delivery debate

[Par Deus]

In case everyone is unaware, with typical transdermal delivery, drugs that penetrate the skin barrier and traverse the epidermis and dermis are rapidly taken up by the dermal microvasculature, where they are delivered systemically (just like with orals) -- this is very well characterized in the literature (1,2,3) -- with direct tissue penetration being limited to 1-4 mm, which obviously is not exactly deep into the adipose tissue.

Let me repeat, if nothing is done to bypass the dermal microvasculature, our drug enters systemic circulation before it ever reaches the adipose tissue.

And, considering that Yohimbine HCl has good oral bioavailability, if the dermal microvasculature is not taken into account, we end up with a product that not only does not localize delivery, it does not even deliver it systemically as efficiently as an oral would do. Considering these products cost far more than there oral counterparts, and could also be thought of as inconvenient in that you have to rub them on your body, wait for them to dry, etc., any supplement developer who does not take dermal uptake into account has obviously missed the boat quite badly.

And, guess what... there is only one substance I have seen in the literature that facilitates this. And, guess what else... Yohimburn's formulation does not employ it.


References:

1. Roberts MS. Targeted drug delivery to the skin and deeper tissues: role of physiology, solute structure and disease.Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 1997 Nov;24(11):874-9

2. Singh P, Roberts MS. Skin permeability and local tissue concentrations of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs after topical application. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1994 Jan;268(1):144-51

3. Singh P, Roberts MS Dermal and underlying tissue pharmacokinetics of lidocaine after topical application..J Pharm Sci 1994 Jun;83(6):774-82

 

[Buld0g]

In case everyone is unaware (and they seem to be), with typical transdermal delivery, drugs that penetrate the skin barrier and traverse the epidermis and dermis are rapidly taken up by the dermal microvasculature, where they are delivered systemically (just like with orals) -- this is very well characterized in the literature (1,2,3) -- with direct tissue penetration being limited to 1-4 mm, which obviously is not exactly deep into the adipose tissue.

Let me repeat, if nothing is done to bypass the dermal microvasculature, our drug enters systemic circulation before it ever reaches the adipose tissue.

And, considering that Yohimbine HCl has good oral bioavailability, if the dermal microvasculature is not taken into account, we end up with a product that not only does not localize delivery, it does not even deliver it systemically as efficiently as an oral would do. Considering these products cost far more than there oral counterparts, and could also be thought of as inconvenient in that you have to rub them on your body, wait for them to dry, etc., any supplement developer who does not take dermal uptake into account has obviously missed the boat quite badly. And, guess what... there is only one substance I have seen in the literature that facilitates this. And, guess what else... Yohimburn does employ it.

As long as we are posting links to commercial sites, here is one that does. BTW, it has 6 grams of Yohimbine HCl per bottle (vs. 3.1 grams) and only costs about 15% more.

WOW ... don't know what to say bro. All I can say is that I'm no scientist, and I never could explain the science of how this shit works. But, what I can explain is that it does work. Maybe I am seriously delusional and am experiencing some serious placebo effects, but I really don't think so. I think that it really trimmed a little off my gut. Maybe it was because I dieted, but I've dieted before and never saw my lower abs. Well, I'm real curious to see what macro is gonna say now. I mean this guy even busted out a reference.

 

[nikolai_bolkov]

And, guess what... there is only one substance I have seen in the literature that facilitates this. And, guess what else... Yohimburn does employ it.

So what you are saying is that Yohimburn DOES take into account the dermal microvasculature and effectively is able to reach the adipose tissue? This is an argumenr FOR right, not against? I'm confused...

 

[bigrand]

Do we have a reply to Par Deus?

 

[macrophage69alpha]

1. yohimbine hcl oral bio-availability varies from 5% to 85%

2. The experiment that Par Deus refers to does not use yohimbine hcl, nor is the "so called" special localized delivery agent mentioned.. he is trying to protect his secret

3. 6 grams of CHINESE yohimbine(oh, par deus forgot to mention that the yohimbine used is chinese) costs about half what you pay for AMERICAN USP24 NF19...

4. Lipoderm contains isopropyl alcohol which is EXTREMELY systemically toxic.. so it must be a good idea to mix this toxic alcohol with carriers and penetration enhancers. yeah right...

5. ANECDOTAL evidence shows that the yohimburn combination works and works WELL...

MORE TO COME

 

[macrophage69alpha]

Oh and thats 23% more

 

[Par Deus]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. yohimbine hcl oral bio-availability varies from 5% to 85%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


And, averages about 22%, with less interindividual variation in another study. Even the 5% number is probably more than what you would get from Yohimburn and any others except our product and Lipoburn, as hydrophilic compounds are not ideal for transdermal/percutaneous delivery. I would be quite happy to find that ours got 10%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The experiment that Par Deus refers to does not use yohimbine hcl, nor is the "so called" special localized delivery agent mentioned.. he is trying to protect his secret
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, there are three studies with the delivery vehicle in question. Yes, I do not specifically mention the delivery vehicle on the website, in order to make intellectual thieves at least do a bit of work, but it is on the label and could likely be determined with a little creative use of MedLine based on the information about the studies.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 grams of CHINESE yohimbine(oh, par deus forgot to mention that the yohimbine used is chinese) costs about half what you pay for AMERICAN USP24 NF19...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, it is from India, smart guy. It also assays at 99+%, so who cares where it is from, unless you are racist or really into buying American.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lipoderm contains isopropyl alcohol which is EXTREMELY systemically toxic.. so it must be a good idea to mix this toxic alcohol with carriers and penetration enhancers. yeah right...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

You crack me up. You are aware that isopropyl alcohol is used in hospital settings for the specific purpose of rubbing on skin, right?? It evaporates almost immediately -- it is not systemically absorbed. You really know very little about the subject you are trying to argue.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANECDOTAL evidence shows that the yohimburn combination works and works WELL...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not deny that yohimbine hcl is an effective fat burner. I prefer it to EC for this purpose. My point is that Yohimburn is not any better than an oral -- just much more expensive.

 

[Par Deus]

So what you are saying is that Yohimburn DOES take into account the dermal microvasculature and effectively is able to reach the adipose tissue?

Typo, my bad. I am saying it DOES NOT.

 

[Par Deus]

Dude, the site says the beta is sold out and the final product will be for sale in JULY 8. That was over 3 months ago since the website was last updated.

Why are you advertising (or arguing for) a product that is not even available?

It was updated about 5 months ago. Hit "refresh" on your browser

 

[macrophage69alpha]

[B-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lipoderm contains isopropyl alcohol which is EXTREMELY systemically toxic.. so it must be a good idea to mix this toxic alcohol with carriers and penetration enhancers. yeah right...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

You crack me up. You are aware that isopropyl alcohol is used in hospital settings for the specific purpose of rubbing on skin, right?? It evaporates almost immediately -- it is not systemically absorbed. You really know very little about the subject you are trying to argue.

[/B]

Well actually, it is sytemically absorbed and due to the fact that you have gelled it- it will not quickly evaporate off of the skin, not to mention the fact that penetration enhancers and carriers that you use MAY ( will not say for certain) increase that absorbtion.

ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL IS UNECESSARY, But it is cheap.

The study below is a excess case, but it does point out that topical use WITHOUT PENETRATION ENHANCER NOR CARRIERS- not to mention the gelling of the alcohol did result in systemic uptake causing neurological and cardiac problems



Topical absorption of isopropyl alcohol induced cardiac and neurologic deficits in an adult female with intact skin.

Leeper SC, Almatari AL, Ingram JD, Ferslew KE.

Department of Internal Medicine, James H Quillen College of Medicine, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City 37614-0622, USA.

Topical exposure to isopropyl alcohol has been reported in the literature to be toxic if sufficient isopropyl alcohol is absorbed (1-5). A clinical case is reported where a 48-y-old female presented with multiple unexplained cardiac and neurological deficits. The woman had developed the deficits over a 6-mo period in which she had been soaking towels with isopropyl alcohol and applying then to her skin overnight to ease arm pain she was experiencing. Cessation of the isopropyl alcohol exposure resolved her deficits within 3 d. A controlled repeat dermal exposure to isopropyl alcohol under clinical observation reproduced the deficits noted with corresponding serum and urine concentrations of isopropyl alcohol and acetone. Cessation of topical isopropyl alcohol exposure lead to subsequent resolution of all toxicities.

 

[DaMan]

It was updated about 5 months ago. Hit "refresh" on your browser

Nope, sorry dude. From the website:

Final version available June 8.

Now taking pre-orders.

Check it out.

 

[macrophage69alpha]

[B-------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 grams of CHINESE yohimbine(oh, par deus forgot to mention that the yohimbine used is chinese) costs about half what you pay for AMERICAN USP24 NF19...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, it is from India, smart guy. It also assays at 99+%, so who cares where it is from, unless you are racist or really into buying American.


[/B]

Sorry, I know that India manufactures a much purer product than china .... I would enjoy seeing an independent HPLC of the yohimbine... ASIA is notorious, at least in the supplement industry, of SUBSTANDARD product.... not that it does not stop people from using it. This is not a rascist comment merely a FACT.



