I know this is probably a slightly weird question but, I have looked all over and cant find a reference. I have blood work scheduled 2 weeks from Monday and will be getting the full work up done as usual. On 1g of Test E my levels came back at just over 3300ng/dl so pretty high and I guess where levels would rightly be at that dose…
How ever since I am doubling the Test to 2g is it realistic to think my levels would honestly climb to almost 6500ng/dl… or should I be expecting a diminishing return type of thing and expect something more like 5000ng/dl.
[quote]Reed wrote:
I know this is probably a slightly weird question but, I have looked all over and cant find a reference. I have blood work scheduled 2 weeks from Monday and will be getting the full work up done as usual. On 1g of Test E my levels came back at just over 3300ng/dl so pretty high and I guess where levels would rightly be at that dose…
How ever since I am doubling the Test to 2g is it realistic to think my levels would honestly climb to almost 6500ng/dl… or should I be expecting a diminishing return type of thing and expect something more like 5000ng/dl. [/quote]
I’ve not seen bloodwork at that high (some ranges don’t even go past 1500 or so…I think Labcorp is one such lab) but from the lower doses I have seen, it is a diminishing returns. That is, 600 mg of test does not end up giving you twice as high ng/dL as 300 mg of test. I do not understand why this is (probably something to do with SHBG) but yes it drops off. You can see the research here (this is my favorite paper):
[quote]Reed wrote:
I know this is probably a slightly weird question but, I have looked all over and cant find a reference. I have blood work scheduled 2 weeks from Monday and will be getting the full work up done as usual. On 1g of Test E my levels came back at just over 3300ng/dl so pretty high and I guess where levels would rightly be at that dose…
How ever since I am doubling the Test to 2g is it realistic to think my levels would honestly climb to almost 6500ng/dl… or should I be expecting a diminishing return type of thing and expect something more like 5000ng/dl. [/quote]
I’ve not seen bloodwork at that high (some ranges don’t even go past 1500 or so…I think Labcorp is one such lab) but from the lower doses I have seen, it is a diminishing returns. That is, 600 mg of test does not end up giving you twice as high ng/dL as 300 mg of test. I do not understand why this is (probably something to do with SHBG) but yes it drops off. You can see the research here (this is my favorite paper):
Thanks VT you were actually who I was hoping would post. Im surprised you have never seen levels this high. I cant remember who my doc sends my labs to the doc told me he has seen up to 5000ng/dl before maybe he is full of shit but I guess if 1000mg can get me to 3000+ then 2-3g would surely get you there. Will read the link you attached now.
No, your levels should not double. Enzymes don’t obey a linear pattern. You only have so much aromatase in your body, and its kinetics are governed by its rate of reaction and substrate concentration (and a few other factors), in which the rate behaves asymptotically. so yea you were close with the diminishing returns statement. If you google michaelis-menten equation you can see what it looks like.
I’ve not seen bloodwork at that high (some ranges don’t even go past 1500 or so…I think Labcorp is one such lab) but from the lower doses I have seen, it is a diminishing returns. That is, 600 mg of test does not end up giving you twice as high ng/dL as 300 mg of test. I do not understand why this is (probably something to do with SHBG) but yes it drops off. You can see the research here (this is my favorite paper):
[quote]AnytimeJake wrote:
I like how you snuck in 2-3g, does this mean your contiplating more than 2g a week If the blood work allows, RIGHT[/quote]
Haha well I’m always contemplating more but, I doubt it would be this go even of blood work looks good. Also the 400 I’m running is just stupid painful right now am attempting to cut it down a bit some sterile oil. But until I get it to decently smooth ill be damned if I add another too ml of this stuff haha.
[quote]MAK40 wrote:
No, your levels should not double. Enzymes don’t obey a linear pattern. You only have so much aromatase in your body, and its kinetics are governed by its rate of reaction and substrate concentration (and a few other factors), in which the rate behaves asymptotically. so yea you were close with the diminishing returns statement. If you google michaelis-menten equation you can see what it looks like. [/quote]
This is what I figured but, I just wanted to verify.
[quote]Reed wrote:
I know this is probably a slightly weird question but, I have looked all over and cant find a reference. I have blood work scheduled 2 weeks from Monday and will be getting the full work up done as usual. On 1g of Test E my levels came back at just over 3300ng/dl so pretty high and I guess where levels would rightly be at that dose…
How ever since I am doubling the Test to 2g is it realistic to think my levels would honestly climb to almost 6500ng/dl… or should I be expecting a diminishing return type of thing and expect something more like 5000ng/dl. [/quote]
I’ve not seen bloodwork at that high (some ranges don’t even go past 1500 or so…I think Labcorp is one such lab) but from the lower doses I have seen, it is a diminishing returns. That is, 600 mg of test does not end up giving you twice as high ng/dL as 300 mg of test. I do not understand why this is (probably something to do with SHBG) but yes it drops off. You can see the research here (this is my favorite paper):
Thanks VT you were actually who I was hoping would post. Im surprised you have never seen levels this high. I cant remember who my doc sends my labs to the doc told me he has seen up to 5000ng/dl before maybe he is full of shit but I guess if 1000mg can get me to 3000+ then 2-3g would surely get you there. Will read the link you attached now.[/quote]
I meant I haven’t seen bloodwork from that high of a dose, sorry. I can’t actually remember how high I have seen actual blood levels, since like I said only a couple even register an actual number past a certain point that someone would conceivably achieve naturally (like 1500 or so), but yeah you might be the highest I know of lol
5000 ng/dL is very very high lol
You will enjoy that link, its got all kinds of good stuff. Like how the guys on 600 mg/week increased their leg press strength 167 in 20 weeks without working out.
