If you were measuring fT with direct RIA method it may have gone out of range. If you find the paperwork share and I’ll throw all three up.
1 Like
Will do.
Ideally I’d make these graphs with accurate fT numbers instead of TT which gets skewed by SHBG but that’s not going to happen until we get the fT measurement issues solved. Doing a graph with fT vs mean weekly dose would allow folks to see the true metabolic differences in fT clearance between individuals. Thanks.
Nevertheless guys will get to see a reasonable range where almost all fall.
This is from the blast I did. I wanna say it was 875mg /wk injected EOD
Edit: test E, 300mg/ml that tested at 302mg/ml (UGL test)
1 Like
BTW, as we talked about previously, this is bioavailable T, not free T.
Here you go:
Your low dosing data points are pretty linear with dose so maybe you are remembering the 875/week (EOD) incorrectly? Don’t know.
Good data points on a low SHBG guy.
I don’t understand the graph, but it was 875mg/wk. i remember just copying what @mnben87 did because, we’ll just look at him.
1 Like
Good point and thanks for clarifying. Yeah you are right. Silly to keep populating these graphs. Thanks.
1 Like
Honestly I appreciate the graphs, although some of them go over my head - the test ester dosage/mean serum TT linear and projected graphs are pretty valuable information IMO. I think it’s a tool one could use to see if they are a hyper responder.
2 Likes
Thanks.
1 Like
To be a “hyper responder” on these graphs you would need a combination of high SHBG + be a poor eliminator of fT. These two traits would be more typical of older dudes where fT elimination rate many times seems correlated/associated with higher SHBG. As you continue your journey and education remember that these graphs would best be done in terms of fT and not TT so we could look at actual metabolic rates of fT elimination. TT clouds the issue since now you are plotting TT which is a f(fT elimination rate, SHBG).
However, still work to be done to educate all on accurate method for fT measurement + still being figured out. Therefore, we are left with historical paradigm of TT measurement.
@Andrewgen_Receptors:
Also, for later, remember: oxandrolone does not free up more T nor does it increase fT unless it can somehow influence fT elimination rate (doubtful).
SHBG does not determine fT. It determines TT when coupled with serum level of fT which is set by (1) your dosing and (2) metabolic clearance of fT.
2 Likes
Here you can see how the oxandrolone skewed your place percentile wise on the graph by lowering your SHBG. Thanks for clarifying the protocol. I would expect your fT to be the same with or without the oxandrolone.
2 Likes
First of all, nice work on this, very well thought out and delivered👍.
I was looking to post some bloodwork results to add to the data but had a thought…… I’ve ran HCG pretty much the full time while on TRT less say a handful of months.
Given that I can achieve a TT of 20nmol/l on 1200IU/week of HCG monotherapy, my TT is then the sum of my response to injected exogenous T and the LH analog. Not a problem, the HCG response is a known in this case.
Were any of the bros in your datasets also on HCG when they had their bloodwork? Any thoughts on this? Maybe I’m missing something🤔
Thanks very much.
All of the clinical trial data is hCG free but good point on some of the user data.
I put in this disclaimer in the other thread:
And this is “TRT” thread. So please disclose any other AAS used concurrently (especially 17AA) which may skew TT response via SHBG in the gutter.
But to your point I should have explictly stated to disclose if the dose reponse data shared included hCG use. I know for my points I culled any data with hCG use but I should have checked with @highpull on his data as I know he has some/many patients using hCG as part of their protocol. Anyone else that shared data please chime in and I can offset points if you know your hCG monotherapy bump to TT.
Excellent. So what is the bump you get from just the hCG over your endogenous TT?
I get about 300 ng/dl increase on 1000 IU / week of hCG mono.
If you’re referring to the recent chart, they were taking what was stated. I excluded anyone taking anything (hormones) else, including hCG. I did identify the two or three using anastrozole. I realize counting them among testosterone only subjects could or would invalidate the data. It was not difficult, there are some, not many.
1 Like
Referring to sample 1 from a while back. Haven’t gotten to sample 2 yet.
Great. Assuming same with sample 1 that saves me work going back and culling any data.
Of course.
For me TT of ~600 ng/dl from 125mg of Cypionate weekly seems about right. Lower end of your curves. Add my HCG numbers and I’m quite average…. coincidence.
Let’s be honest though, a lot of us don’t take our T as prescribed. Many of us are chasing that next bench press PR and indulge in that extra 50 or 75mg a week. Separately, during the first year or so of TRT it’s hard to ignore the temptation of “more must be better” and take more than we are prescribed. I suppose this is only possible if you’re doctor allows that extra ampule or surplus “rainy day” Testosterone. Or if you’re ampules are not reusable and you are supposed to discard half of its contents and use a fresh or the following week…
Covid has proven that we don’t know what is around the corner. I think most reasonable doctors seem to be open to allowing patients to stockpile a little reserve. This is what allows the abuse and therefore skewed data however.
Wondering if it would be worth gathering a dataset with a tighter acceptance criteria. Perhaps scanned in/photographed only labs from members. Genuine mistakes happen but there’s little to gain from being dishonest about our dosing online and the effort of posting real labs somewhat sorts the wheat from chaff. It would be interesting to compare samples of verified vs medical(@highpull) vs self-reported unverified(my above style of submission). I do appreciate though that sharing print outs of labs to 2 decimal places limits the quasi anonymity we all enjoy that enable free discussion on precarious topics on this forum.
On the topic of stats, similar e2 response curves would be nice. E2 as function of SHBG, body fat percentage, DHT???
Erectile dysfunction severity as function of age, TT, E2, blood pressure, body fat. Specifically a curve of the ratio of pulse pressure/e2(vertical axis) vs ED severity(horizontal axis). How to define ED severity? Not easy. Number of episodes, time with erection?
Coming up with a starting point or something semi quantitative on why some do well with high e2 and some not so well would be a huge stride for the community.
P and Q tests?
Also PSA vs e2 & pulse pressure vs HCT jump
to mind.
What a ramble!
Just thinking out loud. Anyways good work.
2 Likes
I did not know I was being dishonest. Of course, and I considered as much when I put that together. I did reject some that I thought may fall in that group. Plus, if the dose was 80mg, did they take 83, or 85, 88, or 74? Honest error, though I would guess most error on the side of more rather than less. I realize if that was for some type of formal research study it wouldn’t be valid. Every injection would have be given under controlled circumstances in our office.
However, I would bet heavily that there would be no more than five of those who intentionally were overdosing, and it could not be by much. We control refills. Denied a couple of guys last month for overdosing and another eliminated himself. All were double dosing and attempting to get refills. The first two got hCG to get them through until they are eligible for a refill. The last one (three years with me) quit because he did “not like being told what to do”. OK.
Whoa!
I don’t think payroll here can cover all that. Nice summary. Would be fun!
Thanks again.
Too much caffeine obviously haha
1 Like