BTW- I dont think that lipoderm is a BAD product, though the inclusion of isopropyl alcohol (for convenience and lower cost of manufacture) is not something that I would choose. However, I also feel that it is INFERIOR to YOHIMBURN both in ingredients and formulation- which in the case of yohimburn was based upon field trials and experimentation- Yes some of the ideas were gleaned from "the almighty literature" but a lot of it was guesswork and trying different combination on the poor victims, I mean volunteers

 

[macrophage69alpha]

YOHIMBINE IS NOT VERY EFFECTIVE FOR FAT LOSS ORALLY.

ALL the studies show this- if you would like I can pull them up.

Par deus... You need to get a grip.. Oral Yohimbine IS NOT more effective than EC- you need to take that nonsense out of here. It is a useful and beneficial ADJUNCT to EC.

DO you even use these products?

 

[Par Deus]

Macro,

EC is a considerably better appetite suppressant, which accounts for probably 90% of the efficacy of such products, thus it is probably more effective, overall for the average Joe, not to mention the interactions of yohimbine and insulin, which you are well aware of -- but its effects on the average Joe tells us nothing about its efficacy in someone with low bodyfat, who is quite capable of controlling calorie intake, and who employs yohimbine in conjunction with a very low carbohydrate diet and moderate aerobic activity. Under these circumstances, I find it preferable to EC for fat loss, particularly in problem areas.

And, yes, of course I have used EC and Yohimbine HCl (orally and topically).

 

[macrophage69alpha]

At already LOW(if normally having gynoid fat pattern) to VERY LOW bodyfat- ORAL YOHIMBINE if taken FREQUENTLY(short half life) may be more effective than EC due to the fact that most of the remaining fat " stubborn fat" would likely be A2 rich. HOWEVER for most MEN, ephedrine and caffiene orally are superior.

With women this is a trickier question... it seems to vary. The Studies, which you put a lot of faith in, show that is better and oral yohimbine of limited value.. but anecdotal evidence makes this seem to vary. Though Importantly, for women... topical yohimbine is, at least from anecdotal evidence, superior.

 

[Par Deus]

Nope, sorry dude. From the website:



Check it out.

Ugh. You are quite correct. I must have re-updated it with the old version of the webpage.

Thank you for pointing this out.

 

[Par Deus]

___________________________________________________
Sorry, I know that India manufactures a much purer product than china .... I would enjoy seeing an independent HPLC of the yohimbine... ASIA is notorious, at least in the supplement industry, of SUBSTANDARD product.... not that it does not stop people from using it. This is not a rascist comment merely a FACT.
____________________________________________________


E-mail me a fax number and I will be happy to fax you one.



_________________________________________________
However, I also feel that it is INFERIOR to YOHIMBURN both in ingredients and formulation
________________________________________________


Pretty much all legitimate science in existence suggests otherwise.

 

[Par Deus]

Topical exposure to isopropyl alcohol has been reported in the literature to be toxic if sufficient isopropyl alcohol is absorbed (1-5). A clinical case is reported where a 48-y-old female presented with multiple unexplained cardiac and neurological deficits. The woman had developed the deficits over a 6-mo period in which she had been soaking towels with isopropyl alcohol and applying then to her skin overnight to ease arm pain she was experiencing. Cessation of the isopropyl alcohol exposure resolved her deficits within 3 d. A controlled repeat dermal exposure to isopropyl alcohol under clinical observation reproduced the deficits noted with corresponding serum and urine concentrations of isopropyl alcohol and acetone. Cessation of topical isopropyl alcohol exposure lead to subsequent resolution of all toxicities.

Macro,

You have to know that a towel soaked with alcohol worn overnight is not at all applicable to what we are talking about -- it will result in a reservoir of alcohol being available to diffuse into the skin for 8 hours. This is compared to alcohol being in contact for less than 1 minute. Not even the same fucking sport.

Also, the use of a gelling agent does not prevent evaporation of the alcohol.

 

[macrophage69alpha]

I would like to point out that your LEGITIMATE Science AND your SECRET PENETRATION ENHANCER did not involve yohimbine hcl and THE PENETRATION of the SECRET ingredient was in MUSCLE TISSUE- meaning that there would be greater SYSTEMIC UPTAKE- However you reccomend VERY HIGH DOSES- doses that if your product gave superior uptake would result in UNPLEASANT SIDE EFFECTS.

BTW- your legitimate science also says that Yohimburn will work. Do you really think that the ingredients were so poorly thought out? You should look at them again and REALIZE that YOU ARE WRONG- what do you think PEPPERMINT OIL is comprised of.. MINTS???

 

[macrophage69alpha]

You are saying that the gelling of the alcohol and the use of Glycerin and your other "SUPER STRONG" penetration enhancers will not increase the uptake of ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL nor will they limit Evaporation... would you like to show me scientifically how thats possible, because from a common sense standpoint...

btw- if you have an independent lab assay- not the one that chemfar sent you.. you are welcome to fax me.

 

[Par Deus]

>The Studies, which you put a lot of faith in...


I put a lot of faith in studies (due to the fact that they control variables and do statistical analysis -- something that does not generally exist for anecdotal evidence) when they are applicable -- I mentioned numerous reasons why they are not in the situation in question.

 

[Par Deus]

_________________________________________________
I would like to point out that your LEGITIMATE Science AND your SECRET PENETRATION ENHANCER did not involve yohimbine hcl
_________________________________________________


This is true, however, I addressed this issue in a concersion with MS on this board the last go around. I will see if i can dig it up, if not I will try to bring myself to go through it again tomorrow.

___________________________________________________
and THE PENETRATION of the SECRET ingredient was in MUSCLE TISSUE- meaning that there would be greater SYSTEMIC UPTAKE-
___________________________________________________


How do you figure?? Versus a control carrier, systemic uptake was specifically noted to be MUCH less when the special delivery vehicle was employed.


__________________________________________________
However you reccomend VERY HIGH DOSES- doses that if your product gave superior uptake would result in UNPLEASANT SIDE EFFECTS.
________________________________________________


It does not give superior uptake, it gives superior delivery. The whole point of the product is that it avoids systemic uptake. What unpleasant side effects do you propose occur as a result of high levels in adipose tissue??


__________________________________________________
BTW- your legitimate science also says that Yohimburn will work. Do you really think that the ingredients were so poorly thought out? You should look at them again and REALIZE that YOU ARE WRONG- what do you think PEPPERMINT OIL is comprised of.. __________________________________________________

The penetration enhancers are decent -- not as good as ours, but adequate.

It is the lack of an appropriate delivery vehicle -- meaning one that facilitates the avoidance of systemic uptake by the dermal microvasculature -- that is its downfall. Don't feel too bad, though, it is not alone in this shortcoming.

 

[Par Deus]

You are saying that the gelling of the alcohol and the use of Glycerin and your other "SUPER STRONG" penetration enhancers will not increase the uptake of ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL nor will they limit Evaporation... would you like to show me scientifically how thats possible, because from a common sense standpoint...

btw- if you have an independent lab assay- not the one that chemfar sent you.. you are welcome to fax me.

With penetration enhancers, there is what is called a "lag-time" -- this is the period of time it takes before they start working. This can take several hours (8 hours is the most I can think of seeing, offhand). In any case, it takes longer than the 30 seconds it takes for a super-thin layer of isopropyl alcohol to evaporate.

I don't know of any data specific data on gelling agents and evaporation, but I know from experience that if you rub an isopropyl alcohol/carbomer gel on your skin, it will evaporate almost immediately. If you (or anyone else) would like to try this for yourself, pick up a bottle of hand-sanitizer from wal-mart.

As for the lab assay -- the one ChemPhar sent me is from an independent lab. They have every batch of everything they get tested at an independent lab, here in the good ol' USA, where quality is job one.

 

[Fonz]

Damn, this is the first time in a while I've seen Macro all
riled up...........

Haven't used Yohimburn yet because I bought
100g of Yoh HCL powder and haven't used it
all yet. Phlojel btw gives better results than
DMSO in as far as lipolytic effetcs from the
transdermally diffussed YoH.

I might get some for my sister, she thinks EPH
will giver her brain damage........(I give up....)
Its amazing how much of an effect the media has
on people.

Fonz

 

[macrophage69alpha]

_
___________________________________________________
and THE PENETRATION of the SECRET ingredient was in MUSCLE TISSUE- meaning that there would be greater SYSTEMIC UPTAKE-
___________________________________________________


How do you figure?? Versus a control carrier, systemic uptake was specifically noted to be MUCH less when the special delivery vehicle was employed.


__________________________________________________
BTW- your legitimate science also says that Yohimburn will work. Do you really think that the ingredients were so poorly thought out? You should look at them again and REALIZE that YOU ARE WRONG- what do you think PEPPERMINT OIL is comprised of.. __________________________________________________

The penetration enhancers are decent -- not as good as ours, but adequate.

It is the lack of an appropriate delivery vehicle -- meaning one that facilitates the avoidance of systemic uptake by the dermal microvasculature -- that is its downfall. Don't feel too bad, though, it is not alone in this shortcoming.

With respect to the tissue concentrations you are comparing YOHIMBINE HCL an A2 antagonist which will certainly increase local muscular blood flow and uptake WITH NSAIDS... ANTI-INFLAMATORIES seems like a POOR comparison.

