Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Types of steroid Testing: What is the best method

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Types of steroid Testing: What is the best method

    We have a question or 2 regarding testing anabolic compounds and which are the best methods. There is a debate or HPLC and MS (Mass Spectrometry) to determine a products quality. I think what people really want to know is the purity of the medicine in the bottle as well as the amount of active ingredient in the bottle. Using the test methods above how can one determine both the purity and amount of the product that is in fact "In the bottle"?

  • #2
    Books like USP, EP, BP pharmacopoeia etc. will guide you in wich testing is the more convenient for each product. The purity and the amount of active ingredients in a bottle can be made in a HPLC but in order to make this test you will have to get a witness (sample of a product) from a qualified institution to authenticate the purity.

    Comment


    • #3
      So what you are saying is that somebody who runs an HPLC test on a single bottle is not an accurate measure of purity alone? How does the qualified Institution authenticate the purity to begin with? What is the process?

      Comment


      • Dr.Erick
        Dr.Erick commented
        Editing a comment
        Hello Walter

        Yes! You can run a test from a single bottle, what Im trying to say is that in order to make a HPLC test in a bottle or in a tablet or any product you will need witness (stand solution) that will be compared with what is in the bottle or any solution and tell you how much similar they are. This will give you the purity. The amoount of active ingredient that is in the botllle or tablet came from a calculation made from the result of the test.

        There are a lot of different company that sales standard solution, but I like tnis one (http://www.usp.org/reference-standards) there you can find what you need to make your test. They warranty the purity of there molecules and this is the institute that work with the FDA

    • #4
      First of all, don't be fooled: Walter White has a much better mastery of this topic than I do. He can interpret the purity charts. I can also read the charts, but it gives me a headache, lol.

      I can tell you for a fact that the debate over HPLC was more political than scientific. That is the most important fact you must understand.

      The next most important fact is that HPLC turned out to be a poor measure. The scientific reasons as to why are complex, and require interpreting the graphs you get from HPLC, and would take a very lengthy post to unpack.

      Here are the non-technical overarching conclusions regarding HPLC. At first it was the be all and end all of testing. Every forum was screaming for HPLC testing. "Lab Max does not mean shit you scammer, use HPCL." The loudest voice came from a forum where a member claimed that he was a medical doctor. I offered him some oil to be tested and he started to back peddle. Turns out he had no access to HPLC testing, he was just running around saying that "your stuff is bunk, if I tested it everyone would see the black and white proof."

      The reason why this guy ran his mouth was more economic/political: He wanted to keep competition out. He and other members were moving gear and wanted to maintain a monopoly. That is why I claim that the debate over HPLC was political.

      Another very important point: HPLC testing requires a lot of resources. Basically the only way I know to get HPLC is through a major lab. Usually a University lab with advanced capabilities.

      The trick is to find a hook up. Usually that means a grad student who has access to the lab. I eventually got hooked up with such a grad student. We ran HPLC on testosterone propionate. testosterone enanthate, trenbolone enanthate, and some Chinese generic GH. The results were not consistent with other forms of testing I use. Keep in mind that your typical ugl produced oils cores in the 50 percentiles. Pharm gear is usually low 90's.

      The test prop came in at 54%. I had total test (ng/dl) labs done on this prop, and it came out stronger than its advertised. The prop also had very little pip. That did not jive with the low HPLC score. Next, the test enanthate come in at the upper 70's, the tren in mid seventies and the Chinese GH over 90%. To test the test e I did simple blood work. I was prescribed Watson test 200. I got labs on the Watson and the were 1300 ng/dl. Using the same amount of ugl test e 250 (1.5 cc/week) I scored 1500 ng/dl. The UGL 250 was stronger than the 200 mg Watson I bought from the pharmacy (for $80 I might add).

      Finally, I could not reconcile the Chinese GH scoring over 90% pure. This was your typical Chinese GH. Based upon my IGF-1 scores, it was about 7 ius/bottle (not 10 as advertised). It also left red welts.

      The point is that the HPLC findings did not match reality or live up to the hype.
      Last edited by BanePhD; 05-14-2016, 07:01 PM.

      Comment


      • #5
        So the majority of HPLC tests come back in the 70s but they do not correspond to the blood work. This gets confusing for even myself. Also, Dr Erick performed HPLC tests on similar raw materials and produced results in the 90s. I will try to post some here and maybe we can get him to comment on how they came up with the numbers in the first place.

