Anyone actually use bloodwork to dial in a cycle test dose?

[McPriimate]

Been wondering about this one. Getting bw done is key to monitoring for sides (E2, prolactin, progesterone, cbc, lipids - all the stuff that we can screw up from a health standpoint), and hopefully we all do what's needed there.

But I don't recall reading anyone targeting a particular total test or free test dose for a cycle based on bloodwork. More, "I did this much before, so I'll repeat it or do 1.2x what I did last time, or same but add another compound" kind of thing. Curious because at least with testosterone (unlike lots of others) we have the means and usually even the data (most guys I know get their testosterone levels as part of their monitoring bw) to target at least a specific range - yet we often just pick the dose and then the test level is a curiosity more than meaningful test result.

For the free test, it gets even more interesting to me. Lots of other compounds can affect SHBG and thereby free test, so one could even manage that part of the other compounds if they had a target in mind for free test.

I get that other things can affect your total test level and free test, but I'm pretty consistently between 6-7 times my mg dose in total blood level (200mg gets blood level of 1300, 500 gets me around 3500, etc.) and free from 1.4x to 2.2x the test dose in mg, largely depending on whether I'm running a DHT based compound and how much it drops my SHBG. That's a broad enough range of free to at least think about changing doses (for 525 it would be from 735 to 1155)

In the end, it's just easier to pick doses that you think will work and send it! But wondering if anyone is more intentional about test levels and changing dosing based on bloodwork over a cycle.

I haven't, yet anyway, as it's fun to think about, but I know about where I'll end up and that's working for me. But anyone else done it?

Thoughts?

McP

 

[dcdogz]

i stick to the same brands/vendors that have done me well and it seems to always be right where I want it most of the time.
only recently did my bloodwork come out a little bit different (wicked higher) but Im also at the leanest ive ever been so i imagine my sensitivity (already a hyper responder) went through the roof.
my e2 is way more consistent with test e then c ive found.

but at the same time i have high test levels and high free test levels with small dosages so I dont even pay attention to them as much.

Biggest for me is watching e2. when I use to use test c my e2 was always all over the place, with test e I can guess my e2 based on dosage within a few points.

i dont personally care about the free or total test too much but more so my e2 generally, although I can handle as high as 90 with no sides just a little tears here and there lol.

 

[ruffus]

Seems some pro i have heard from use blood test, dose and results to decide if for example an increase in dose was worth it.

 

[reedcals23]

this is a super interesting way to look at it but i think most of us are just creatures of habit and stick to the "more is better" lizard brain logic lol. i usually just pick a number like 500 or 600 and hope for the best but you’re totally right that free test is the real driver and shbg can swing that number like crazy depending on what orals or dhts you’re throwing in. it would be way more scientific to chase a specific free test number instead of just pinning a random volume of oil and praying the gains follow. i’m kind of like you where i just check the labs to make sure my organs aren't screaming at me and then use the total test number as a badge of honor to show how "overfilled" the gear is lol. it would be cool to see someone actually map out their progress based strictly on keeping free test at a specific ceiling though instead of just blasting and cruising on feel!

 

[Bolan]

Not to dial in Testosterone
But to jot in my journal next to my bloods.... I put what I was running
and the dose.
This way I know WHAT I can run without bad issues.

 

[dcdogz]

Not to dial in Testosterone
But to jot in my journal next to my bloods.... I put what I was running
and the dose.
This way I know WHAT I can run without bad issues.

yea I feel like the total levels dont matter too much and too many factors going into play to try to hit a number.
blood work is just a small snap shot of where your levels are at, at that current time. they obviously fluctuate, as long as its within reason of what you dose your fine.
200 test should get you in the realm of 900 to 1600 depending on age sensitivity or whatever. if its under that its probably fake/underdosed really.

and by keeping notes of what you ran, regardless of test levels, you know sideffect wise, bloodwork wise, and mental health wise you can run it again without having to pony up the bones for more bloodwork if it was fairly reasonable cycle.

