colucci the thread has derailed past the point of no return at this point… Didn’t change much.
Not particularly, many threads derail at some point. A return to the topic at hand is certainly feasible. Someone just has to make another point
Those absent of having serious credentials should back up opinionated ideology with scientific literature when pertaining to medication/how to treat various disorders. If one is giving out advice that generally goes against scientific consensus… be prepared to back it up as you WILL get called out.
Again, I am not saying that there hasnt been a decline in T. What I am saying is that the role of environmental factors play hasnt been exactly elucidated. Obesity, diabetes and illicit substance abuse have all skyrocket in the last 2 to 3 decades. The role these factors play is to my opinion downplayed and the role of environmental factors exaggerated.
The devil is in the details. Lets compare for example the two studies linked below.
Travis, 2008 found a population decline in T. They used blood samples from 3 waves of the MMAS; T1 around 1988, T2 around 1996 and T3 around 2003.
Travis et al followed the subjects as they aged, so its the same cohort.
The limitations of this study:
- its not a comparison between young, healthy men in 1988 and 2003 using the same T assays.
- Travis measured the T levels of the ageing men and had to ‘calculate back’ T levels on the basis of the known (or believed to be known) decline in T levels during aging to do an age matched comparison
- As men aged, they got sicker and needed significantly more medication. We dont know how much this contributed to the decline in T and if the assumption made to allow the age matched comparison was actually correct
- T levels were measured at different time points, potentially leading to a bias in results (T1 assays were performed in 1994, whereas T2 and T3 samples were assayed soon after in-home visits)
The study by Platz et al 2019 in contrast used samples of the NHANES cohorts from around 1989 and compared them to the cohort measured around 2001. They found that in never-smoking lean men without comorbidities the T concentration was the same (624 vs 626 ng/dl). So no decline of T levels in this period. The strenghts of this study:
- Direct comparison of age matched samples; they were never-smoking, lean men without aging-associated comorbidities
- Platz measured all samples in the same lab with the same method and the same instrumentation. Method precision was around 2 times higher in this study as compared to the Travis study (CV 4.5% vs 8 to 9%)
So to summarize, while Travis found a decline of about T levels of around 70 to 80 ng/dl within less than a decade, Platz et al found no such difference in the same period of time.
Two interesting studies were published on that topic in the last year. The first one talks about contributing factors such as obesity, T2D, illicit drug abuse, environmental factors on low T levels in yound adults.
The most recent one discusses a decline in T levels in US young mean. Unfortunately I dont have access to the article, but it will be interested to take a closer look at eg the exact T assay used in this study.
‘Limitations include the influence of confounding variables such as environmental factors and the use of differing assays for TT measurement.’
Let’s talk about this in one of my threads… It involves derailing the thread. But I created it and thus don’t mind
These quotes indicate aforementioned studies posted ruled out obesity, lifestyle factors
That being said I believe you’re onto something regarding the abuse of illicit drugs, particularly referring to cannabis.
What I’m trying to convey is the notion of environmental pollutants (EDCs… endocrine disrupting chemicals) and whatnot interfering with hormonal homeostasis
Now you’re saying
As to testosterone assays… we are taking about assay variation of typically below 20%, when there’s a drop of say 50% (present within one of the studies I’ve posted) or a difference of 2-300% regarding ref range cutoff values I don’t think assay variation can entirely account for this
I think you have to read and try to understand my posts and the literature references i provide. I really like to explain but at this point its a waste of time.
I’ve read the posts… I’ve seen the studies regarding variance between measurement within a singular sample and I’ve seen the difference assay variation can induce… it’s not a difference of 300%… ever. I’ve tried to specify labs aren’t adhering to the harmonised ref ranges.
We can agree to disagree, you may think I’m unintelligent, I think you’re too black and white (which is the pot calling the kettle black).
Literature can conflict, hence my studies referenced stating the populational decline existing despite factoring out obesity, lifestyle ‘decisions’
As to this
If you want I can get access to it, screenshot it and send it to you. I have the ability to access just about any one of the articles through a parent of which is an MD
A quote from the study you’ve linked (more detailed abstract than the science daily version)
“Interestingly, even in men with a normal BMI (18.5-24.9), TT levels have declined from 664.79 ng/dL to 529.24 ng/dL”
I’ve tagged you within my other thread, reply there if you wish to continue this conversation
Many ref ranges cut off at 5-600ng/dl now… I don’t care about the assay used to measure test, no method of measurement should cut off at 5-600ng/dl…
That being said I have a few questions for you (medical related) I was hoping you’d be willing to answer for me. Do you mind if ask you on my other thread? @johann77
The theme has gone offropic anyway so…dude, are you really 19?
What the f have you studied to know so much?
I’m trying to keep things on topic… but it was derailed again
Why would I lie about my age? Dbossa has me Facebook (not to share, but so he can back up I’m just a normal kid)
I’m autistic however (high functioning), so I’m… different
If you’ve ever seen skins, I’m nowhere nearly as bad as he is socially (but intellectually it’s very similar)… a character named JJ from seasons 3/4. I don’t find myself to be overtly stimulated by environmental factors either. Many whom are autistic can’t stand loud noise, I’m fine with nightclubs, concerts etc