        Comment


        • Dr.Erick
          Dr.Erick commented
          Editing a comment
          When you say that they didn't correspound what do you mean? I think I have a answer for that but a need more details so we can be in the same page.

      • #6
        What Mr. Bane was trying to say is that many HPCL tests come back in ranges of 50% to about 70%. I am giving you the purity ranges from other Boards claiming that they have connections to test purity. He is also stating by fact that real Pharmaceutical Grade medicine proclaims in the 90th percentile of purity. So the discrepancy is when Bane injects a UGL(Underground Version of the drug) and then does a blood test he gets a reading that is even higher than that of the Pharmaceutical Brand. So, to me purity can mean less contaminants but has nothing to do with the strength of the medicine. Lets take into account that both companies used the same amount of active ingredient when compounding the steroid. I think we need clarity as to what purity really means because if in fact it is 70% people thing it would be 70mg/100mg and that is not the case referencing blood tests. Not to mention Dr. Erik, i know you personally tested HPLC on at least 6 compounds and in 5 of the cases you tested in the 90s for purity. I believe one time there was a test in the 70's. Maybe you can explain more on what purity means and talk comment about some of our findings considering the blood tests show as good if not better than Pharmaceutical quality.

        Comment


        • Dr.Erick
          Dr.Erick commented
          Editing a comment
          You are right Walter when you say that purity come with less contamination, but the strenght came from that purity and it aditives and combinations . Purity means when the molecule is in it more virgin state, but depending on the way you us it it will work beacuse as you know all this molecules came with it aditives. As you say purity standards in most of the case will be 90% or higher. About the blood test, I have a question to clarify myself before giving answer. When Mr. Bane used the pharmaceutical quality medicine doses the blood test drop a result less than the it was suppose to or is was equivalent?

        • WalterWhite
          WalterWhite commented
          Editing a comment
          Dr. Erick, what Bane is trying to say is that he has tried Pharma Grade Test which would test in the 90s percentile and tested lower on his testosterone blood tests while the UGL (Underground Lab) testosterone that had an HPCL of close to 60% tested lower on the blood tests even injecting the same dosage. So, I think the misconception in the testing industry or the confusion is even though you have a low HPLC it can still test very good on blood tests. We want to find out the reason for this. The answer would really come down to what the HPLC really means? I think you have tested HPLC on UGLs and that have also tested very well. Look at how everybody starts. You start with the raw material. Then you can test the HPLC. Then you can compound it into an injectable product and measure the dosage for accuracy. Based on that dosage we do blood testing to see in fact how much test levels we have. So, what is really the definition of purity? What we believe is if there is 2 grams of testosterone raw material then it is really 2,000mg of active ingredient even if the purity is testing at 60%. Is this a possibility? Or if you get an HPLC of 60% then there is only 60% of active substance present? Read this slow.

      • #7
        Originally posted by WalterWhite View Post
        What Mr. Bane was trying to say is that many HPCL tests come back in ranges of 50% to about 70%. I am giving you the purity ranges from other Boards claiming that they have connections to test purity. He is also stating by fact that real Pharmaceutical Grade medicine proclaims in the 90th percentile of purity. So the discrepancy is when Bane injects a UGL(Underground Version of the drug) and then does a blood test he gets a reading that is even higher than that of the Pharmaceutical Brand. So, to me purity can mean less contaminants but has nothing to do with the strength of the medicine. Lets take into account that both companies used the same amount of active ingredient when compounding the steroid. I think we need clarity as to what purity really means because if in fact it is 70% people thing it would be 70mg/100mg and that is not the case referencing blood tests. Not to mention Dr. Erik, i know you personally tested HPLC on at least 6 compounds and in 5 of the cases you tested in the 90s for purity. I believe one time there was a test in the 70's. Maybe you can explain more on what purity means and talk comment about some of our findings considering the blood tests show as good if not better than Pharmaceutical quality.
        Actually, according to the head HPLC guy over at Eroids, most ugl's score in the 50 percentiles. Eroids is not a scammer board (IE I trust their testing guy) but if you bought gear from one of their top 10 sources the average purity would be around 50%. Gear in the 70's a bit cleaner than most. And correct, purity and potency are two completely separate measures. The test prop I used was very strong, a bit stronger than 100 mg per ml. Its HPLC score was in the 50's.
        Last edited by BanePhD; 05-23-2016, 05:05 PM.

        Comment

        Working...
        X