 

[Meetketchup]

Of course you do. Aside from normal health reasons this is the next reason to get blood work when cycling. To know your body enough to find out what compounds work and what dosages keep your bloods at the safest place possible. Anyone getting bloods and not doing this makes me question what the hell you’re doing?

 

[McPriimate]

Of course you do. Aside from normal health reasons this is the next reason to get blood work when cycling. To know your body enough to find out what compounds work and what dosages keep your bloods at the safest place possible. Anyone getting bloods and not doing this makes me question what the hell you’re doing?

In general, sure - I think most people do use bloodwork to make sure they’re in a healthy range on general markers and not out of range on the ones causing sides. But to target a specific free test level or even a total test level isn’t something I’ve heard many people say they do.

When asked what their cycle is, most people just give a dosage (unlike the things that cause sides - E2, prolactin, etc. where people refer to blood levels), not a blood level

Curious - do you target total and free test levels for your athletes and dial a dose in to that, or start with a dose and see how the progress is with the bloodwork just as a confirmatory/watch out indicator? What kind of targets do you have for total and free test, and how do they vary by athlete? Super cool if you’re doing this, as I haven’t really seen anyone else doing it and am very curious about how you think about blood levels, having seen so many and correlated them with progress (or problems lol)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Captain_Furious]

Good question. My coach dialed uo my AI to 1mg per week from .5mg based on E2 being out of range. While I didn't "feel" like anything was wrong, he could tell based on how I was holding water. So, at the very least, basing it for E2 control (or prolactin for othe compounds) makes a lot of sense. As far as test ceiling levels go, that hasn't been my experience as of yet. But then again, I'm mot on cycle yet, just trt. I just do what ol' coach tells me to do

 

[FearsomeCOR]

I base my all doses off my progress, goals, and health markers.

As for the test levels/free test, no I don’t give much thought to it. I personally don’t even check it much anymore. At the end of the day in mind it’s pretty irrelevant (beyond making sure gear is legit if you’d like to do that) because it’s not like I’m ultimately going to change anything due to where it is anyways. There’s so many different things that impact response to testosterone anyways that just total T and free T aren’t going to be able to tell us the full story of how response will be to the drug itself. Person A and person B could have the exact same test levels and they both could respond completely differently. Hell, peeps on A could have lower levels than person B but respond better in a bodybuilding sense. I think chasing specific numbers rather than just assessing the doses you need by assessing how it’s working for you in the real world would be a lot of effort for likely not a lot of payoff and possibly wasted time. At the end of the day, if you want to grow more… you take more. And if you’re pleased with your rate of progression, then you wouldn’t need to change anything regardless of where levels lie.

TLDR; my opinion is don’t chase numbers, chase results

 

[McPriimate]

I base my all doses off my progress, goals, and health markers.

As for the test levels/free test, no I don’t give much thought to it. I personally don’t even check it much anymore. At the end of the day in mind it’s pretty irrelevant (beyond making sure gear is legit if you’d like to do that) because it’s not like I’m ultimately going to change anything due to where it is anyways. There’s so many different things that impact response to testosterone anyways that just total T and free T aren’t going to be able to tell us the full story of how response will be to the drug itself. Person A and person B could have the exact same test levels and they both could respond completely differently. Hell, peeps on A could have lower levels than person B but respond better in a bodybuilding sense. I think chasing specific numbers rather than just assessing the doses you need by assessing how it’s working for you in the real world would be a lot of effort for likely not a lot of payoff and possibly wasted time. At the end of the day, if you want to grow more… you take more. And if you’re pleased with your rate of progression, then you wouldn’t need to change anything regardless of where levels lie.

TLDR; my opinion is don’t chase numbers, chase results

It does seem that most replacement doses are very roughly 100 to maaaaybe 200mg/wk, and then anything beyond that is in the “plus” to cycle territory. Feel like a lot of folks dial in their response to test (including e2 and cbc, lipids, etc) in that early phase with perhaps more, and more complete, testing or so it seems. Then once you understand that, as you say more gets more and you just kind of go from there.

I’m in that boat for sure. Currently adding a compound here or there more than upping test, and looking for response more than test levels. Also thinking about smaller testing panels than the huge ones I typically order, as a lot of it is more curiosity than necessary - at least at higher frequency.