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
i didn’t pay a lot of attention to my blood work, but Labcorp paperwork showed >1500 with reference interval of 348-1197 ng/dl.
does that mean my actual reading was greater than 1500? i just thought it was 1500.
[/quote]
Yes, that means you were somewhere between 1501 and infinity lol
The 348-1197 is just the normal range that they see from testing, corresponding to 90% (I believe) of the population. It is a standard bell curve, so 5% will be above 1197 and 5% below 348. I don’t know how many actually achieve 1500+ naturally, but it is probably around 6 standard deviations from norm (like 0.005% or something)
[quote]MAK40 wrote:
No, your levels should not double. Enzymes don’t obey a linear pattern. You only have so much aromatase in your body, and its kinetics are governed by its rate of reaction and substrate concentration (and a few other factors), in which the rate behaves asymptotically. so yea you were close with the diminishing returns statement. If you google michaelis-menten equation you can see what it looks like. [/quote]
Nice explanation. I didn’t know the details but assumed it has something to do with breakdown at the molecular level. I am gonna bookmark that equation and look into it more. Thanks for the info.
[quote]MAK40 wrote:
No, your levels should not double. Enzymes don’t obey a linear pattern. You only have so much aromatase in your body, and its kinetics are governed by its rate of reaction and substrate concentration (and a few other factors), in which the rate behaves asymptotically. so yea you were close with the diminishing returns statement. If you google michaelis-menten equation you can see what it looks like. [/quote]
Nice explanation. I didn’t know the details but assumed it has something to do with breakdown at the molecular level. I am gonna bookmark that equation and look into it more. Thanks for the info.[/quote]
The problem with peptides is the inconsistency with production quality I personally have used them and got results, they are by no means a replacement for 5+ units of pharma GH though. you feel them work withing minutes of taking them especially ghrp-6.
Pep-tides work the issue is inconsistency of product. By no means are they a realistic to 5iu or more of pharma gh ed. I have seen blood work of fasted gh after GHRP-6 and semorelin equal a GH spike of 8iu using 150mcg of each of the previous peptides 20 taken fasted 10-15 before taking blood 48.1 was the result on the test. But personally they are not life changing, but they are useful because they are cheap legal and I believe personally equal to 2-3iu of gh every day extra without suppressing GH. I give them to my grand father and he loves them so they are doing something, just not like 5+ gh
[quote]Reed wrote:
I know this is probably a slightly weird question but, I have looked all over and cant find a reference. I have blood work scheduled 2 weeks from Monday and will be getting the full work up done as usual. On 1g of Test E my levels came back at just over 3300ng/dl so pretty high and I guess where levels would rightly be at that dose…
How ever since I am doubling the Test to 2g is it realistic to think my levels would honestly climb to almost 6500ng/dl… or should I be expecting a diminishing return type of thing and expect something more like 5000ng/dl. [/quote]
I’ve not seen bloodwork at that high (some ranges don’t even go past 1500 or so…I think Labcorp is one such lab) but from the lower doses I have seen, it is a diminishing returns. That is, 600 mg of test does not end up giving you twice as high ng/dL as 300 mg of test. I do not understand why this is (probably something to do with SHBG) but yes it drops off. You can see the research here (this is my favorite paper):
Interesting paper, although they don’t mention E2. I bet results would’ve been somewhat different had the controlled E2 with an AI to avoid it canceling out some of the effects of the different doses of T since, as we know, E2 rises with T (although I have know idea if the relationship is directly proportional/linear). My guess is that, at the very least, bloodwork and sexual function results would’ve been quite different, but who knows.
