Do you guys dose based on the vial or the COA?

[blueandazure]

Im used to taking 5mg, triz from the white market. I purchased some 30mg vials, but the COA says 33.68mg. Should I use it with the assumption its 30mg or 33.68mg?

 

[Calm Logic]

You could go either way.

There is a lot of margin for error anyway. I used to titrate up 2.5 mg every week on tirz (rather than every four weeks), per my doctor's prescription, but I stopped by 10 mg due to sides.

 

[Zydeceltico]

Im used to taking 5mg, triz from the white market. I purchased some 30mg vials, but the COA says 33.68mg. Should I use it with the assumption its 30mg or 33.68mg?

I came to the grey from compounding last June and had the same question given that there is so much variance in fill reported on a COA.

After realizing that whatever COA I was looking at might have 3 fills reported and they all would be different and they would only be 3 vials of thousands that would all likely be different - -I gave up. LOL

My personal rule of thumb is that, unless a COA shows >15% overfill, I just recon w/ 2ml and divide the intended mg by 4 and call it a day. I very likely have a larger dose than intended but there's so much margin of error that - FOR ME - that's totally acceptable. That said, I apparently have a fairly robust metabolism and I have zero other underlying health considerations.

I start getting OCD with recon amount and dosing when a batch shows consistent UNDERfill in the COAs. That's my quirk. 🙂

 

[BH_LOVER]

I usually go by the label. I also, until recently, have bought from a retailer and their vials ran 22mgs or so for their 20mg Tirz. I'm not dosing at the highest dosage, so I think I will be ok sticking with that practice.

 

[Peotidethrowaway]

Coa usually

 

[Retazempic]

Depends.

Assuming I trust the COA, it depends on the % difference between the nominal mass (i.e., the mg given by the vendor) and the mass on the COA. If the COA mass is within +/- 10% of the nominal mass, I go by the nominal mass. Otherwise, I generally go by the mass in the COA.

I haven’t yet decided what to do when there’s a material difference between the nominal purity and the purity on the COA. I’d be interested to hear how others address situations where a trusted COA indicates purity is sub 98%.

 

[thatkatmat]

It's a good question and one i had before I started really using grey. The problems I found with using the COA's is the fact that most COA's have 2,3 or even 4 test vials, so adding them and dividing by the number of vials sounds good, but really, it's not accurate. The second issue I have is that Finnerick shows you what the vial says, what the COA's say and what the actual amount in the vial is. With my supplier, usually the overfill stated on the COA is less, or considerably less than the COA (sometimes it's over but not often).
I used the COA's amounts to calculate my 1st vial of Tirz after using White label Zep. The effect wasn't anywhere near white label. The next vial I went by Vial amount (in my case 20mg's) and the effect was identical to ZEP...So for me, doing my own research told me to go by the amount that's on the label.
But I would understand the opposite as well.
Cheers and good luck!

 

[FNG33]

A lot of vendor COA'S showing overfill have been shown to be BS based upon 3P testing.

 

[Foggy-Hollow]

COA mg. There’s going to be variances no matter what but the COA will give you an average data point to center on, and it’ll minimize how inexact your dose is that vial/kit.

Some people will dose by feel. IMO it’s better to measure what you can do when things go unexpectedly you can troubleshoot easier.

Edit to add: third party COA.

 

[blueandazure]

A lot of vendor COA'S showing overfill have been shown to be BS based upon 3P testing.

Source? It would be hard to do as I doubt vendors would be getting seperate testing vials from the factory.

 

[Calm Logic]

Most third-party tests I have seen have about 10 percent overfill or so.

 

[Retazempic]

Most third-party tests I have seen have about 10 percent overfill or so.

Carnac sees some link-begging in your future

 

[miss-sanne]

Just the vial, and enjoying some unexpected extra juice !

 

[YoYoFat]

I go by COA and use a larger amount of BAC to reduce huge variations in dose.

 

[woundcarping]

I just go off the vial. COA seem nice, but we have no guarantee that there is actual batching, that those batches are what we received, etc.

So I don't overthink it, just take the vial as a nominal amount, and not titrating up on a new vial could be a solid strategy.

 

[latviantower]

I initially dose by the vial and then adjust by feelz.

We talk a lot about fill variability in the gray world. Does anyone have any degree of confidence that compounding doesn’t present the same degree of variability? Or BP with their name brand stuff? I can’t imagine they would be concerned so long as they stay +/-10%.

 

[Calm Logic]

BTW, an example of things going wrong, titrating up (on an already higher dose) without accounting for overfill:

I was on 8mg. But because that new kit from GYC was 50mg I increased to 10mg the morning before the hiccups started.

After the hiccups started I joined a test group and we sent 3 vials to Jano. All three were around 58mg each. So in reality I took almost 12mg the day before my nightmare began. So maybe going from 8 to 12 caused the issues.

It is always safer anyway to start with a baby dose when trying a new kit, like just in case you get reta instead of tirz.

I initially dose by the vial and then adjust by feelz.

I'm with you on the feelz since I am a stacker, most recently with orfo. But to minimize sides, I split doses of longer-acting tirz or reta.

 

[domiboy]

Stick to vial. My RS has a high tolerance to most every pep. Probably from early raver days. Rarely gets side effects outside of ISR.