Btw- I enjoy how you change your tune when you realize your oversight. The penetration enhancers are quite sufficient and effective backed up by both science and anecdotal evidence. A little note- since your targeted vehichle is so superior why are there no patents (other than yours) are you telling me that the scientists did not know what wonders they had discovered... whereas you will find several patents for aloe (actually its polysacharides) for both penetration enhancement and as a local carrier)- they are just patent apps but it makes you wonder.

peace

 

[macrophage69alpha]

PAR DEUS WAS INCORRECT about the penetration enhancers and carriers in yohimburn.

Apparently he could not read the label(amazingly the ingredients are listed on the site) or failed to understand that peppermint oil is 90% L-menthol.

It is as effective if not more so..(IMHO more so).. just ask the people that have used it. The use of the highest quality ingredients and considerations for the caustic nature of penetration enhancers is what led to the formulation of Yohimburn.

It does cost slightly more... AS DO THE INGREDIENTS. Just keep in mind that the more effective the transdermal the more ingredients that pass into your system... with chemicals made in a less industrialized nation.. by products of the chemical manufacture will also be in such a formulation= also passing through the dermal layer..

 

[macrophage69alpha]

With penetration enhancers, there is what is called a "lag-time" -- this is the period of time it takes before they start working. This can take several hours (8 hours is the most I can think of seeing, offhand). In any case, it takes longer than the 30 seconds it takes for a super-thin layer of isopropyl alcohol to evaporate.

I don't know of any data specific data on gelling agents and evaporation, but I know from experience that if you rub an isopropyl alcohol/carbomer gel on your skin, it will evaporate almost immediately. If you (or anyone else) would like to try this for yourself, pick up a bottle of hand-sanitizer from wal-mart.

The amount of isopropyl alcohol in sanitizer is minimal, most of it is ethyl alcohol.. but that is besides the point.. as skin is typically THICK-(btw- I dont reccomend those hand sanitizers either) in hands.

When you rub water or lotion into your skin does it all EVAPORATE- yes some of it, but some of it is also absorbed. I am not saying that absorption WILL be high, Merely that it could be.

The REASON that isopropyl is used, even though it is more toxic than regular alcohol, is due to the fact that a special license is needed to make products with alcohol, whereas no such license is needed for isopropyl.

 

[Par Deus]

With respect to the tissue concentrations you are comparing YOHIMBINE HCL an A2 antagonist which will certainly increase local muscular blood flow and uptake WITH NSAIDS... ANTI-INFLAMATORIES seems like a POOR comparison.

peace

Okay, I see what you were saying now. I certainly think it will increase systemic uptake compared to the studies, but I think it will be fairly insignificant for two reasons 1) the use of a vasoconstrictor did not DECREASE uptake a great deal ( it was quite significant (3-4X)for the first couple of mm, but by 6mm deep, there was no difference -- considering that uptake in these first couple mm is already VERY high (probably 99.9%) without the use of the special carrier, vasodilation in this area probably is not going to make a huge difference -- the blood supply is already very adequate, which bring us to 2) It is only the adipose tissue that has real issues with blood flow, the blood flow to muscle is MUCH higher than you would get in the adipose tissue, even with a vasodilator, and in the study with the special carrier, concentrations were still 1/3 as high in the joint capsule as they were in the muscle, so uptake from the vasculature in the muscle was still far from complete, and it would be significantly less so in the adipose tissue -- even with vasodilation.

 

[Par Deus]

The amount of isopropyl alcohol in sanitizer is minimal, most of it is ethyl alcohol.. but that is besides the point.. as skin is typically THICK-(btw- I dont reccomend those hand sanitizers either) in hands.

When you rub water or lotion into your skin does it all EVAPORATE- yes some of it, but some of it is also absorbed. I am not saying that absorption WILL be high, Merely that it could be.

My point about the satitizers had nothing to do with their safety -- it had to do with the fact that it will evaporate quickly, even with a gelling agent. The thickness of the skin in the hands is irrelevant.

As to absorption, it is quite possible that some hydrogen bonding can occur between water or alcohol and the stratum corneum -- however it will still evaporate before it penetrates beyond that point (one of the main purposes of the skin is as a water barrier).

 

[Par Deus]

Btw- I enjoy how you change your tune when you realize your oversight. The penetration enhancers are quite sufficient and effective backed up by both science and anecdotal evidence. A little note- since your targeted vehichle is so superior why are there no patents (other than yours) are you telling me that the scientists did not know what wonders they had discovered... whereas you will find several patents for aloe (actually its polysacharides) for both penetration enhancement and as a local carrier)- they are just patent apps but it makes you wonder.

peace

I have not changed my tune. I have always maintained that the issue of dermal uptake is the most important thing with topical yohimbine preparations -- this can be confirmed in my article written months ago. And, I still maintain that the penetration enhancer complex in our product is superior -- and, of course, the literature backs me up.

As for patents, there are patents for its use in delivering NSAIDS. Patents have to be pretty specific, thus I expect my use will be found to be novel.

 

[Par Deus]

____________________________________________________
PAR DEUS WAS INCORRECT about the penetration enhancers and carriers in yohimburn.
__________________________________________________


I did not even mention the penetration enhancers in this thread. Nonetheless, I will again state that the penetration enhancement complex in LipoDerm is superior to that of Yohimburn, if the scientific literature is to be believed. As for carriers, the phenomenon of dermal uptake that I have mentioned is well established in the literature -- our carrier addresses this issue, yours does not. In other words, I was and am quite correct.



_________________________________________________
Apparently he could not read the label(amazingly the ingredients are listed on the site) or failed to understand that peppermint oil is 90% L-menthol.
__________________________________________________


See above.



________________________________________________
Just keep in mind that the more effective the transdermal the more ingredients that pass into your system... with chemicals made in a less industrialized nation.. by products of the chemical manufacture will also be in such a formulation= also passing through the dermal layer..
_______________________________________________-


This is so idiotic. India and China can make NUCLEAR WEAPONS -- but they can't make Yohimbine HCl?? Right.

Not to mention that I have an assay from an independent lab that attests to the purity.

 

[macrophage69alpha]

several problems...
one you have not shown that "magic carrier" will carry yohimbine-

It is very odd that no other companies have taken adavantage of this wonder delivery system... especially the manufacturers of NSAIDS- for which the carrier is supposed to work. IF and that is a BIG IF the delivery system works you will get systemic buildup that WILL cause side effects and due to the release pattern- EVENTUALLY ALL YOHIMBINE(that passes through the dermal layer) IS TAKEN UP SYSTEMICALLY- thus you will eventually end up with a high systemic level of yohimbine that will take a considerable amount of time to diminish- given your time table and concentrations.


Targeted delivery is obviously an important goal with respect to NSAIDS and yet there are only these few studies... not replicated and all by the same people....

 

[macrophage69alpha]

Yes they can make nuclear weapons, what does that have to do with the loose regulation of chemical manufacturing practices in ASIA.

The so called "magic carrier" with Magic and Unpresented, thus unreviewed, findings are pretty much UNBELIEVABLE. You post that you have the most amazing targeted delivery chemical. You do not post the name, you do not post the body of the study, you do not show that it will be effective with yohimbine, You do not account for the fact that it is not in USE AMONG NSAID manufacturers- which it should be... BTW- I have heard your FDA argument- it just wont hold.... some other country with looser regulations would have taken advantage of such "wonder tech".

 

[Everlast]

I can not account for Par's stuff. However, I can account for Yohimburn, and all I have to say is IT WORKS!! I don't know how or why it works but it does work! Par if you believe strongly in your product then send me a FREE SAMPLE and I will compare the two.

 

[hamper19]

this post has gotten really good, Im liking the intelligence level I see in here..keep it going..lol

h19

 

[Buld0g]

I don't know how or why it works but it does work! Par if you believe strongly in your product then send me a FREE SAMPLE and I will compare the two.

I second that

 

[hamper19]

bump

bump

 

[Par Deus]

___________________________________________________
several problems...
one you have not shown that "magic carrier" will carry yohimbine-
___________________________________________________


It is true that there is no direct data on it. Howver, that goes for 99.99% of the supplements in existence, including the effective one. There is no direct data on 1-AD, either, but as with our product there is data that strongly suggests it should be effective.

On the other hand, the data strongly suggests that the carrier in Yohimburn would be ineffective.


__________________________________________________
It is very odd that no other companies have taken adavantage of this wonder delivery system... especially the manufacturers of NSAIDS- for which the carrier is supposed to work.
___________________________________________________


It is not at all odd -- there is a patent on it, and it is relatively new -- I think the last study was in 1998. It takes 10-12 years to get something approved by the FDA.



_________________________________________________
IF and that is a BIG IF the delivery system works you will get systemic buildup that WILL cause side effects and due to the release pattern- EVENTUALLY ALL YOHIMBINE(that passes through the dermal layer) IS TAKEN UP SYSTEMICALLY- thus you will eventually end up with a high systemic level of yohimbine that will take a considerable amount of time to diminish- given your time table and concentrations.
_________________________________________________


This is not necessarily so. There is like 90% homology between enzyme activity in the skin and other tissues and in the blood. It is quite likely metabolized to some extent. One of the products of its metabolism, 11-hydroxyyohimbine, is less lipid soluble, thus less likely to cross the blood brain barrier, where alot of thge side effects originate. In addition, there is no reason to think a great deal of it would not be completely metabolized to an inactive compound before reaching systemic circulation, due to its relatively short half-life and the extended period in which the delivery vehicle has been shown to keep distribution of its drug localized.

