Total, free, SHBG - endogenous

[RickB]

Results after 3.5 months off T. For me, symptoms wise, Vermeulen's 8.3 is a lot more accurate than Tru-T's 14.7. Just as importantly, Vermeulen matches the Roche calculation done here (83 pg/mL = 8.3 ng/dL), and from prior results, Vermeulen also matches up with LabCorp's free T direct.

Even though that free direct assay has been branded "piss poor" by some (or at least by one), the fact that it has always matched my symptoms and matches Vermeulen as well as Roche, convinces me that it is accurate.

The one time I did ultrafiltration, the result was in line with TruT. Therefore I am likewise convinced that ultrafiltration and TruT are inaccurate.

 

[tareload]

Results after 3.5 months off T. For me, symptoms wise, Vermeulen's 8.3 is a lot more accurate than Tru-T's 14.7. Just as importantly, Vermeulen matches the Roche calculation done here (83 pg/mL = 8.3 ng/dL), and from prior results, Vermeulen also matches up with LabCorp's free T direct.

Even though that free direct assay has been branded "piss poor" by some (or at least by one), the fact that it has always matched my symptoms and matches Vermeulen as well as Roche, convinces me that it is accurate.

The one time I did ultrafiltration, the result was in line with TruT. Therefore I am likewise convinced that ultrafiltration and TruT are inaccurate.

Congrats on the recovery!

 

[RickB]

Congrats on the recovery!

Thanks but I'm going back on, LOL. I intend to make it a lifetime thing this time. It seems I have just lost all my ability to work out in my natural state. Through December I worked up little by little, babystepping myself up in reps, sets and weights, but I got nowhere.

 

[madman]

Results after 3.5 months off T. For me, symptoms wise, Vermeulen's 8.3 is a lot more accurate than Tru-T's 14.7. Just as importantly, Vermeulen matches the Roche calculation done here (83 pg/mL = 8.3 ng/dL), and from prior results, Vermeulen also matches up with LabCorp's free T direct.

Even though that free direct assay has been branded "piss poor" by some (or at least by one), the fact that it has always matched my symptoms and matches Vermeulen as well as Roche, convinces me that it is accurate.

The one time I did ultrafiltration, the result was in line with TruT. Therefore I am likewise convinced that ultrafiltration and TruT are inaccurate.

Hate to burst your bubble but a FT 14.7 nmol/L using the cFTZ would be considered low (16-31ng/dL).

Still caught up on that weak-ass direct immunoassay I see.

That's just what it is piss poor!

No one in the know is recommending its use and why people are still using/relying upon such is beyond me.

Again for the last f**king time if you want to know let alone claim where your FT truly sits then you would need to have it tested using the most accurate assays such as the gold standard Equilibrium Dialysis or Ultrafiltration, especially in cases of altered SHBG.

You are well aware but continue to play stupid.

Keep at it champ!

One of the highlights from a recent lecture!

*Results from the American College of Pathologists Proficiency Testing Survey CAP Y-B, 2021

*Total number of 34 laboratories with 5 different platforms participated:

*1-4: 4 commercial IA manufacturers; 5: Mass spectrometry -based-assay




Proficiency Testing survey (2021)

Here is the graph showing the data from the recent CAP survey on one sample. There are 34 laboratory participants and they are grouped by the different assay platforms used. There are four different immunoassay platforms and the mass spec is grouped into one category.

So we demonstrated the results for the report from CAP the measured free testosterone concentration at medium, lowest, and highest levels, and the mean with 3 standard deviations if the peer group has sufficient participants.

So you can see very clearly that is kind of consistent with this finding there is a big difference between the mass spec generated levels versus immunoassay results.

Here we see up to a tenfold difference with the mass spec results much higher and within the immunoassay group which you can also see on the right side so also the obvious variability is observed among the groups and also within the group.

So for one survey even with this limitation with the sample commutabilities and also it is not an accuracy-based survey but this data still clearly indicate the high variability across methods.

 

[RickB]

Hate to burst your bubble but a FT 14.7 nmol/L using the cFTZ would be considered low (16-31ng/dL).

Then we have no dispute. The numbers only matter in correlation to the range. And if you're telling me I'm low (while Roche says no), then I agree with you.

When we were always discussing LabCorp direct vs equilibrium it was always the opposite. In fact when I finally took the equilibrium, it told me I was high when LabCorp was telling me normal.

Well, anyway, I agree with you about this here now.

 

[madman]

Results after 3.5 months off T. For me, symptoms wise, Vermeulen's 8.3 is a lot more accurate than Tru-T's 14.7. Just as importantly, Vermeulen matches the Roche calculation done here (83 pg/mL = 8.3 ng/dL), and from prior results, Vermeulen also matches up with LabCorp's free T direct.

Even though that free direct assay has been branded "piss poor" by some (or at least by one), the fact that it has always matched my symptoms and matches Vermeulen as well as Roche, convinces me that it is accurate.

The one time I did ultrafiltration, the result was in line with TruT. Therefore I am likewise convinced that ultrafiltration and TruT are inaccurate.

This is where TruT stands as of now.

TruTTM (v2.0) algorithm.....patiently waiting!


post #7

what is the 2 % of Total Test

I'm understanding that let SHBG alone, free testosterone should be 2% of total, how do we calculate that? let's say Total Test is 800 ng/dl and FT is in pg/ml? 800 x 0,02 = 16?

www.excelmale.com

 

[madman]

Results after 3.5 months off T. For me, symptoms wise, Vermeulen's 8.3 is a lot more accurate than Tru-T's 14.7. Just as importantly, Vermeulen matches the Roche calculation done here (83 pg/mL = 8.3 ng/dL), and from prior results, Vermeulen also matches up with LabCorp's free T direct.

Even though that free direct assay has been branded "piss poor" by some (or at least by one), the fact that it has always matched my symptoms and matches Vermeulen as well as Roche, convinces me that it is accurate.

The one time I did ultrafiltration, the result was in line with TruT. Therefore I am likewise convinced that ultrafiltration and TruT are inaccurate.

As I have stated in previous threads the CDC is working hard behind the scenes on harmonized/standardization of free testosterone.

Until this happens it is critical when comparing labs whether TT, FT, or estradiol that you need to use the same lab and the same assays (most accurate), TT/estradiol (LC/MS-MS) and FT (Equilibrium Dialysis or Ultrafiltration).

No one should be using/relying upon the known to be inaccurate FT direct immunoassay!

 

[Systemlord]

No one should be using/relying upon the known to be inaccurate FT direct immunoassay!

This is the endocrine societies position as well!