thnaks guys for both replys …and what is
HMG ??
[quote]Get out the Door wrote:
KSman wrote:
. Only serum E2 tests will let you know how any of these things work… for you. The use of zinc is something that I have been overlooking… picked up on that when reading books lately. When on TRT with adex, it gets the job done with or without zinc. But zinc has merits in any case.
This is not exactly true
Urine testing, as I stated before, is much, much more superior that serum blood testing, especially for estrogens
Secondly, Labcorp’s method for extracting estrogen from blood are primarily used for…women. Their estradiol test is not the ultra sensitive extraction process. I would not rely on it.
Use Rhein Lab,s urine testing. If you cannot, worst case scenario use Quest Diagnostics. The Quest Diagnostics Ultrasensitive Estradiol Test Code 30289X is the Gold Standard amongst serum matrix estrogen assays in the United States.
I would not rely on Labcorp. They are notoriously behind on many methods.
Note that Labcorps Free Testosterone methods are duely inaccurate as well.
I would not overdue it on the Zinc. Minerals compete and balance eachother out. Excessive Zinc often depletes the bodies supply of copper. Take Zinc at 30mg a day, and cycle it on and off. [/quote]
I’d love to hear more discussion about this. Is urine testing superior for all of the relevant compounds - or just for estrogen? Also, I gather from KSman’s response that no one is sure, as yet, how to interpret urine test results…is that (or my interpretation of KSman) true?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Get out the Door wrote:
KSman wrote:
. Only serum E2 tests will let you know how any of these things work… for you. The use of zinc is something that I have been overlooking… picked up on that when reading books lately. When on TRT with adex, it gets the job done with or without zinc. But zinc has merits in any case.
This is not exactly true
Urine testing, as I stated before, is much, much more superior that serum blood testing, especially for estrogens
Secondly, Labcorp’s method for extracting estrogen from blood are primarily used for…women. Their estradiol test is not the ultra sensitive extraction process. I would not rely on it.
Use Rhein Lab,s urine testing. If you cannot, worst case scenario use Quest Diagnostics. The Quest Diagnostics Ultrasensitive Estradiol Test Code 30289X is the Gold Standard amongst serum matrix estrogen assays in the United States.
I would not rely on Labcorp. They are notoriously behind on many methods.
Note that Labcorps Free Testosterone methods are duely inaccurate as well.
I would not overdue it on the Zinc. Minerals compete and balance eachother out. Excessive Zinc often depletes the bodies supply of copper. Take Zinc at 30mg a day, and cycle it on and off.
I’d love to hear more discussion about this. Is urine testing superior for all of the relevant compounds - or just for estrogen? Also, I gather from KSman’s response that no one is sure, as yet, how to interpret urine test results…is that (or my interpretation of KSman) true?
[/quote]
The most cutting edge, well informed HRT docs now use Urine testing as their method of choice for hormone/androgen testing, estrogens included. Serum is quickly falling by the wayside.
It should be pointed out that urine testing is still considered to be the “gold standard” upon which the performance of many
immunoassays is based. It is the immunoassays which are used
in routine clinical testing of individual hormones. A profile
using this latter approach would be prohibitively expensive
costing upwards of one thousand dollars. Thus, whenever three
or more hormones are of interest a complete profile becomes a
more cost-effective means of obtaining the desired results.
Just getting a few tests done does not give a total hormone profile. I couldn’t even imagine trying to interpret estogen analysis by getting just an E2 number. E3, estriol, is a cancer protective and antiaging estrogen. It is now being compounded into creams and gels that are becomming standard to fight wrinkles and aging of the skin. So how could one theoretically be under estrogen management control with something like arimidex without monitoring all the estrogens, not just estradiol? I wouldn’t want to be.
Urines are interpreted in a similar manner as bloods - It all depends which particular hormone you are measuring. For
testosterone, you want it in the upper 3rd of the range. For E1 and E2, in the middle. E3 you would like to see in the upper 3rd. These are examples.
Note that Rhein labs uses a 24 hour urine panel, which is beyond superior to blood draws. A blood draw is only a brief snapshot of the hormone levels at that time, say 8am. With urine testing, you urinate into a jug for 24 hours, and an average of that is taken for results.
It is comparable to getting a blood test, every hour, for 24 hours a day, and taking the average.
You can see how this method is much more accurate.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Get out the Door wrote:
KSman wrote:
. Only serum E2 tests will let you know how any of these things work… for you. The use of zinc is something that I have been overlooking… picked up on that when reading books lately. When on TRT with adex, it gets the job done with or without zinc. But zinc has merits in any case.
This is not exactly true
Urine testing, as I stated before, is much, much more superior that serum blood testing, especially for estrogens
Secondly, Labcorp’s method for extracting estrogen from blood are primarily used for…women. Their estradiol test is not the ultra sensitive extraction process. I would not rely on it.