 

[Par Deus]

several problems...
one you have not shown that "magic carrier" will carry yohimbine-

BTW, I have not used the term "magic" -- this is just Macro's way of trying to discredit a product that he cannot discredit based on science.

 

[Par Deus]

__________________________________________________
Yes they can make nuclear weapons, what does that have to do with the loose regulation of chemical manufacturing practices in ASIA.
___________________________________________________


Independent lab assays (done in America) do, however, and I have stated the results on multiple occassions. This particular argument of yours is really growing silly.



___________________________________________________
The so called "magic carrier" with Magic and Unpresented, thus unreviewed, findings are pretty much UNBELIEVABLE.
________________________________________________



It is not a so-called "magic carrier" by anyone other than yourself -- obviously your attempt to discredit the product by making fun of it rather than actually addressing the science, which of course, you cannot discredit.

The data of importance is on my site, thus it is not "unpresented" -- I suppose you could argue that I completely made it up, but that seem silly given the magnitude of the detail presented. However, I will go ahead and post the references shortly.



_________________________________________________
you do not show that it will be effective with yohimbine,
__________________________________________________


I have shown that it should be. I have also shown that Yohimburn's should NOT.


___________________________________________________
You do not account for the fact that it is not in USE AMONG NSAID manufacturers- which it should be...
__________________________________________________


False. I have done so multiple times.


__________________________________________________
BTW- I have heard your FDA argument- it just wont hold.... some other country with looser regulations would have taken advantage of such "wonder tech".

___________________________________________________


These countries with looser regulations have more important things to worry about, such as even being able to produce basic, oral anti-biotics.

 

[DaMan]

On the other hand, the data strongly suggests that the carrier in Yohimburn would be ineffective.

This argument is none of my business other than that Yohimburn HAS been effective in my case. It just bothers me that you are attempting to dispute ESTABLISHED real-world experience with theories.

Do a search for a post called "Yohimburn results" or the original Yohimbine thread. For something ineffective people seem to be surprisingly satisfied, regardless of what the studies suggest.

If you want to send me a sample of Lipoderm I'd love to give it an objective try and report, but otherwise, from a CONSUMER's point of view - not a scientists - you'd make a better case getting me to buy it by showing me first-hand experiences with LIPODERM. Not its components. And those should be better than YOHIMBURN's, not IT's components.

 

[Par Deus]

Here they are. Three studies, all using different delivery drugs, all with a different lead researcher, and all showing the delivery vehicle to be much more efficacious than control.

Transdermal delivery and accumulation of indomethacin in subcutaneous tissues in rats.

Mikulak SA, Vangsness CT, Nimni ME.

Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles 90033, USA.

Oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective pharmacotherapy for a wide variety of painful, inflammatory disorders. DevelopJ Pharm Pharmacol 1998 Feb;50(2):153-8 Related Articles, Books
ment of an efficient means of topical administration of NSAIDs could increase local soft-tissue and joint concentrations while reducing systemic distribution of the drug, thereby reducing side-effects. With this in mind we studied the effects of a novel topical penetration enhancer for lipophilic compounds, a trans-phase delivery system (TPDS), a solution of benzyl alcohol, isopropanol and acetone, on the distribution of indomethacin in various tissues locally and remote from the site of application. We compared the TPDS with a 50:50 (v/v) mixture of propylene glycol and ethanol, a commonly used penetration enhancer, and with oral administration. We found that the TPDS was significantly superior to the other approaches at achieving high local-tissue concentrations in the vicinity of the site of application. In addition, comparison of these two carrier systems seems to clarify the different aqueous and hydrophobic pathways of drug penetration which emerge from various experimental findings and theoretical considerations. Our results suggest that this non-aqueous solvent system, and benzyl alcohol in particular, because of its unique physicochemical and solvating characteristics, might be able to deliver therapeutic levels of indomethacin to tissues close to the site of application in a safer and more effective manner than presently accepted forms of delivery.

PMID: 9530982 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



J Pharm Pharmacol 1999 Oct;51(10):1135-41 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut


Delivery of erythromycin to subcutaneous tissues in rats by means of a trans-phase delivery system.

Peng L, Nimni ME.

University of Southern California School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Los Angeles 90033, USA.

Topical administration of antibiotics is associated with reduced risk of systemic side-effects and alteration of gut microflora, and results in higher concentrations of antibiotics at the site of application (and so a lower dose of the drug is required). In conditions such as acne vulgaris, infiltration of the antibiotics into the infected subcutaneous layers is highly desirable. A trans-phase delivery system (TPDS), a mixture of benzyl alcohol, acetone and isopropanol, has been shown to enhance the effective transport of the antibiotic erythromycin across the epidermal barrier and enhance accumulation in the dermis. Two formulations containing N-methyl[14C]erythromycin were compared, a TPDS solution and a propylene glycol solution. They were applied to the dorsal areas of 4-6 week old Fischer rats and tissues were removed for analysis of radioactivity after 2, 4, 8, 12 or 24 h and skin was biopsied and sectioned for autoradiography. The erythromycin dissolved in the TPDS solvent mixture penetrated the stratum corneum and a relatively high concentration was maintained in adjacent tissues for up to 24 h. Penetration was very effective and the erythromycin was detected in significant amounts in the underlying muscle, various organs and later in the urine. In contrast the propylene glycol carrier, probably because of its primarily hydrophilic character, caused the erythromycin to traverse tissue barriers rapidly and appear in the urine. Microautoradiographs qualitatively revealed progressive disappearance of radioactivity from the surface; this correlated with results obtained by direct isotope counting. The route of penetration, in addition to following the interkeratinocyte spaces, seemed to include the perimeter of the pilosebaceous glands and their appendages before diffusion into the capillaries. The propylene glycol solution seemed to traverse the epidermis and the papillary and reticular dermis more rapidly, which might explain its rapid appearance in the urine. These data suggest that the different solutions penetrate the skin by different mechanisms.

PMID: 10579684 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


J Pharm Pharmacol 1990 Oct;42(10):729-31 Related Articles, Books


Distribution of griseofulvin in the rat: comparison of the oral and topical route of administration.

Nimni ME, Ertl D, Oakes RA.

University of Southern California School of Medicine, Department of Biochemistry, Orthopaedic Hospital, Los Angeles 90007.

Effective penetration of griseofulvin across the dermal barrier has been achieved using an anhydrous solvent system of benzyl alcohol (10%), acetone (40%), and isopropanol (50%). There were quantitative differences in the relative accumulation of griseofulvin in skin compared with internal organs, when the topical and oral routes of administration were compared. The topical route enhanced localized concentrations of griseofulvin at the site of application, and these persisted for several days. After daily topical application a steady state was reached at day 3, when the diffusion across the skin barrier and epidermal loss seemed to equal the total amount applied to the skin surface. The application of griseofulvin topically, required a much smaller amount of drug to achieve similar integumentary levels compared with the amount required orally.

PMID: 1982148 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

[Everlast]

I agree with what DAMAN said. In the real world yohimburn is working for me.

 

[macrophage69alpha]

___________________________________________________


These countries with looser regulations have more important things to worry about, such as even being able to produce basic, oral anti-biotics.

So you are saying that that countries like INDIA and CHINA, who have looser regulations are having trouble producing oral antibiotics- so they, the most notorius theives of IP, would not take advantage of this Intellectual property???? interesting

dont have time right now but be assured your studies, including some of the INCORRECT analysis that you used in your earlier article will be DEBUNKED.

 

[macrophage69alpha]

3 studies. all by researchers at USC.. the drugs used tend to stay local anyways (at least griseofulvin- will look into the others).. all done by the same head researcher. No conclusive evidence of targeting, as no evidence that other effective carriers would not leave these drugs in virtually the same position.

the three drugs are 2 antibiotics and 1 NSAID.. those are very similar to yohimbine hcl ... reading your "research" and the amazing leaps and conclusions you make is very amusing.

Do you really want to continue? I am more than willing to take apart you argument, mostly because there is not much to it.

 

[DaMan]

3 studies. all by researchers at USC..

U got a problem with Trojans?

 

[macrophage69alpha]

It is really not all that important, since the disassociation of the HCL ion in the solution you have described will render yohimbine unstable and quick to degrade. This is why you can take 400mg twice a day- because of chemical and Likely Photo degradation.

you have created a vehicle that renders the active ingredient essentially INERT.

in other words- the delivery system, that is unproven with yohimbine anyways, makes possible the degradation of the very chemical you seek to deliver.

 

[DaMan]

No problem with USC at all

Then you haven't seen our "football" team play lately.

 

[NubianBeauty]

Macro, I used my YoBurn tonight and my A$@ was on fire for a while!!