[quote]Reed wrote:
I know this is probably a slightly weird question but, I have looked all over and cant find a reference. I have blood work scheduled 2 weeks from Monday and will be getting the full work up done as usual. On 1g of Test E my levels came back at just over 3300ng/dl so pretty high and I guess where levels would rightly be at that dose…
How ever since I am doubling the Test to 2g is it realistic to think my levels would honestly climb to almost 6500ng/dl… or should I be expecting a diminishing return type of thing and expect something more like 5000ng/dl. [/quote]
I’ve not seen bloodwork at that high (some ranges don’t even go past 1500 or so…I think Labcorp is one such lab) but from the lower doses I have seen, it is a diminishing returns. That is, 600 mg of test does not end up giving you twice as high ng/dL as 300 mg of test. I do not understand why this is (probably something to do with SHBG) but yes it drops off. You can see the research here (this is my favorite paper):
Interesting paper, although they don’t mention E2. I bet results would’ve been somewhat different had the controlled E2 with an AI to avoid it canceling out some of the effects of the different doses of T since, as we know, E2 rises with T (although I have know idea if the relationship is directly proportional/linear). My guess is that, at the very least, bloodwork and sexual function results would’ve been quite different, but who knows.[/quote]
What bloodwork would have been different? Total T should not be impacted by amount of E2 present. Maybe some negative effect on lipids would have been controlled, but I’m not even sure of that.
[quote]Reed wrote:
I know this is probably a slightly weird question but, I have looked all over and cant find a reference. I have blood work scheduled 2 weeks from Monday and will be getting the full work up done as usual. On 1g of Test E my levels came back at just over 3300ng/dl so pretty high and I guess where levels would rightly be at that dose…
How ever since I am doubling the Test to 2g is it realistic to think my levels would honestly climb to almost 6500ng/dl… or should I be expecting a diminishing return type of thing and expect something more like 5000ng/dl. [/quote]
I’ve not seen bloodwork at that high (some ranges don’t even go past 1500 or so…I think Labcorp is one such lab) but from the lower doses I have seen, it is a diminishing returns. That is, 600 mg of test does not end up giving you twice as high ng/dL as 300 mg of test. I do not understand why this is (probably something to do with SHBG) but yes it drops off. You can see the research here (this is my favorite paper):
Interesting paper, although they don’t mention E2. I bet results would’ve been somewhat different had the controlled E2 with an AI to avoid it canceling out some of the effects of the different doses of T since, as we know, E2 rises with T (although I have know idea if the relationship is directly proportional/linear). My guess is that, at the very least, bloodwork and sexual function results would’ve been quite different, but who knows.[/quote]
What bloodwork would have been different? Total T should not be impacted by amount of E2 present. Maybe some negative effect on lipids would have been controlled, but I’m not even sure of that. [/quote]
[quote]ritch1 wrote:
Gonna sound like a total asshole here, but dude… You barely look like you use gear, let alone 2 grams of test. Your stuff is bunk, I read you make it yourself, but now way is it real. I’d believe you if you told me you use HRT doses like 200mg. What the fuckin’ hell are you thinking? NObody has had the balls to point this out yet? Someone has to tell the emperor he’s wearing no clothes…
I give props when I see good pics and all, but this is sad.[/quote]
His bench is downright pathetic for all that gear, but everything else is in line I’d say.
There is no advantage of running no AI. Use it properly and maintain normal estrogen or don’t cycle.
No wonder you have no hair. And enjoy prostate cancer in your 30’s from excess estrogenic and DHT exposure, shouldn’t do anything about the DHT as it will cause a host of other issues; but at-least control the estrogen.
Only people run high E is cause they like the water retention to give fast size…just get bigger.
Hilarious what people will take pride in these days. News: your gear is fake if your running deca and test at those levels with no gyno.
News flash I have been loosing my hair since I was 15 years old before I ever had even seen AAS. My brother who is a year younger than me never been in a gym or seen a vial of Test is balding so bad you would think he was in his 40s. We are predisposed to it as it runs heavily in both sides of my family. So nice job making a completely ignorant and pretty uneducated statement.
Next my test levels just came back at over 5500ng/dl so its not even close to fake but, nice try once again :). just because your gyno prone doesn’t mean every one else is I know guys running much more than me with zero gyno. Lastly, I dont run AIs due it hurting my joints and causing me to be lethargic and the fact that my E2 levels are with in normal range according to blood work so there is no point. So please shut up.
Ps. There are numerous guys that dont run AIs and they cycle just fine and trust me when I say 2 I talk to on a weekly basis are much farther ahead than you I promise.
[quote]Westclock wrote:
There is no advantage of running no AI. Use it properly and maintain normal estrogen or don’t cycle.
No wonder you have no hair. And enjoy prostate cancer in your 30’s from excess estrogenic and DHT exposure, shouldn’t do anything about the DHT as it will cause a host of other issues; but at-least control the estrogen.
Only people run high E is cause they like the water retention to give fast size…just get bigger.
Hilarious what people will take pride in these days. News: your gear is fake if your running deca and test at those levels with no gyno.[/quote]
Westclock,
With all due respect, you knowledge on steroid use and its effects is vastly greater then mine but I do not understand where you are coming from. If Reed is getting his BW done and showing no elevated levels of estrogen and his T levels are through the roof, why should he add an AI? As for the hair comment, I don’t get that one either.
I don’t personally know Reed but if he is seeing great gains I doubt his gear is junk. Even the Placebo Effect has its limitations. Believe all you want that you can fly, right up to the point you hit the ground.
Personally, that amount of stuff he puts in his body would scare the living shit out of me!
If the blood work allows, RIGHT