Use Rhein Lab,s urine testing. If you cannot, worst case scenario use Quest Diagnostics. The Quest Diagnostics Ultrasensitive Estradiol Test Code 30289X is the Gold Standard amongst serum matrix estrogen assays in the United States.
I would not rely on Labcorp. They are notoriously behind on many methods.
Note that Labcorps Free Testosterone methods are duely inaccurate as well.
I would not overdue it on the Zinc. Minerals compete and balance eachother out. Excessive Zinc often depletes the bodies supply of copper. Take Zinc at 30mg a day, and cycle it on and off.
I’d love to hear more discussion about this. Is urine testing superior for all of the relevant compounds - or just for estrogen? Also, I gather from KSman’s response that no one is sure, as yet, how to interpret urine test results…is that (or my interpretation of KSman) true?
[/quote]
It may be that the urine tests are better at getting one qualified for TRT.
[quote]KSman wrote:
It may be that the urine tests are better at getting one qualified for TRT. [/quote]
Expense aside for a moment, wouldn’t urine be best for monitoring & adjusting one’s ongoing progress?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
KSman wrote:
It may be that the urine tests are better at getting one qualified for TRT.
Expense aside for a moment, wouldn’t urine be best for monitoring & adjusting one’s ongoing progress?
[/quote]
Absolutely.
Perhaps. The numbers will still be foreign to many. But I still have my doubts about this improving perceived TRT results for those with no comorbidies, unless the numbers and lab ranges for urine testing dictate higher T doses than serum tests would.
The effects of E2 control are a vastly bigger variable for perceived benefits than any “higher accuracy” diagnostic.
Collecting 24 hours of urine might be bothersome. You still need blood work for CBC, cholesterol etc.
A 24 hour sample can be of value for someone not yet on TRT. Again, when on effective TRT, the HPTA is shutdown and there is probably no pulsatile release of T. The T levels will change in response and timing of hCG injections. A 24 hour sample the day of the hCG injection may not be the same as the next 24 hour period. Then which “very accurate” result would be best when they are not the same.
A skilled doctor will be able to do a good job with serum tests and a doctor who is less skilful will not provide better care by using a more accurate test.
And one does not know what lab numbers from any method are optimal for a patient. Would one use the more accurate lab numbers to change a test cyp dose from 100 – 115? Would 1ml of 10 T cream be increased to 1.15ml? Could not serum tests drive the same fine adjustments? I think that the vast majority of T injectors are using 100mg/wk. With this “one shoe size fits most” situation, if the dose does not change what is gained by other testing methods.
As an engineer, I am pragmatic and also look for cost benefit. If a change does not increase benefit, is anything gained at all?
[quote]KSman wrote:
Perhaps. The numbers will still be foreign to many. But I still have my doubts about this improving perceived TRT results for those with no comorbidies, unless the numbers and lab ranges for urine testing dictate higher T doses than serum tests would.
The effects of E2 control are a vastly bigger variable for perceived benefits than any “higher accuracy” diagnostic.
Collecting 24 hours of urine might be bothersome. You still need blood work for CBC, cholesterol etc.
A 24 hour sample can be of value for someone not yet on TRT. Again, when on effective TRT, the HPTA is shutdown and there is probably no pulsatile release of T. The T levels will change in response and timing of hCG injections. A 24 hour sample the day of the hCG injection may not be the same as the next 24 hour period. Then which “very accurate” result would be best when they are not the same.
A skilled doctor will be able to do a good job with serum tests and a doctor who is less skilful will not provide better care by using a more accurate test.
And one does not know what lab numbers from any method are optimal for a patient. Would one use the more accurate lab numbers to change a test cyp dose from 100 – 115? Would 1ml of 10 T cream be increased to 1.15ml? Could not serum tests drive the same fine adjustments? I think that the vast majority of T injectors are using 100mg/wk. With this “one shoe size fits most” situation, if the dose does not change what is gained by other testing methods.
As an engineer, I am pragmatic and also look for cost benefit. If a change does not increase benefit, is anything gained at all?[/quote]
A 24 hour urine test is basically like having a blood draw every hour, on the hour, for 24 hours of the day.
There is no argument for which is superior. Its not even a contest. This has already been established amongst the cutting edge HRT Drs.
Its not a matter of being “slightly” more accurate. I wouldn’t trust labcorp period…nonetheless who or which method is better.
Collecting the urine is painless…You carry a jug around all day for one day. No biggie.
It is 224 bucks, insurance covering the shipping part of it, so 199 flat out the door.