 

[Zydeceltico]

Does anyone have any degree of confidence that compounding doesn’t present the same degree of variability? Or BP with their name brand stuff? I can’t imagine they would be concerned so long as they stay +/-10%.

I absolutely believe that compounding is exactly the same variability. In fact, when I first started with compounding I found that my first vial was only about half empty after four 2.5mg starter doses. I asked them about it and never received a reply. LOL....later after finding the grey and how much less expensive it is, I fully believe that some compounders are just getting hella deals on T30 and not caring about waste.

 

[Dos-Dox]

I reconstitute based on average values from the COAs when they’re available. For some peps, I may decide to YOLO it and use the “label” value, but for GLPs, I want to be as accurate as I can be. I don’t love all of the overfills and really don’t love all of the variability between vials that are supposedly from the same batch (for any pep), but in the absence of better information, the COA data is the best I can do.

 

[Ragnar]

I could see it going both ways. If I was using several single vials with different COAs then I would try to adjust each vial to minimize variability. I have three kits of Tirz so I just keep my math simple and assume 30mg instead of values listed on COA.

 

[Grogu]

Just the vial, and enjoying some unexpected extra juice !

I really like extra juice.

 

[Varixdos]

I tend to use the lowest quantity vial from the COA when there's multiple vials tested. Seems to work so far, for me.

 

[meeklady]

It depends how big a difference between the COA and bottle. For example, Reta I received for Nexaph said 24 mgs but COA was around 30- I dosed according to COA for that. Other vendors with a COA that is 1 mg over, I will dose according to the bottle.

 

[IshimaruKenta]

For new people, I highly recommend going based off a COA, then once they're used to it, they can go off the vial.

 

[v2boi]

I started out dosing based on the vial label, mostly because it was simple and that’s how most protocols are written anyway.

Later on I switched to dosing based on the COA mg/ml, thinking it might be more precise, especially when you see small batch-to-batch differences. I ran it that way for a while.

In the end I went back to dosing off the vial label for everyday use. It’s just easier to keep things consistent, avoid constantly recalculating, and track what you’re doing over time. Practically speaking, I didn’t notice any meaningful difference in results between the two approaches 🤷

Just to clarify, I’m mainly talking about peptides like BPC-157, TB-500, and similar ones where dosing protocols already vary quite a bit. For things like GHK-cu or NAD+, where I’ve seen COAs with a huge variance , I’m personally more careful and conservative with dosing.

Not saying there’s a right or wrong way to do it. This is just what I settled on, and I don’t think it makes a big difference as long as you’re in a reasonable range.

 

[Calm Logic]

If you are making labels anyway:

Peptide Reconstitution Calculator

Calculate peptide reconstitution with BAC water and create printable labels with QR and Data Matrix codes

peppinlepew.github.io

 

[Zydeceltico]

I started out dosing based on the vial label, mostly because it was simple and that’s how most protocols are written anyway.

Later on I switched to dosing based on the COA mg/ml, thinking it might be more precise, especially when you see small batch-to-batch differences. I ran it that way for a while.

In the end I went back to dosing off the vial label for everyday use. It’s just easier to keep things consistent, avoid constantly recalculating, and track what you’re doing over time. Practically speaking, I didn’t notice any meaningful difference in results between the two approaches 🤷

Just to clarify, I’m mainly talking about peptides like BPC-157, TB-500, and similar ones where dosing protocols already vary quite a bit. For things like GHK-cu or NAD+, where I’ve seen COAs with a huge variance , I’m personally more careful and conservative with dosing.

Not saying there’s a right or wrong way to do it. This is just what I settled on, and I don’t think it makes a big difference as long as you’re in a reasonable range.

I'm not entirely sure how micro-accurate dosing even needs to be even considering EL's protocol of 2.5, 5, 7.5, etc. given that we ALL accept this as the industry standard for (and here's the catch) ALL users who will range DRAMATICALLY in age, gender, height, weight, etc. - but there's a one-size-fits-all dosing schedule?

Really?

Makes me think that fractions of milligrams on a weekly basis really probably don't matter at all.

Close counts.

 

[IshimaruKenta]

I'm not entirely sure how accurate dosing even needs to be even considering EL's protocol of 2.5, 5, 7.5, etc. given that we ALL accept this as the industry standard for (and here's the catch) ALL users who will range DRAMATICALLY in age, gender, height, weight, etc. - but there's a one-size-fits-all dosing schedule?

Really?

Makes me think that fractions of milligrams on a weekly basis really probably don't matter at all.

Close counts.

I'd say the biggest thing would be what mg vial they're using. If it's a lower 10mg vial, that's probably right at 10 or maybe even 11-12. That's not that big of a deal. But let's say they have a 30 or 60mg vial, that can have much higher overfill, and if they're just starting out, they may have more side effects. Of course everyone is different and everyone will do what they want, I just think it's a good idea for beginners to dose off a COA, then decide after a month or so if they want to keep doing it.

 

[Chopper]

FWIW, I am only a few months in to this, coming from branded Mounjaro. So far, I have dosed based on the coa. If I were to feel as if it was underdosed or something, I would probably revert to the vial mg. I am still @ 5mg Tirz currently and buying T30. IME so far, the gray market stuff has "felt" stronger than the Lily stuff.