 

[NubianBeauty]

This board moves sooo fast, let me just BUMP it right back up

 

[Par Deus]

So you are saying that that countries like INDIA and CHINA, who have looser regulations are having trouble producing oral antibiotics- so they, the most notorius theives of IP, would not take advantage of this Intellectual property???? interesting

What I am saying is I seriously doubt they are going to copy a medicine that is not even on the market yet.

Again, feel free to attack the science, but this argument is spuriuos.

 

[Par Deus]

_________________________________________________-
3 studies. all by researchers at USC.. the drugs used tend to stay local anyways (at least griseofulvin- will look into the others).. all done by the same head researcher.
_________________________________________________-


The head reseacher is listed first. There is a different person listed first in each study.

As to staying local anyways, in the two studies that used a topical control, that is exactly the opposite of what happened.


_________________________________________________
No conclusive evidence of targeting, as no evidence that other effective carriers would not leave these drugs in virtually the same position.
_________________________________________________


Are you retarded?? This is the exact opposite of what was found and what was cloncluded by the researchers. And, this was with another topical preparation as a control.


___________________________________________________
the three drugs are 2 antibiotics and 1 NSAID.. those are very similar to yohimbine hcl ...
__________________________________________________

1 antibiotics, 1 NSAID, and 1 anti-fungal.

No, they are not completely similar to yohimbine, however, I have addressed why their most significant difference would be a non-issue.



_________________________________________________
reading your "research" and the amazing leaps and conclusions you make is very amusing.
__________________________________________________


Feel free to point them out instead of just making statements with no support.


__________________________________________________
Do you really want to continue? I am more than willing to take apart you argument, mostly because there is not much to it.
__________________________________________________-


Please do try. Thus far, you have presented very little challenge, and i am growing bored.

 

[macrophage69alpha]

The head reseacher is listed first. There is a different person listed first in each study.

As to staying local anyways, in the two studies that used a topical control, that is exactly the opposite of what happened.


_________________________________________________
No conclusive evidence of targeting, as no evidence that other effective carriers would not leave these drugs in virtually the same position.
_________________________________________________


Are you retarded?? This is the exact opposite of what was found and what was cloncluded by the researchers. And, this was with another topical preparation as a control.

There is no conclusive evidence of targeting, the reason that the other two "control" groups did not achieve any local concentration is DUE TO THE USE OF A VERY POOR CARRIER-- propylene glycol with VERY LITTLE PENETRATIVE POWER- the other carrier is not mentioned but given the testing parameters used and the poor comparative models..one would guess a similiarly innefficient carrier. The KEY word in my comment is EFFECTIVE- if you intend to argue the effectiveness of solely using propylene glycol be my guest..

You dont happen to have a study that involved anyone other than USC and at LEAST one of the SAME researchers on EVERY model. though the Griseofulvin is pretty much a NON value study, at least with respect to what your claiming.


btw- the whole reason that the "magic" solution is effective, at least with these drugs is that it is a combination of chemicals. ALL the research on transdermals shows that proper combinination is more effective with respect to transdermal delivery. So you found one combination, one that works for chemicals other than yohimbine...

btw- what is yohimbine hcl solubililty in the above solution? being as that unless it is soluble your solution is a waste.. even then that does not guarantee effectiveness

once again- yohimburn is based upon combinations that work in the real world, combinations developed using yohimbine? can you say the same??????????

 

[Par Deus]

I agree with what DAMAN said. In the real world yohimburn is working for me.

And, I assume, you have also used yohimbine orally, in the doses suggested in the literature to be efficacious, along with a similar diet and exercise program??

 

[Everlast]

originally posted by Par Deus

And, I assume, you have also used yohimbine orally, in the doses suggested in the literature to be efficacious, along with a similar diet and exercise program??

No, I have not taken it orally. But, like I said Yohimburn is working for me. What does taking it orally have to do with wether or not Lipoburn is more effective than Yohimburn? Aren't they BOTH topical applications? With that being the case you must now PROVE in real world applications that yours is superior to Yohimburn, and quite frankly, I have not heard anyone say it is as good or even good at all. My offer still stands........send me a FREE SAMPLE and I will determine in a real world setting if it is as good as you say it is.

 

[Par Deus]

This argument is none of my business other than that Yohimburn HAS been effective in my case. It just bothers me that you are attempting to dispute ESTABLISHED real-world experience with theories.

Real world results, without controls and without performance of statistical analysis. Such, real world results have next to zero validity in the face of legitimate data that suggests it would not be any more effective than oral usage.

 

[macrophage69alpha]

Par Deus,

Oral usage is not very effective. you keep claiming that it is. The only study with women showed that it was NOT very effective. Oral use is good as a stimulant(acutally snorting is better)- and unless you are dosing every hr you cannot maintain appreciable blood levels. yohimbe has a half life of about 11min.

Oral yohimbine CAN be effective under the right conditions, THOUGH not by itself- and certainly NOT very effective.(the High density of A2 in some areas(pockets with good blood flow around/near them being perhaps an exception)


btw- oral use benefits are, at least according to the almighty literature related solely to NE increase.(something that I dont entirely agree with- though can see how they came to that conclusion). Oral use is an inneffective delivery for yohimbine, Mostly due to the fact that A2 are located throughout the body and high systemic concentrations are unpleasant for this reason- some thing that is avoided with Yohimburn.

 

[DaMan]

Real world results, without controls and without performance of statistical analysis. Such, real world results have next to zero validity in the face of legitimate data that suggests it would not be any more effective than oral usage.

1. Are you doing a study or trying to sell a product??? Yohimburn works for me and several others - fact. You say it should work poorly - my experience says otherwise, though Im' not sure what you're comparing it to other than Lipoderm. HAVE *YOU* EVER USED YOHIMBURN?

To humor you, btw, I kept my diet and training constant before and during Y use. I did this because the stuff is not cheap and I wanted to find out if it's a waste as soon as possible. The only difference was the caliper measurement around my abs, where I was applying it, which decreased with use.

2. What the fuck does oral usage have to do with this? I, as many others, am trying to SPOT REDUCE. I do not want my legs any skinnier, nor my arms, just my lower back and abs. That is why I'm using TOPICAL Yohimbine and not DNP or clenbuterol or an ECA.

Besides, I thought the argument here was Yohimburn vs. Lipoderm and not Yohimbine HCL vs. nothing.

Honestly dude, I have no idea where you are going with this, if you want people to give Lipoderm a shot give out discounts or free samples or positive anecdotes. I couldn't care less what those studies say since they don't involve Yohimbine which I think we're talking about. If this is just a crusade to prove that Isopropyl is better than L-Menthol then ignore what I said, that's between you and Macro.

 

[NewGuy1980]

Bump = Still want b4/after pics or user testimony!!

 

[macrophage69alpha]

Daman,

could not agree with you more. Unproven and not well correlated theories at that.

 

[Par Deus]

[
No, I have not taken it orally. But, like I said Yohimburn is working for me. What does taking it orally have to do with wether or not Lipoburn is more effective than Yohimburn?

Have you been paying attention to this debate?? If not, then I will mention yet again that it is well-established in the literature, in regards to transdermal delivery, that the active ingredient is taken up by the dermal microsvasculature BEFORE IT EVER REACHES AS DEEP AS THE ADIPOSE TISSUE. I do not understand why I have to keep repeating this. There is only one carrier that has been shown to avoid this. Yohimburn does not use this carrier.

Do you understand what this means?? It means that you will not get local delivery to the spot of application. It will go systemic, then be distributed throughout the body -- JUST LIKE WITH ORAL USAGE.

LipoDerm uses the carrier that has been shown in the literature to avoid dermal uptake.

As to your offer, the people at Anabolic Extreme are doing real world testing on it, with measurements and before and after pics and such. I am familiar with their credibility and knowledge, thus i trust the testing will be done fairly and properly. I have not been on this board long enough to have any idea of these things with the members here.

 

[Par Deus]

___________________________________________________
Oral usage is not very effective. you keep claiming that it is. The only study with women showed that it was NOT very effective.
____________________________________________________


I have given reasons why studies with the average Joe are not all that applicable. In addition, I know there are studies that show it to be effective, because I have seen them. I haven't the time to go digging them up at the moment but I will do so in the next few days.


__________________________________________________-
and unless you are dosing every hr you cannot maintain appreciable blood levels. yohimbe has a half life of about 11min.
____________________________________________________


But, its metabolite, 11-hydroxydopamine, has a half-life of several hours and it has only slightly less affinity for the alpha 2 receptor.


___________________________________________________
Oral yohimbine CAN be effective under the right conditions, THOUGH not by itself- and certainly NOT very effective.
___________________________________________________


This is false.



_________________________________________________
btw- oral use benefits are, at least according to the almighty literature related solely to NE increase.(something that I dont entirely agree with- though can see how they came to that conclusion).
________________________________________________


Again, false. There is specific mention in the literature of the increase in blood flow aiding lipolysis.


___________________________________________________
Oral use is an inneffective delivery for yohimbine, Mostly due to the fact that A2 are located throughout the body and high systemic concentrations are unpleasant for this reason- some thing that is avoided with Yohimburn.
___________________________________________________


You truly are fucking retarded or are purposely trying to mislead people.