Test might be more stable once someone is on HRT, but still expect estrogens to move all around…
[quote]buffd_samurai wrote:
To continue to beat the dead horse, I personally am interested in the possibility of the body “adjusting” to the arimidex and putting out more aromatase.
This would have the unpleasant effect of E going up. The solution would be more arimidex but I’m unsure of how far this mechanism can go (there must be a limit to how much aromatase the body can produce).
Proponents of aromasin say this increase of aromatase will not occur. But I’m skeptical of that, and again am not quite sure how accurate that statement is.
[/quote]
Are there any studies on all of this?
It makes sense that the body would produce more aromatase, but is that increase significant? Has anyone on Arimidex noticed that they have to up the dosage every few months?
And how long after taking arimidex does this happen?
And does it happen even at very low dosage, 1mg/week?
These questions are probably not answerable, but just in case someone might have some info or experiences to share…
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
buffd_samurai wrote:
To continue to beat the dead horse, I personally am interested in the possibility of the body “adjusting” to the arimidex and putting out more aromatase.
This would have the unpleasant effect of E going up. The solution would be more arimidex but I’m unsure of how far this mechanism can go (there must be a limit to how much aromatase the body can produce).
Proponents of aromasin say this increase of aromatase will not occur. But I’m skeptical of that, and again am not quite sure how accurate that statement is.
Are there any studies on all of this?
It makes sense that the body would produce more aromatase, but is that increase significant? Has anyone on Arimidex noticed that they have to up the dosage every few months?
And how long after taking arimidex does this happen?
And does it happen even at very low dosage, 1mg/week?
These questions are probably not answerable, but just in case someone might have some info or experiences to share…
[/quote]
You are asking very good questions. I have no answers here…no real studies to bring up with regards to the above hypothesis. I am asking the exact same questions in my posts. Thanks for bringing the subject back up!
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
buffd_samurai wrote:
To continue to beat the dead horse, I personally am interested in the possibility of the body “adjusting” to the arimidex and putting out more aromatase.
This would have the unpleasant effect of E going up. The solution would be more arimidex but I’m unsure of how far this mechanism can go (there must be a limit to how much aromatase the body can produce).
Proponents of aromasin say this increase of aromatase will not occur. But I’m skeptical of that, and again am not quite sure how accurate that statement is.
Are there any studies on all of this?
It makes sense that the body would produce more aromatase, but is that increase significant? Has anyone on Arimidex noticed that they have to up the dosage every few months?
And how long after taking arimidex does this happen?
And does it happen even at very low dosage, 1mg/week?
These questions are probably not answerable, but just in case someone might have some info or experiences to share…
[/quote]
Hedge clipping: the separation of fact from fantasy.
There is no observable upregulation of aromatase activity by AIs
There is no “increased need” of AIs under therapy. It is a fixed dose, no increase needed. Aromatase does not escape inhibition; i.e., no one observes E rising under therapy, in women. (Studies in men are not continued beyond a few months, but we canpresume the same to be true in men.)
Upregulation of estrogen receptors is not observed in whole intact women, leave alone men.
Further:
Aromasin is an “irreversible” “steroidal” inhibitor, different to anastrazole and letrozole. The serum half-life is unimportant; it’s effects last until the enzyme is turned over. In women, the dose is 25 mg, equivalent to anastrazole 1 mg. In men…anyone’s guess. The dose of letrozole in men may be as little as 100 mcg.
It is arguable if aromasin (exemestane) is less a cause of dyslipidemia or ostoeporosis. In mice, definitely; in women, borderline ; in men…anyone’s guess.
Aromatase activity varies but not because of the administration of this drug. It varies tissue to tissue, under physical stress, infection, cancer, diabetes, aging, etc.
A word on aromatase, to clear up some misconceptions.
Yes, it is a CytP450 enzyme…lets call it c19 for short. But the AIs do not, to my knowledge, interfere with other Cyts, nor is liver Cytochrome metabolism effected in a measurable way by taking the AIs.
There are downstream effects—dyslipidemia and fatty liver–in women. It remains open whether this is a direct effect of the medicine, or a paracrine function: i.e., interrupting the conversion, occuring locally, of T to E causes side effects, and not the absolute reduction in circulating estrogens.
[quote]buffd_samurai wrote:
…
On second thought, why I didn’t just try an AI only cycle with bloodwork done before, during, and after protocol kind of stymies me now! Something on my list to try…
… [/quote]
Great minds think alike…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You may be thinking of Yohimbine; bad stuff.
[/quote]
I’ve read all kinds of different opinions about yohimbe. I’m 47, and I’ve used it sporadically with the desired results, and no observed negatives.
What’s your beef?
-zz
Chazzone,
As we are all different, some will have bad anxiety or blood pressure issues from Yohimbe, and some will not have those issues.
BD
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Hedge clipping: the separation of fact from fantasy.