So, might be something that people implicitly do early and then once they get their baselines only look more at sides and progress rather than levels. Would make sense, and maybe is why it doesn’t seem anyone really targets specific t levels, at least once they’re in “cycle territory,” as they already have the heuristics built to manage it


All I know is I’m looking forward to my next cycle. It’ll be the same amount of test and NPP but trying out primo instead of EQ. Fun stuff


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Meetketchup]

When you have all these levels at your disposal, you look at them. Why would you want to know something like total test? I'll give an example. Recently had a guy have 3,000+ test levels off of 350mg-400mg/week. Why is that valuable? Because there is no need to use much higher dosages saving unneeded stress on organs and other things. Works in reverse. If you have a poor responder of someone on 350mg/week then you need to obviously go higher. You can also use levels as an indicator of how what a dose does to things like E2, Prolactin, Cholesterol, etc. Use the data to your advantage. If you don't know much about blood work/levels just make it a point to research, it.

 

[GhostReaper]

Unfortunately..most new guys, Don't get that initial bloodwork Before they do their 1st Cycle..
That's their Baseline..
Gear effects markers..everyone is different, so how much is totally individual.
Hard to establish what's going on without that pre-cycle bloodwork..
Z

 

[Meetketchup]

Unfortunately..most new guys, Don't get that initial bloodwork Before they do their 1st Cycle..
That's their Baseline..
Gear effects markers..everyone is different, so how much is totally individual.
Hard to establish what's going on without that pre-cycle bloodwork..
Z

Quick example of using blood work.

Guy comes to me with a 491 estrogen level. Yes, you read that right. Was on no AI, 10iu of gh and Primo was in his stack. He felt fine, but holding water.

Simply cut back GH and added 12.5mg of aromasin ED and 4 weeks later estrogen was 39.

It's not rocket science. Just reacting to the data.

 

[Jdkx450]

Gear conversations get the most attention, what ratios/ how much this vs that/ best deal hear or there. 1. Gear is the cheapest part of this sport. 2. You use bloodwork and results to determine what the answer to those questions. 3. A weeks worth of food is probably gonna cost more than month of gear so quit getting butthurt over gear going up $5 and buy good quality gear. Quit being cheap and get consistent full bloods and quality food. It’s literally life and death for your future. If you can’t afford that you have no business in this sport unless dying early or fighting health problems for life seems fun

 

[Rot-Iron66]

I thought it was common sense to use blood-work to dial-in everything as best as one can?
"Too many sides and bad markers", adjust. "Estrogen too high", adjust. "Bloods look good but test level not where you want it", adjust...

 

[McPriimate]

Yeah, crazy not to use bloodwork to manage sides.

The original question wasn’t about that - it was if people used bw to target a specific testosterone level.

Totally agree with the e2, prolactin, lipids, cbc, liver, etc markers being important to test for and manage to. Was pondering only the testosterone part, since we usually get t levels as part of a panel and it’s the foundation of most cycles, but not often talked about in terms of blood levels, just doses

Seems consensus is no, for most people, they don’t target a t level by bloodwork, despite testing to avoid/manage sides and getting the t data anyway. And of all the results, it’s the one that probably matters least - if you stop getting results in the gym (all else being dialed in), up goes the dose


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Meetketchup]

Seems consensus is no, for most people, they don’t target a t level by bloodwork, despite testing to avoid/manage sides and getting the t data anyway. And of all the results, it’s the one that probably matters least - if you stop getting results in the gym (all else being dialed in), up goes the dose

I don't understand why it wouldn't be a consideration to monitor high test levels. I'm not saying it should be targeted, but your reach a point of diminishing returns after a certain level. So, to disregard an on-cycle test peak level doesn't make sense. If your levels are way higher than they need to be, you can reduce the weekly dosage to save on gear, money, added sides, etc.

Maybe I'm too anal about but your body is like a car. If you're pushing your engine super hard, wouldn't you want to see the maximum rev level, so you don't unnecessarily redline for long periods when you don't need to? And the less gear you use the easier it is to hold when cruising.