LET ME MENTION YET AGAIN that it is well-established in the literature, in regards to transdermal delivery, that the active ingredient is taken up by the dermal microsvasculature BEFORE IT EVER REACHES AS DEEP AS THE ADIPOSE TISSUE. I do not understand why I have to keep repeating this. There is only one carrier that has been shown to avoid this. Yohimburn does not use this carrier.

Do you understand what this means?? It means that you will not get local delivery to the spot of application. It will go systemic, then be distributed throughout the body -- JUST LIKE WITH ORAL USAGE.

 

[Par Deus]

__________________________________________________-
2. What the fuck does oral usage have to do with this? I, as many others, am trying to SPOT REDUCE. I do not want my legs any skinnier, nor my arms, just my lower back and abs. That is why I'm using TOPICAL Yohimbine and not DNP or clenbuterol or an ECA.
__________________________________________________-


Have you been paying attention to this debate?? If not, then I will mention yet again that it is well-established in the literature, in regards to transdermal delivery, that the active ingredient is taken up by the dermal microsvasculature BEFORE IT EVER REACHES AS DEEP AS THE ADIPOSE TISSUE. I do not understand why I have to keep repeating this. There is only one carrier that has been shown to avoid this. Yohimburn does not use this carrier.

Do you understand what this means?? It means that you will not get local delivery to the spot of application. It will go systemic, then be distributed throughout the body -- JUST LIKE WITH ORAL USAGE.


____________________________________________________
Besides, I thought the argument here was Yohimburn vs. Lipoderm and not Yohimbine HCL vs. nothing.
__________________________________________________-

That is the primary debate. The point of yohimbine vs nothing is to point out that Yohimburn would produce some results, despite its poor formulation.

 

[Par Deus]

Daman,

could not agree with you more. Unproven and not well correlated theories at that.

Which you are completely unable to make a dent in.

 

[Par Deus]

There is no conclusive evidence of targeting, the reason that the other two "control" groups did not achieve any local concentration is DUE TO THE USE OF A VERY POOR CARRIER-- propylene glycol with VERY LITTLE PENETRATIVE POWER- the other carrier is not mentioned but given the testing parameters used and the poor comparative models..one would guess a similiarly innefficient carrier. The KEY word in my comment is EFFECTIVE- if you intend to argue the effectiveness of solely using propylene glycol be my guest..

You dont happen to have a study that involved anyone other than USC and at LEAST one of the SAME researchers on EVERY model. though the Griseofulvin is pretty much a NON value study, at least with respect to what your claiming.


btw- the whole reason that the "magic" solution is effective, at least with these drugs is that it is a combination of chemicals. ALL the research on transdermals shows that proper combinination is more effective with respect to transdermal delivery. So you found one combination, one that works for chemicals other than yohimbine...

btw- what is yohimbine hcl solubililty in the above solution? being as that unless it is soluble your solution is a waste.. even then that does not guarantee effectiveness

once again- yohimburn is based upon combinations that work in the real world, combinations developed using yohimbine? can you say the same??????????

You have proven with this post that you truly do not understand the issues we are debating. The superior efficacy of the special delivery vehicle vs. propylene glycol has nothing to do with the efficincy of penetration -- it has to do with where it went once it penetrated. With propylene glycol, it went systemic immediately without reaching tissues around the area of application in significant amounts (as would be expected, because as I have said about 10 times, this is what happens with transdermal delivery). With the special delivery vehicle -- the RATIO of delivery to local tissue versus systemic distribution was much higher than with propylen glycol -- 10 times as high in muscle, and 100 times as high in the skin.

Is it any clearer now?? I am guessing not.

The above argument goes for your statement about multiple carriers improving penetration. This is baiscally true, but, again, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND.

Yohimbine HCl fully dissolves is the delivery vehicle in the concentrations use in our product. Do I need to mention that it is your product that requires shaking before each use because the yohimbine does not stay in solution -- at least according to Utler.

And, yes, I can say that LipoDerm works quite real in the real world. In addition to very positive effects on fat loss in the area of application. I have used a dosing of as high as 400mg, 2X per day, for 2 weeks straight without problems with side effects indicative of significant systemic delivery. The data on the penetration enhancers in our product with molecules of similar physical characteristics is EXTREMELY good ), so it is highly doubtful that it is a general lack of delivery. Not to mention that they are better than in Yohimburn, so if you were to argue this, you would be arguing even more strongly against your own product.

 

[Par Deus]

Bump = Still want b4/after pics or user testimony!!

The people at Anabolic Extreme are doing testing of the product. In addition, several people who post on their message boards have used it and will give good feedback.

Few people here have used it because Macro pimps a competing product.

 

[macrophage69alpha]

You have proven with this post that you truly do not understand the issues we are debating. The superior efficacy of the special delivery vehicle vs. propylene glycol has nothing to do with the efficincy of penetration -- it has to do with where it went once it penetrated.

Your problem is that you dont understand the difference or for that matter the fact that the two are entertwined- your whole argument is that insufficient penetration- DEPTH- leads to or is a result of uptake by the dermal microvasculature- (this of course combined with interference with uptake in the dermal microvasculature)-
Perhaps, you should rethink your statements, all of the targeted delivery abstracts, which you include in your "paper" have mentioned inotophoresis as a method of enhancing penetration and thus targeted delivery. obviously this model was not available to you. The one that you chose HAS NO CLINICAL data showing that it will work with respect to yohimbine- (YOU ARGUE THAT YOU HAVE PROVEN THAT IT WILL WORK BUT YOU SEEM TO KEEP FAILING TO POST THAT ARGUMENT)... Is that not what you tout so highly clinical data?

a little FYI- the polysacchrides in aloe ARE capable of "targeted delivery"-

 

[macrophage69alpha]

The people at Anabolic Extreme are doing testing of the product. In addition, several people who post on their message boards have used it and will give good feedback.

That is really odd- it must be a VERY long experiment. seeing as that it supposedly began on the first or so of JULY. (its called a search engine ) I did find ONE post of someone who said that a "friend" got good results.

Par deus... these kind of brash and unsubstantiated claims are really annoying.

I will say this... the people who have used YOHIMBURN have gotten VERY GOOD results. Which is what makes me happy, because :

a. it is good to be able to help people to reach their goals
b. its nice to know that you had something to do with it.

peace

 

[macrophage69alpha]

.

And, yes, I can say that LipoDerm works quite real in the real world. In addition to very positive effects on fat loss in the area of application. I have used a dosing of as high as 400mg, 2X per day, for 2 weeks straight without problems with side effects indicative of significant systemic delivery. The data on the penetration enhancers in our product with molecules of similar physical characteristics is EXTREMELY good ), so it is highly doubtful that it is a general lack of delivery. Not to mention that they are better than in Yohimburn, so if you were to argue this, you would be arguing even more strongly against your own product.

You use several penetration enhancers- but do you use enough? since I would venture to guess that alcohol comprises the greatest portion of your formula (isopropyl alcohol)- though one cannot be sure as you dont even list the ingredients- though you seem to reference them.

I would put aloe alone against your product.(though maybe a little l-menthol would not hurt)

Btw- a lot of people have gotten good results with aloe alone

 

[macrophage69alpha]

Which you are completely unable to make a dent in.

Denting a phantasm, or illusion, is difficult when the illusionist hides behind studies where he posts part of the abstract and then makes wild claims not substantiated by the abstract and in all likelyhood not substantiated by the body.

 

[macrophage69alpha]

Have you been paying attention to this debate?? If not, then I will mention yet again that it is well-established in the literature, in regards to transdermal delivery, that the active ingredient is taken up by the dermal microsvasculature BEFORE IT EVER REACHES AS DEEP AS THE ADIPOSE TISSUE. I do not understand why I have to keep repeating this. There is only one carrier that has been shown to avoid this. Yohimburn does not use this carrier.

Do you understand what this means?? It means that you will not get local delivery to the spot of application. It will go systemic, then be distributed throughout the body -- JUST LIKE WITH ORAL USAGE.

So let me see, what you are saying is that yohimbine with both aloe and l-menthol (together and separate) have in STUDIES been shown to not be able to avoid uptake...

Please post these studies immeadiately.. you have really changed my whole perspective

 

[macrophage69alpha]

___________________________________________________
Oral use is an inneffective delivery for yohimbine, Mostly due to the fact that A2 are located throughout the body and high systemic concentrations are unpleasant for this reason- some thing that is avoided with Yohimburn.
___________________________________________________


You truly are fucking retarded or are purposely trying to mislead people.

LET ME MENTION YET AGAIN that it is well-established in the literature, in regards to transdermal delivery, that the active ingredient is taken up by the dermal microsvasculature BEFORE IT EVER REACHES AS DEEP AS THE ADIPOSE TISSUE. I do not understand why I have to keep repeating this. There is only one carrier that has been shown to avoid this. Yohimburn does not use this carrier.

Once again, you say that it is well established that uptake occurs in the DM and that there is only one vehicle that is capable of avoiding this (btw- not clear, certainly not proven, and not with yohimbine). So once again, these other studies by roberts- did they use yohimbine? did they use l-menthol (actually peppermint would be better as there are other terpenes) did they use aloe? did they use glycerin? did they use them in combination?

once again you make claims that the "literature" does not back up... they are you theoretical extrapolations.. which are of little value--- per your own utter reliance upon hard scientific studies..

peace

 

[DaMan]

Have you been paying attention to this debate?? If not, then I will mention yet again that it is well-established in the literature,

Do you have any first-hand testimonials to back up what you are saying? Not scientific studies that are indirectly related (I didn't see the word "Yohimbine" in any of the three!), but actual users and their results of Lipoderm use?

That would be a lot more convincing.

 

[dawookie]

This argument is beyond my level of understanding... all I know is that what Ive read from other elite members led me to ordering some yohimburn myself.. Ill be picking it up at UPS later today..

The denouncing of yohimburn by Par Deus does nothing to steer me away from Yohimburn and towards Lipoburn.. The negative press isnt working as far as Im concerned..

Dawookie

 

[b22md]

this debate is actually very good read and i just wanted to say i am enjoying it greatly and i hope it stays scientific and nobody starts flaming and name calling.

with that said, i received my yohimburn last night and immediately slathered myself with it. i will let everyone know the results. so far i can say that it feels great going on and the smell is pretty good. i do however have a few questions i would like addessed by the yohimbine gurus.

1.) would DMSO help or is it basically pointless to add?

2.) same question as above, only with Thiomucase cream

3.)i've heard some claim to use fina pellets with it, but as far as i know fina doesnt have a direct effect on fat cells and i find is much better absorbed through thin skin and into the blood stream, why would you use it on stubborn fat as opposed to primo which has been shown to have these direct fat burning properties?


i think thats all i've got for now, any answers are appreciated

 

[Ulter]

Few people here have used it because Macro pimps a competing product.

This is a riot. Now this is all making perfect sense to me, I couldn't figure out why you are attacking Macro and Yohimburn. Your product is not selling, for whatever reason, my guess is it doesn't work, and so you decided it must be those Yohimburn guys foiling your plot.
You have a pretty good knowledge of chemistry, but your lack of business sense is incredible. You can try to smear the competition, talk about your theories, pump yourself up as an expert on delivery solutions, but you know what?
THE MARKETPLACE WILL DECIDE WHAT WORKS.
That's right Par, the marketplace, not a test lab, not a university, not some researcher, THE MARKETPLACE.
The people will decide what works best and they will tell others and the word will spread and before you know it one product is outselling all others, and guess what? It will be the best one. You don't have to look any further than these two products to see that is the American system of free enterprise at it's best.

 

[NewGuy1980]

This arguement is great an all, but i would still like to see some physical results, so those experimenting, let us know~~ BUMP

 

[macrophage69alpha]

here is are some of the results posted in another thread by buld0g :

 

[Par Deus]

_________________________________________________
Your problem is that you dont understand the difference or for that matter the fact that the two are entertwined-
_________________________________________________

It is hilarious that you make statements like this, not only without anything in support, but without addressing the multiple paragraphs in my post which supported my statement that you do not understand this issue.


_________________________________________________
your whole argument is that insufficient penetration- DEPTH- leads to or is a result of uptake by the dermal microvasculature-
__________________________________________________


It is a result of the uptake.


__________________________________________________
Perhaps, you should rethink your statements, all of the targeted delivery abstracts, which you include in your "paper" have mentioned inotophoresis as a method of enhancing penetration and thus targeted delivery.
________________________________________________


No they don't. They do not even use the term -- much less say it would improve targeted delivery. Are you just making this up or what?? I am fucking baffled.


__________________________________________________
The one that you chose HAS NO CLINICAL data showing that it will work with respect to yohimbine-
___________________________________________________

And neither does Yohimburn. However, there is clinical data suggesting our carrier SHOULD work. There is also clinical data suggesting your SHOULD NOT.


________________________________________________
(YOU ARGUE THAT YOU HAVE PROVEN THAT IT WILL WORK BUT YOU SEEM TO KEEP FAILING TO POST THAT ARGUMENT)...
___________________________________________________

I have posted why it SHOULD work, based on clinical data -- multiple times.


________________________________________
Is that not what you tout so highly clinical data?
________________________________________

Should there be some additional punctuation is this?? It does not make sense.

___________________________________________________
a little FYI- the polysacchrides in aloe ARE capable of "targeted delivery"-
___________________________________________________


Feel free to post references in support of this statment. Also, make sure they incluse targeted delivery to tissue as deep as the adipose tissue. Showing targeted delivery only to the skin is worthless, because the dermal microvasculature still stands in the way of the drug and the adipose tissue.

 

[Par Deus]

_________________________________________________
That is really odd- it must be a VERY long experiment. seeing as that it supposedly began on the first or so of JULY. (its called a search engine )
_________________________________________________


An individual might have said back then that they were going to test it out, but I only sent the people at the magazine the product a week ago, so try again.

 

[Par Deus]

___________________________________________________
You use several penetration enhancers- but do you use enough?
____________________________________________________


I use the same amounts generally found to be effective in the literature.



_________________________________________________
I would put aloe alone against your product.(though maybe a little l-menthol would not hurt)
________________________________________________

Again, feel free to post references in support of this. A search on medline for aloe as a PE turns up not a single study. A search for polysacharrides turns up a few of significance. However, most our penetration enhancers have been shown to increase penetration of similar compunds by 100-1000 fold. And, they all work through different mechanisms. I would bet any some of money that ours work better, unfortunately we would spend it all doing the testing

 

[Par Deus]

This is a riot. Now this is all making perfect sense to me, I couldn't figure out why you are attacking Macro and Yohimburn. Your product is not selling, for whatever reason, my guess is it doesn't work, and so you decided it must be those Yohimburn guys foiling your plot.
You have a pretty good knowledge of chemistry, but your lack of business sense is incredible. You can try to smear the competition, talk about your theories, pump yourself up as an expert on delivery solutions, but you know what?
THE MARKETPLACE WILL DECIDE WHAT WORKS.
That's right Par, the marketplace, not a test lab, not a university, not some researcher, THE MARKETPLACE.
The people will decide what works best and they will tell others and the word will spread and before you know it one product is outselling all others, and guess what? It will be the best one. You don't have to look any further than these two products to see that is the American system of free enterprise at it's best.

Our product is selling okay -- I will certainly never be satisfied, but it is our second best selling product, and we make about $15K in profits per month, which is not bad.

Certainly, your product sells better on this board than mine, for reasons already stated. I do very little advertising of it on this board -- you guys do a ton (and by advertising, I don't mne banners and such). It does not hurt that Macro has moderator status and can, thus, delete posts. I am glad he has not done so this time around, but he did the previous two times I started destroying him in debates on the issue.

I totally agree with your free-enterprise sentiments.

BTW, out of curiosity, how many retailers have picked up your product??

 

[Par Deus]

Our product is selling okay -- I will certainly never be satisfied, but it is our second best selling product, and we make about $15K in profits per month, which is not bad.

Actually, it is about $10K in profits, $15K in sales.

 

[Par Deus]

Denting a phantasm, or illusion, is difficult when the illusionist hides behind studies where he posts part of the abstract and then makes wild claims not substantiated by the abstract and in all likelyhood not substantiated by the body.

Yawn.

Abstracts rarely give much of a picture of anything. Go get the paper.

 

[macrophage69alpha]

Par deus,

I tire of this merry go round. You state that you have backed up your argument (though how you have, other than by citing studies- not by explaining how those sudies actually apply to the vehicle/solution, is unclear to me).

It is really not all that important, since the disassociation of the HCL ion in the solution you have described will render yohimbine unstable and quick to degrade. This is why you can take 400mg twice a day- because of chemical and Likely Photo degradation.

you have created a vehicle that renders the active ingredient essentially INERT.

in other words- the delivery system, that is unproven with yohimbine anyways, makes possible the degradation of the very chemical you seek to deliver.

peace

 

[Par Deus]

So let me see, what you are saying is that yohimbine with both aloe and l-menthol (together and separate) have in STUDIES been shown to not be able to avoid uptake...

Please post these studies immeadiately.. you have really changed my whole perspective

They also have likely not been "proven" not to cause elves to crawl out of your ass at night. Your post is the argument a moderately intelligent 10 year old would use. The burden of proof form a positive claim is on the person making the claim.

 

[macrophage69alpha]

You claim that something will not work(though EVERYONE that has used it has had good results, you claim that it is no better than oral use (which is completely ridiculous as oral use is inneffective- if you would like to pull up the studies be my guest there are only a couple ....which found oral use to be relatively innefective)

You are the one making claims- I am merely pointing out FACTS.

YOHIMBURN WORKS... and works WELL.

 

[Par Deus]

___________________________________________________
Once again, you say that it is well established that uptake occurs in the DM and that there is only one vehicle that is capable of avoiding this (btw- not clear, certainly not proven, and not with yohimbine).
_________________________________________________

The issue of uptake by the DM is quite clear in the literature.

As for avoidance of uptake, I have not said no other carriers exist which are capable of doing this. What I have stated is that no others have been shown to accomplish this. Please stop resorting to twisting my words in lieu of a competent argument.


__________________________________________________
So once again, these other studies by roberts- did they use yohimbine? did they use l-menthol (actually peppermint would be better as there are other terpenes) did they use aloe? did they use glycerin? did they use them in combination?
________________________________________________

Jesus, you are REALLY reaching here. Perhaps you could next ask if they also tried saying a little chant while applying the compound.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that any of these things should make a difference. There is reason to believe they won't -- namely, that it is accepted in the field that transdermal delivery typically results in uptake by the dermal vasculature, not deep tissue penetration.

Again, for a positive claim, the burden of proof is on you.

 

[macrophage69alpha]

Lets try this again...

You are the one making claims.

I am stating a FACT.

YOHIMBURN WORKS WELL...

as far as your claims of efficacy- they ARE THEORIES... do you have any tangible evidence that they are correct.

 

[Par Deus]

You claim that something will not work(though EVERYONE that has used it has had good results, you claim that it is no better than oral use (which is completely ridiculous as oral use is inneffective- if you would like to pull up the studies be my guest there are only a couple ....which found oral use to be relatively innefective)

Below are a few studies I was able to find with a quick look in support of the efficacy of oral yohimbine on lipolysis. In the study that actual looked at body composition, significant increases in fat loss was found versus placebo, despite the use of only 5mg at a time, which is about 1/2 to 1/4 the dose that is considered optimal. The Sax study, not shown, found no benefits, but diet was not controlled -- and you are well aware of the effects of yohimbine on insulin (fopr those who are not aware, yohimbine causes increased insulin release in response to carbohydrates -- insulin halts lipolysis), so this is not surprising.

Bodybuilders are MUCH more likely to follow an appropriate diet, which is why the use of yohimbine, oral and topical, is much more effective than for the average Joe.

 

[Par Deus]

Lets try this again...

You are the one making claims.

I am stating a FACT.

YOHIMBURN WORKS WELL...

I never have claimed it does not work -- merely that proper use of orals would be just as effective and MUCH cheaper.

In addition, the "data" you have on Yohimburn means basically nothing in a scientific discourse -- and it means abolutely nothing in regards to the yohimburn vs oral debate.

 

[Par Deus]

Below are a few studies.....

Shit, forgot to post them:



Plasma catecholamine levels and lipid mobilization induced by yohimbine in obese and non-obese women.

Berlan M, Galitzky J, Riviere D, Foureau M, Tran MA, Flores R, Louvet JP, Houin G, Lafontan M.

Laboratoire de Pharmacologie Medicale et Clinique, INSERUM U-317, Faculte de Medecine, Toulouse, France.

Oral yohimbine administration (0.2 mg/kg) induced lipid mobilization (increase in plasma non-esterified fatty acids, NEFA) in fasting non-obese women (body mass index BMI = 20.2 +/- 0.5, age 35.5 +/- 2.7 years) without significant action on plasma glucose, insulin levels, heart rate or blood pressure during the time-course of the experiment (240 min). Plasma norpinephrine (but not epinephrine) concentrations were increased (100 percent) after oral yohimbine administration. Oral administration of propranolol (40 mg, 60 min before yohimbine) reduced the lipid-mobilizing action of yohimbine (70 percent) during the 60 min following its administration and then totally suppressed its effect until the end of the experimental period (180 min). In fasting obese women (BMI = 36.4 +/- 2.1, age 37 +/- 3.6 years), yohimbine provoked an increase in plasma NEFA levels which was not markedly different from that observed in non-obese subjects. It had no significant effect on plasma glucose, insulin levels, heart rate or blood pressure. Plasma norepinephrine increased in the same proportions. The lipid-mobilizing effect of yohimbine in women is mainly attributable to the increase in synaptic norepinephrine with a resultant increment in lipolysis by beta-adrenergic agonism. In the standard fasting conditions (12 hours) the blockade of the antilipolytic fat cell alpha 2-adrenoceptors seems to be a minor component of the lipomobilizing effect of yohimbine. Morever, when compared with non-obese women, the lipomobilizing effect of yohimbine is not enhanced in obese women.

Eur J Clin Invest 1988 Dec;18(6):587-94 Related Articles, Books


Alpha 2-antagonist compounds and lipid mobilization: evidence for a lipid mobilizing effect of oral yohimbine in healthy male volunteers.

Galitzky J, Taouis M, Berlan M, Riviere D, Garrigues M, Lafontan M.

Laboratoire de Pharmacologie Clinique et Medicale, Universite Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France.

Investigations were carried out to analyse the interactions of alpha 2-antagonists (yohimbine, idazoxan, SK & F-86,466) with human fat cell alpha 2-adrenoceptors. All the alpha 2-antagonists enhanced the lipolytic potencies of epinephrine with an order of potency: yohimbine greater than idazoxan greater than SK & F-86,466; the same order was also found in 3H-yohimbine competition studies on human fat cell membranes. The most potent agent, yohimbine, was administered orally in humans to define the conditions of appearance and the time-course of a putative lipid-mobilizing action. Oral yohimbine administration (0.2 mg kg-1) elevated plasma glycerol and non-esterified fatty acids in fasting healthy subjects without significant action on heart rate or blood pressure during the time-course of the experiment. The lipid-mobilizing action of yohimbine was reinforced during physical exercise, completely suppressed after a meal and partially blocked by administration of propranolol (0.5 mg kg-1; 60 min before yohimbine). Plasma norepinephrine concentrations were increased (40-50%) after oral yohimbine administration. The rise in plasma catecholamine concentration elicited by yohimbine was not modified by propranolol treatment. The lipid-mobilizing effect of yohimbine could be attributable to: (i) the increase in synaptic norepinephrine with a resultant increment in lipolysis by beta-adrenergic agonism; (ii) a decrease in alpha 2-adrenoceptor stimulation of human fat cell alpha 2-adrenoceptors; (iii) a blockade of presynaptic alpha 2-adrenoceptors. The use of highly selective alpha 2-antagonists will allow investigations into alpha 2-adrenoceptors, which may represent a novel locus for pharmacological intervention in lipid-mobilization strategies.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Randomized Controlled Trial

PMID: 2906290 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Isr J Med Sci 1991 Oct;27(10):550-6 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut


Does yohimbine act as a slimming drug?

Kucio C, Jonderko K, Piskorska D.

Department of Gastroenterology, Silesian School of Medicine, Katowice, Poland.

Yohimbine, an alpha 2-receptor antagonist, was examined for its suitability in the treatment of obesity. Twenty female obese outpatients were subjected to a 3-week low-energy diet (1,000 kcal/day), after which they were randomly allocated according to a double-blind study protocol to two treatments: 10 subjects received 5 mg yohimbine per os 4 times a day and 10 received a placebo for 3 weeks, in addition to a low-energy diet of 1,000 kcal/day. Before inclusion in the study, as well as the end of each of the 3-week treatment periods, thermogenesis (resting and exercise energy expenditure) was assessed by indirect calorimetry; serum noradrenaline concentration was taken as an index of sympathetic system activity and serum glycerol level as an index of lipolysis. Yohimbine significantly increased the mean weight loss in patients on a low-energy diet: 3.55 +/- 0.24 kg (yohimbine) vs. 2.21 +/- 0.37 kg (placebo), P less than 0.005. With yohimbine, a steady level of effort-induced energy expenditure and sympathetic system activity was maintained. No significant effect of yohimbine on lipolysis was observed under the experimental conditions of this study. In another group of 15 obese inpatients (11 women and 4 men) the influence of 15 mg yohimbine per os vs. placebo on gastric emptying of a radiolabelled solid meal was examined in a double-blind manner with the use of a gamma camera. No significant effect of yohimbine on gastric emptying was revealed--the mean gastric transit time was 42.0 +/- 0.4 min after placebo and 41.8 +/- 0.5 min after yohimbine. The results obtained warrant further research on the applicability of alpha 2-receptor inhibitory drugs as a supplementary management in the treatment of obesity.

Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Randomized Controlled Trial

PMID: 1955308 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

[Champ]

Ok I picked up the LipoDerm-Y so I will let you all know if it works. WHY?
(shipping included)

LipoDerm-Y==6grams for 85$
Yohimburn==3 grams for 75$

WHO FREAKIN CARES WHERE ITS MADE. Alot of us inject Steroids (EQ) that arent fit for humans. I am exposed to imputiries everyday! And if there are impurities, they will have to be small enough to pass through the skin. Not a big deal.

OBVIOUSLY THEY BOTH WORK.
People buy straight Yohimbine HCL and add their own carrier and it works...why wouldnt Yohimburn? And If LipoDerm has a special added magic carrier.....who cares....its not going to hurt me right.

SO FAR AFTER 3 DAYS of USING IT.
Heavily drinking the first day of use. I felt bloated. That could have been the beer gut the next day. Second Day Recovering from the weekend. Didnt work out. Didnt eat much becuase my beer caloric intake was high this weekend. Day 3 not feeling bloated anymore, worked out, cardio, diet.

When I put it on it feel tingly for hours. I use 10 squirts or 1.5 doses over my love handle and nipples. It smells like mint and feels minty too.

Par Deus......Bro, you are horrible marketer. Just tell everyone that only LipoDerm will increase penis size with every bottle purchased.

Micro......I saw bulldogs pic when he origionally posted it and he never said he used yohimburn. I dont remembe what cutting cycle he said he was on but I think that its fucked up you are using that and saying its due to yohimburn. I will also be trying your product next to compare. I have read good things