There is no observable upregulation of aromatase activity by AIs
There is no “increased need” of AIs under therapy. It is a fixed dose, no increase needed. Aromatase does not escape inhibition; i.e., no one observes E rising under therapy, in women. (Studies in men are not continued beyond a few months, but we canpresume the same to be true in men.)
[/quote]
Thanks for the info. Are the above “facts” something you’ve researched or gleaned from the research?
My interests in the suppositions regarding the possible increase in aromatase lie in another statement that was made with regards to the increase in E immediately upon cessation of arimidex usage. Because of this, it was mentioned it was a good idea to slowly cycle down before full cessation; good advice in any case I would think.
But it might be also the case that aromatase activity does NOT go up as you write. It could be that upon immediate cessation of use, ones normally higher aromatase levels due to age begin its work right away in converting T into E.
Yes, it appears the argument will continue until some more studies come out…or I do my own little “study”…heh heh…
Very much appreciate this contribution to this important discussion. I started being somewhat skeptical of arimidex compared to aromasin…am now quickly reducing my skepticism towards arimidex. My personal opinion and belief now: arimidex is fine. Aromasin is fine.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
buffd_samurai wrote:
…
On second thought, why I didn’t just try an AI only cycle with bloodwork done before, during, and after protocol kind of stymies me now! Something on my list to try…
…
Great minds think alike…[/quote]
You’re calling me out…aren’t you? : D
…what are the thoughts on this study? It’s a comparison between the bio-availability of hCG after either IM or SC injection.
Is it invalid (or irrelevant) because it pertains to women? Most guys are doing SC injects, but would it be worth trying out IM injections?? It’d be great if we could get the same end effect with a lower overall dose because of the increased bio-availability of doing IM injects…hebs
[quote]hebsie wrote:
…what are the thoughts on this study? It’s a comparison between the bio-availability of hCG after either IM or SC injection.
Is it invalid (or irrelevant) because it pertains to women? Most guys are doing SC injects, but would it be worth trying out IM injections?? It’d be great if we could get the same end effect with a lower overall dose because of the increased bio-availability of doing IM injects…hebs
[/quote]
hebs,
It has more to do with a slower, sustained release time. hcG is injected into belly fat because it lacks an ester to slow its release time - Once hcG hits the belly fat, it is released slowly, which is obviously the effect one wants to achieve.
If hcG was injected IM, it would cause a rapid delivery into the blood stream, thus increasing the need for more frequent injections. Not only that, my hunch is that it would also cause a rapid spike in test which would inevitably lead to a rapid spike in estrogen.
Also, let us not forget that anytime one can get away with injecting SQ, one should - No damage to muscle tissue.
hcG is relatively absorbed well, so any increases in bioavailability from IM is a mute point. Not only that, its relatively inexpensive, so its not like we need to be skimp with it.
…thanks for the informative reply. Out of curiosity, I decided to do an IM hCG inject into my outer thigh this morning. It was really strange but by mid-morning, about four hours post-injection, I was completely overcome by this overwhelming fatigue. It was all I could do to keep my eyes open, felt exactly like I get when my Estrogen gets too high (or too low for that matter). Looks like I’ll just stick with the SC injects for hCG and leave it at that!..hebs
Hello, I would like to post my blood profile and would appreciate any comments. I have been reading everything I can, and think I have a handle on where I am at.
Male, age 40, 5-10 210, bodyfat 18%, train often but only since Dec 1 when I came out of retirement of bodybuilding. I really appreciate all of the entires throughout the boards. A lot of smart, educated people hanging around.
T2 1.0 (0.7 to 1.7)
T3 1.6 (.60 to 2.30)
Estradiol 26 (9 to 54)
Cortisol 10.1 (3 to 22)
DHEA 271 (95-530)
Free T 58 (47 to 244)
Free T % 288 (350 to 900)
Other Levels:
triglycerides 85
cholesterol, total 156
HDL 37 (should be above 40)LDL 102(less than 130)
glucose 90
urea nitrogen 19
creatinine 1.40 (should be less than1.30)eGFR 55 (should be greather than 60)BUN/Creatinine ration 14
sodium 140
Potassium 4.8
Chloride 102CO2 27
Calcium 9.8
Protein total 7.4
albumin 5.1
albumin/globulin ration 2.2 (should be lower than 2.1)
bilirubin 1.2
aldaline phosphatase 59
ast 25
alt 28
white blood 7.3
red blood 6.53 (range 4.2-5.8)
hemoglobin 19.1 (range 13.2-17.1)
hemacrit 56.9 (range 38.5 - 50)
bcv 87mch 29mchc 33rdw 14
platelet count 187
neutrophils 4825
lymphocytes 1737
monocytes 664
osinophils 44
bosophils 29