 

[liverpool_96]

Quick example of using blood work.

Guy comes to me with a 491 estrogen level. Yes, you read that right. Was on no AI, 10iu of gh and Primo was in his stack. He felt fine, but holding water.

Simply cut back GH and added 12.5mg of aromasin ED and 4 weeks later estrogen was 39.

It's not rocket science. Just reacting to the data.

if he felt fine, can I ask why an ai was used? is there any issue with water retention if BP is in a good range? my estrogen is and has always been high during my blasts and cruises but I've never used an ai, only nolva to protect against gyno.

I've always felt fine with higher than normal estrogen and was of the opinion there was nothing to worry about from research.

 

[Meetketchup]

if he felt fine, can I ask why an ai was used? is there any issue with water retention if BP is in a good range? my estrogen is and has always been high during my blasts and cruises but I've never used an ai, only nolva to protect against gyno.

I've always felt fine with higher than normal estrogen and was of the opinion there was nothing to worry about from research.

His estrogen was almost 500. That high of a level was affecting a ton of his markers. It was crushing his Test levels, IGF-Levels, T3, water retention/edema, which is extremely dangerous for your organs, LDL/HDL was skewed, shall I go on? That one fix of adding an AI positively affected all of the aforementioned values.

Feeling fine is not an indicator that your insides aren't all f'd up. You could be on a ton of orals and feel fine. Meanwhile your liver/kidney values are through the roof.

If you like a slightly higher E2 and it works for you, that's cool. Just answering your question.

 

[liverpool_96]

His estrogen was almost 500. That high of a level was affecting a ton of his markers. It was crushing his Test levels, IGF-Levels, T3, water retention/edema, which is extremely dangerous for your organs, LDL/HDL was skewed, shall I go on? That one fix of adding an AI positively affected all of the aforementioned values.

Feeling fine is not an indicator that your insides aren't all f'd up. You could be on a ton of orals and feel fine. Meanwhile your liver/kidney values are through the roof.

If you like a slightly higher E2 and it works for you, that's cool. Just answering your question.

no I'm glad you did answer, I'm here to learn after all.

 

[McPriimate]

I don't understand why it wouldn't be a consideration to monitor high test levels. I'm not saying it should be targeted, but your reach a point of diminishing returns after a certain level. So, to disregard an on-cycle test peak level doesn't make sense. If your levels are way higher than they need to be, you can reduce the weekly dosage to save on gear, money, added sides, etc.

Maybe I'm too anal about but your body is like a car. If you're pushing your engine super hard, wouldn't you want to see the maximum rev level, so you don't unnecessarily redline for long periods when you don't need to? And the less gear you use the easier it is to hold when cruising.

I think we’re talking past each other a bit, as I believe we’re close to the same page here. I didn’t suggest at any point not monitoring for sides - quite the opposite, and I agree with you there. As for test, I wasn’t/am not suggesting an approach so much as I’m just saying what most responses have been and what seems the typical approach. Again, not suggesting people shouldn’t use test levels as part of how they manage health.

I think what happens with many people is that they get a sense of how they respond and then wing it from there. As in, I know I typically get 6-7x my mg dose in test blood level, so I don’t see the need for anything north of 500 (and prolly gonna stick closer to 350-400 my next push). But that’s a general rule of thumb for me and I still look to make sure it stays in the expected range

Honestly not sure if next push at 350 if I’m a touch higher or lower than expected that I’d change anything based on that (unless it’s like zero and bunk gear, but I’m a Marathon customer so that won’t happen!). But getting to know how I typically respond? That was 100% from testing like every 4-6 weeks on lots of combinations. Now I still watch test levels, but I get where people don’t follow as closely as they get more experience I guess

I’m a data guy and a lab guy, so I have crazy bloodwork and all in excel and annotated to performance and even (gasp) the feelz at different doses/combos. Was mostly asking the question initially because it didn’t seem like many explicitly used t levels to target intra-cycle and wondered why not…

I get and agree with your point - total gives you the “enough is enough” info, which is valuable (and I completely agree on all the non-testosterone testing)

Appreciate the dialogue


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk