Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
MACRO/ULTER........Testing a new Aromatese Inhibitor Formula:
- Thread starter swordfish151
- Start date
AristotleBC
New member
OMEGA said:
Have him get it from his billionaire uncle lol
swordfish151
New member
DBBT said:
Ok i take that back, just noticed that i have "slight" redness on both my arms..but very slight redness...no bumps at all and no irritation...i applied this morning just fine!
TheAssholeFomerlyKnownAsDBBT
New member
well i started applying the AI onto the tops of my feet as recommended and no redness down there, but my freaking forearms look like i have poison ivy still, both very red and itchy-bumps. I've exfoliated (sp?) and cleaned them well im sure i just have an allergic reaction to one of the ingredients.I like the product, my test dose right now is the highest i've ever done and no gyno yet usually hits me around week 6 though im on 3. And im staying dry...If my camera didn't go tities up awhile back i'd post of pic cuz after last nights w/o and pump i really would have liked to have captured that, definitely at my biggest leanest weight ever and only 3 weeks deep. Again i don't have any problems with the results of the product, its evident that it works and i'm going to continue using it most likey only on the top of feet. Maybe the best advise for anyone using this prod. now or in the future would be to rotate application sites if concerned about getting "DBBT arm"swordfish151 said:
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
Is thit the drug in question?
Exp Brain Res. 1986;64(3):407-10.
Effect of an inhibitor of aromatization, 1,4,6 androstatriene-3,17-dione (ATD) on LH release and steroid binding in hypothalamus of adult female rats.
Slama A, Gogan F, Sarrieau A, Vial M, Rostene W, Kordon C.
Prevention of testosterone aromatization in the female rat pups by perinatal treatment with 1,4,6 androstatriene-3,17-dione (ATD) induces an important defeminization as shown by a reduction of fluctuations of LH release after castration and estradiol implantation. The fact that, under our in vitro experimental conditions, ATD is able to displace testosterone binding in the hypothalamus whereas estradiol does not, confirms the hypothesis that ATD acts on aromatase. The most attractive explanation for the defeminization effect of ATD is then an estrogen-like action of ATD.
Exp Brain Res. 1986;64(3):407-10.
Effect of an inhibitor of aromatization, 1,4,6 androstatriene-3,17-dione (ATD) on LH release and steroid binding in hypothalamus of adult female rats.
Slama A, Gogan F, Sarrieau A, Vial M, Rostene W, Kordon C.
Prevention of testosterone aromatization in the female rat pups by perinatal treatment with 1,4,6 androstatriene-3,17-dione (ATD) induces an important defeminization as shown by a reduction of fluctuations of LH release after castration and estradiol implantation. The fact that, under our in vitro experimental conditions, ATD is able to displace testosterone binding in the hypothalamus whereas estradiol does not, confirms the hypothesis that ATD acts on aromatase. The most attractive explanation for the defeminization effect of ATD is then an estrogen-like action of ATD.
M
Mr.X
Guest
anthony roberts said:
yup that is the product - ATD (1,4,6 androstatriene-3,17-dione)
macrophage69alpha
New member
if you were to actually read that study you would realize that its an erroneous finding. Unfortunately in 1986 the aromatase system was not well understood and thus you get findings like this.
Just so that you understand what they are saying, wrong though it is...
is that ATD is a ERB (estrogen receptor blocker)- hence why the term DEFEMINIZATION (not feminization)
subsequent studies with all aromatase inhibitors show different LH response in castrated vs. sham operated animals.
Just so that you understand what they are saying, wrong though it is...
is that ATD is a ERB (estrogen receptor blocker)- hence why the term DEFEMINIZATION (not feminization)
subsequent studies with all aromatase inhibitors show different LH response in castrated vs. sham operated animals.
Medical science has come a long way in 20 years Anthony.
There's a study showing that women taking birth control pills shouldn't smoke cigarettes. It was believed that the birth control pills caused cancer in smokers. Later they found it was the cigarettes. You should really check more recent studies when they are available.
There's a study showing that women taking birth control pills shouldn't smoke cigarettes. It was believed that the birth control pills caused cancer in smokers. Later they found it was the cigarettes. You should really check more recent studies when they are available.
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
macrophage69alpha said:
Transdermal application, however, wouldn't solve that problem, would it?
I mean...from reading the literature included with the testosterone gel and patch (transdermal), it would appear that only about 10% of the active drug makes it through.
I also coulen't find the study where it said oral availability was an issue with this compound. Could you be so kind as to post it, and explain how transdermal application would solve the problem of bioavailability...?
macrophage69alpha
New member
anthony roberts said:
transdermal delivery, with a good vehicle can typically achieve 30-40% delivery delivery that extends over 3-8hrs (lag)- with tissue release that is significantly longer (particularly in lipophillic drugs- steroids). oral bioavailability of non alkylated androgens is typically 2-3% with massive first pass elimination and short half life 20-40minutes. even at 10% delivery thats 3-5 times greater BA.
to answer your question- you did not look and take the above and figure it out.
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
macrophage69alpha said:
My apologies. I still don't get it. It would appear that transdermal gel (testosterone in this case) results in 9-14% bioavailability, in this case. Might I ask where the 30-40% delivery number comes from? Can you please provide a study confirming those numbers regarding this particular AI, instead of giving me keywords to search on PUBMED with? I'm simply not bright enough to dig up the studies confirming the numbers you are providing, with my limited abilities. You're telling me that lipophillic drugs like steroids have that 30-40% absorbtion rates, yet the literature included with every single hormone replacement therapy that is transdermal indicates a 10% or so rate. This is my finding as well as William Llewellyn's, both of whom have written books on anabolics.
I don't understand how I can't find any studies where these claims can be verified...but here;'s one that seems to dispute those claims regarding absorbtion rates...
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2000 Dec;85(12):4500-10.
Long-term pharmacokinetics of transdermal testosterone gel in hypogonadal men.
Swerdloff RS, Wang C, Cunningham G, Dobs A, Iranmanesh A, Matsumoto AM, Snyder PJ, Weber T, Longstreth J, Berman N.
Divisions of Endocrinology, Departments of Medicine/Pediatrics, Harbor-University of California-Los Angeles Medical Center, Torrance, California 90509, USA.
Transdermal delivery of testosterone (T) represents an effective alternative to injectable androgens. Transdermal T patches normalize serum T levels and reverse the symptoms of androgen deficiency in hypogonadal men. However, the acceptance of the closed system T patches has been limited by skin irritation and/or lack of adherence. T gels have been proposed as delivery modes that minimize these problems. In this study we examined the pharmacokinetic profiles after 1, 30, 90, and 180 days of daily application of 2 doses of T gel (50 and 100 mg T in 5 and 10 g gel, delivering 5 and 10 mg T/day, respectively) and a permeation-enhanced T patch (2 patches delivering 5 mg T/day) in 227 hypogonadal men. This new 1% hydroalcoholic T gel formulation when applied to the upper arms, shoulders, and abdomen dried within a few minutes, and about 9-14% of the T applied was bioavailableCOLOR]. After 90 days of T gel treatment, the dose was titrated up (50 mg to 75 mg) or down (100 mg to 75 mg) if the preapplication serum T levels were outside the normal adult male range. Serum T rose rapidly into the normal adult male range on day 1 with the first T gel or patch application. Our previous study showed that steady state T levels were achieved 48-72 h after first application of the gel. The pharmacokinetic parameters for serum total and free T were very similar on days 30, 90, and 180 in all treatment groups. After repeated daily application of the T formulations for 180 days, the average serum T level over the 24-h sampling period (C(avg)) was highest in the 100 mg T gel group (1.4- and 1.9-fold higher than the C(avg) in the 50 mg T gel and T patch groups, respectively). Mean serum steady state T levels remained stable over the 180 days of T gel application. Upward dose adjustment from T gel 50 to 75 mg/day did not significantly increase the C(avg), whereas downward dose adjustment from 100 to 75 mg/day reduced serum T levels to the normal range for most patients. Serum free T levels paralleled those of serum total T, and the percent free T was not changed with transdermal T preparations. The serum dihydrotestosterone C(avg) rose 1.3-fold above baseline after T patch application, but was more significantly increased by 3.6- and 4.6-fold with T gel 50 and 100 mg/day, respectively, resulting in a small, but significant, increase in the serum dihydrotestosterone/T ratios in the two T gel groups. Serum estradiol rose, and serum LH and FSH levels were suppressed proportionately with serum T in all study groups; serum sex hormone-binding globulin showed small decreases that were significant only in the 100 mg T gel group. We conclude that transdermal T gel application can efficiently and rapidly increase serum T and free T levels in hypogonadal men to within the normal range. Transdermal T gel provided flexibility in dosing with little skin irritation and a low discontinuation rate.
Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
PMID: 11134099 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Last edited:
Come on Anthony your search skills are just fine. If they weren't you wouldn't have been able to put all that information Nandi and Macro have posted in the last 5 years into your book. 
Again, it's a good thing we aren't using gel for delivery of this AI. And since I already posted that I'm not sure why you'd post a study about it.
Again, it's a good thing we aren't using gel for delivery of this AI. And since I already posted that I'm not sure why you'd post a study about it.
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
Ulter said:Come on Anthony your search skills are just fine. If they weren't you wouldn't have been able to put all that information Nandi and Macro have posted in the last 5 years into your book.
Again, it's a good thing we aren't using gel for delivery of this AI. And since I already posted that I'm not sure why you'd post a study about it.
I'll be frank and say that I haven't used anything that macro has ever posted, to my knowledge in my book.
As for Karl (Nandi), my book is dedicated to him, and my correspondance with him was very beneficial to my writings. I didn't have to search to put that information into my book, as I was corresponding with Karl until my second issue writing for the online magazine he wrote for.
I'm sure Macro has contributed quite a bit to the development of several products...however, I concur with Llewellyn when he says Duchaine really developed the first transdermal Yohimbe product, and interestingly, I found that the Sesame product that he has developed appeared elsewhere first....
How odd.
I haven't ever used Macro's research for anything. Unless you're talking about my using those who researched and developed "his" products first (Duchaine, Karl- Nandi, etc...) all of whom have their names in my book's dedication.
It's funny how things get repeated over and over on the boards, end up in a book, and no one knows where they started. But that's the nature of the boards.
I don't think anyone has posted more times than I have that Duchaine pioneered transdermal yohimbine delivery. In fact I just did a search and found my first posts about it in 2002. So you're posting old news, again.
Macro didn't develop a sesamin product first either. I don't think anyone said he did so I'm not sure what your purpose is for posting it.
What you're leaving out though is that although someone else may pioneer an idea, those who come later may find it's flaws and perfect it. Like Macro has with Yohimburn. He also found a better yet less expensive form of sesamin, again perfecting an idea.
Who brought R+ Lipoic Acid to the United States market? Who discovered the need to mix it with biotin? Who is the world largest provider of R+ lipoic acid? And that's only one supp. Anytime you'd like to match accomplishments with us you just let me know the time and place.
You've made a lot of enemies from what I'm told. I consider you a friend of mine, did you want to change that?
I don't think anyone has posted more times than I have that Duchaine pioneered transdermal yohimbine delivery. In fact I just did a search and found my first posts about it in 2002. So you're posting old news, again.
Macro didn't develop a sesamin product first either. I don't think anyone said he did so I'm not sure what your purpose is for posting it.
What you're leaving out though is that although someone else may pioneer an idea, those who come later may find it's flaws and perfect it. Like Macro has with Yohimburn. He also found a better yet less expensive form of sesamin, again perfecting an idea.
Who brought R+ Lipoic Acid to the United States market? Who discovered the need to mix it with biotin? Who is the world largest provider of R+ lipoic acid? And that's only one supp. Anytime you'd like to match accomplishments with us you just let me know the time and place.
You've made a lot of enemies from what I'm told. I consider you a friend of mine, did you want to change that?
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
I was just asking for verification of the numbers in this thread. I can't find them anywhere I've searched.
Sorry if this is offensive to you. As for my making "enemies" on the internet, generally, I've found that the emperor doesn't ever like the kid who points out that he is nude.
The self-proclaimed aristorcary of internet discussion boards feels that way about me.
I wonder why?
Maybe if they knew something at all about AAS they'd have a book published (like me) instead of PAYING to run their little boards. Or they'd be paid to write eon the 'net (again, like me).
Basically...my "enemies" have as much credibility as someone who pays to have their own book published and then gives it out for free.
They pay to run their boards and write about anabolics on the internet (they pay server fees, etc...), and I GET PAID to write about anabolics. See the difference? Listening to them is like listening to someone who pays to play on a co-ed softball team (an amateur, who actually pays to do it)... about baseball. As opposed to listening to Derick Jeeter (a professional who gets paid to play) ...about baseball.
I'm the professional (Jeeter) in this case...they are the fat dudes drinking beer before games and playing slow pitch softball.
The dude playing softball is as much Derick Jeeter's enemy as the various "enemies" I made on the internet are mine.
In other words...they're nothing to me.
But back to the issue at hand....
Can some verification for these 30-40% numbers be found for transdermal application?
And can a verification for this method above oral ingestion be found and posted, instead of just giving me key words to look up? Because I can't find any such verification....
Sorry if this is offensive to you. As for my making "enemies" on the internet, generally, I've found that the emperor doesn't ever like the kid who points out that he is nude.
The self-proclaimed aristorcary of internet discussion boards feels that way about me.
I wonder why?
Maybe if they knew something at all about AAS they'd have a book published (like me) instead of PAYING to run their little boards. Or they'd be paid to write eon the 'net (again, like me).
Basically...my "enemies" have as much credibility as someone who pays to have their own book published and then gives it out for free.
They pay to run their boards and write about anabolics on the internet (they pay server fees, etc...), and I GET PAID to write about anabolics. See the difference? Listening to them is like listening to someone who pays to play on a co-ed softball team (an amateur, who actually pays to do it)... about baseball. As opposed to listening to Derick Jeeter (a professional who gets paid to play) ...about baseball.
I'm the professional (Jeeter) in this case...they are the fat dudes drinking beer before games and playing slow pitch softball.
The dude playing softball is as much Derick Jeeter's enemy as the various "enemies" I made on the internet are mine.
In other words...they're nothing to me.
But back to the issue at hand....
Can some verification for these 30-40% numbers be found for transdermal application?
And can a verification for this method above oral ingestion be found and posted, instead of just giving me key words to look up? Because I can't find any such verification....
Well I'm glad you took this opportunity to get that off your chest. Didn't mean to hit a nerve. Easy tiger.
We're all on Christmas break and I'm sure you'll get your answers when people feel more like going back to work again.
We're all on Christmas break and I'm sure you'll get your answers when people feel more like going back to work again.
macrophage69alpha
New member
sorry but the studies on high level delivery and formulae will not be posted on this thread. Most of them are not available on line. If you wish to purchase the books, studies and research guides on transdermal and percutaneous delivery, which will run you a couple grand. you are welcome too.
as note- even given your assertion of the relatively poor 9-14% delivery, that still is 300% to 700% greater than oral Bioavailability of most non-methylated androgens. And transdermals, at least as designed are inherently time released. Given the relatively short half life of ATD and other non-methylated AI's, transdermal is the preferred route of administration.
as note- even given your assertion of the relatively poor 9-14% delivery, that still is 300% to 700% greater than oral Bioavailability of most non-methylated androgens. And transdermals, at least as designed are inherently time released. Given the relatively short half life of ATD and other non-methylated AI's, transdermal is the preferred route of administration.
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
Ulter said:
...then there was the time I had a one-night-stand with that female Mod/Admin/Vet who runs a bunch of Invite boards....I'm sure that didn't go down well with the aristocracy....
Also....I'm still not seeing those studies....
.....another comment like that........
macrophage69alpha
New member
this study is not ideal though it is reflective of the comparative delivery
J Endocrinol. 1996 Sep;150 Suppl:S107-18. Related Articles, Links
High bioavailability of dehydroepiandrosterone administered percutaneously in the rat.
Labrie C, Flamand M, Belanger A, Labrie F.
Laboratory of Molecular Endocrinology CHUL Research Center, Quebec, Canada.
Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) administered percutaneously by twice daily application for 7 days to the dorsal skin of the rat stimulates an increase in ventral prostate weight with approximately one third the potency of the compound given by subcutaneous injection. The doses required to achieve a 50% reversal of the inhibitory effect of orchiectomy are approximately 3 and 1 mg respectively. By the oral route, on the other hand. DHEA has only 10-15% of the activity of the compound given percutaneously. Taking the bioavailability obtained by the subcutaneous route as 100%, it is estimated that the potencies of DHEA by the percutaneous and oral routes are approximately 33 and 3% respectively. Similar ratios of activity were obtained when dorsal prostate and seminal vesicle weight were used as parameters of androgenic activity. When examined on an estrogen-sensitive parameter, namely uterine weight in ovariectomized rats, the stimulatory effect of DHEA was much less potent than its androgenic activity measured in the male animal, a 50% reversal of the inhibitory effect of ovariectomy on uterine weight being observed at the 3 and 30 mg doses of DHEA administered by the subcutaneous and percutaneous routes respectively. When measured on uterine weight, percutaneous DHEA thus shows a 10% potency compared with the subcutaneous route. The sulfate of DHEA (DHEA-S), on the other hand, was approximately 50% as potent as DHEA at increasing ventral prostate weight after subcutaneous or percutaneous administration. When the effect was measured on dorsal prostate and seminal vesicle weight, percutaneous DHEA-S had 10-25% of the activity of DHEA. DHEA decreased serum LH levels in ovariectomized animals, an effect which was completely reversed by treatment with the antiandrogen flutamide. On the other hand, flutamide had no significant effect on the increase in uterine weight caused by DHEA, thus suggesting a predominant estrogenic effect of DHEA at the level of the uterus and an estrogenic effect on the feedback control of LH secretion. The present data show a relatively high bioavailability of percutaneous DHEA as measured by its androgenic and/or estrogenic biological activity in well-characterized peripheral target intracrime tissues in the rat.
J Endocrinol. 1996 Sep;150 Suppl:S107-18. Related Articles, Links
High bioavailability of dehydroepiandrosterone administered percutaneously in the rat.
Labrie C, Flamand M, Belanger A, Labrie F.
Laboratory of Molecular Endocrinology CHUL Research Center, Quebec, Canada.
Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) administered percutaneously by twice daily application for 7 days to the dorsal skin of the rat stimulates an increase in ventral prostate weight with approximately one third the potency of the compound given by subcutaneous injection. The doses required to achieve a 50% reversal of the inhibitory effect of orchiectomy are approximately 3 and 1 mg respectively. By the oral route, on the other hand. DHEA has only 10-15% of the activity of the compound given percutaneously. Taking the bioavailability obtained by the subcutaneous route as 100%, it is estimated that the potencies of DHEA by the percutaneous and oral routes are approximately 33 and 3% respectively. Similar ratios of activity were obtained when dorsal prostate and seminal vesicle weight were used as parameters of androgenic activity. When examined on an estrogen-sensitive parameter, namely uterine weight in ovariectomized rats, the stimulatory effect of DHEA was much less potent than its androgenic activity measured in the male animal, a 50% reversal of the inhibitory effect of ovariectomy on uterine weight being observed at the 3 and 30 mg doses of DHEA administered by the subcutaneous and percutaneous routes respectively. When measured on uterine weight, percutaneous DHEA thus shows a 10% potency compared with the subcutaneous route. The sulfate of DHEA (DHEA-S), on the other hand, was approximately 50% as potent as DHEA at increasing ventral prostate weight after subcutaneous or percutaneous administration. When the effect was measured on dorsal prostate and seminal vesicle weight, percutaneous DHEA-S had 10-25% of the activity of DHEA. DHEA decreased serum LH levels in ovariectomized animals, an effect which was completely reversed by treatment with the antiandrogen flutamide. On the other hand, flutamide had no significant effect on the increase in uterine weight caused by DHEA, thus suggesting a predominant estrogenic effect of DHEA at the level of the uterus and an estrogenic effect on the feedback control of LH secretion. The present data show a relatively high bioavailability of percutaneous DHEA as measured by its androgenic and/or estrogenic biological activity in well-characterized peripheral target intracrime tissues in the rat.
M
Mr.X
Guest
anthony roberts said:
Interesting point....I'd like to see some of these studies too, any way to get a scan of them?
Last edited by a moderator:
macrophage69alpha
New member
regarding oral bioavailability of testosterone (micronized- which will have a higher bioavailability than crystalline)
according to endotext.org.
Micronized oral testosterone has low oral bioavailability requiring high daily doses (200-400 mg) to maintain physiological testosterone levels
Scand J Gastroenterol. 1981;16(6):749-55. Related Articles, Links
Short-term parenteral and peroral testosterone administration in men with alcoholic cirrhosis.
Gluud C, Bennett P, Dietrichson O, Johnsen SG, Ranek L, Svendsen LB, Juhl E.
Serum concentrations of testosterone were measured in 24 male patients with alcoholic cirrhosis during testosterone administration. The purpose was to compare serum concentrations of testosterone during peroral with those during parenteral testosterone administration in these patients. Patients who were injected intramuscularly with a combination of short- and long-acting testosterone (Triolandren, 348 mg testosterone) had median peak values of serum testosterone of about 40 ng/ml, which fell to basal levels after a fortnight. During testosterone propionate injections (84 mg testosterone) every other day, rather constant serum concentrations with median values of about 30 ng/ml were reached after 4 days. Peroral testosterone administration (800 mg micronized free testosterone) each day also resulted in fairly constant serum concentrations after 4 days, and the median values were about 50 ng/ml. No side effects were observed.
(this plasma level of course being significantly greater because of liver compromise)
data from:
Biol Reprod. 1983 Apr;28(3):636-44.
Effect of inhibition of estrogen synthesis during the luteal phase on function of the corpus luteum in rhesus monkeys.
with respect to ATD in particular (oral delivery) doses of 250mg twice a day in a tragacanth (time release and uptake enhancing matrix- somewhat similar to HMPC) base. IT HAS POOR ORAL BIOAVAILABILITY.
according to endotext.org.
Micronized oral testosterone has low oral bioavailability requiring high daily doses (200-400 mg) to maintain physiological testosterone levels
Scand J Gastroenterol. 1981;16(6):749-55. Related Articles, Links
Short-term parenteral and peroral testosterone administration in men with alcoholic cirrhosis.
Gluud C, Bennett P, Dietrichson O, Johnsen SG, Ranek L, Svendsen LB, Juhl E.
Serum concentrations of testosterone were measured in 24 male patients with alcoholic cirrhosis during testosterone administration. The purpose was to compare serum concentrations of testosterone during peroral with those during parenteral testosterone administration in these patients. Patients who were injected intramuscularly with a combination of short- and long-acting testosterone (Triolandren, 348 mg testosterone) had median peak values of serum testosterone of about 40 ng/ml, which fell to basal levels after a fortnight. During testosterone propionate injections (84 mg testosterone) every other day, rather constant serum concentrations with median values of about 30 ng/ml were reached after 4 days. Peroral testosterone administration (800 mg micronized free testosterone) each day also resulted in fairly constant serum concentrations after 4 days, and the median values were about 50 ng/ml. No side effects were observed.
(this plasma level of course being significantly greater because of liver compromise)
data from:
Biol Reprod. 1983 Apr;28(3):636-44.
Effect of inhibition of estrogen synthesis during the luteal phase on function of the corpus luteum in rhesus monkeys.
with respect to ATD in particular (oral delivery) doses of 250mg twice a day in a tragacanth (time release and uptake enhancing matrix- somewhat similar to HMPC) base. IT HAS POOR ORAL BIOAVAILABILITY.
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
Ok. So you're correct in saying it has poor oral availability (which wasn't disputed). Now, I believe the onus is on you to also prove that transdermal delivery would be greater. Thats not a given, just because it's got poor bioavailability orally. In fact....when we look at things like tren and such, the general consensus is that NOBODY goes the transdermal route anymore because results are nowhere near what they would be. That goes for testosterone applied transdermally, also, which has (as I have shown) 10-14% bioavailabiliity.
So now, where does our leap come from to say that this stuff has 30-40% bioavailability from? Is it a guess of some sort? Based on what?
Also
So now, where does our leap come from to say that this stuff has 30-40% bioavailability from? Is it a guess of some sort? Based on what?
Also
macrophage69alpha
New member
anthony roberts said:
did you actually read what you wrote.....
you show a lack of understanding of both the physiochemical properties of steroid hormones and methods of delivery in general.
comments like "thats not a given", "when you look at tren and such" and "general consensus" are strong indicators that you have no idea what you are talking about.
lets see if this can be explained in simple terms so you can grasp it
1. testosterone and ATD are similar physiochemically
2. even just 1000% better delivery is..... better.
3. time release delivery of a hormone with a short half life is better (in transdermal lingo this is called LAG)
4. trenbolone acetate, because of the acetate ester, is not as well suited for transdermal delivery as trenbolone
5. its true that injection of an esterified hormone like tren enanthate might be easier but twice daily dosing of trenbolone via the right transdermal, even the testosterone gel base used in the, "as you have shown"- lol-, study (though using higher amounts in solution) would provide the same or better results
6. here the same applies, though its easier to delivery more hormone because of the legal implications via a transdermal system than via injection and esterification.
because the workings of the delivery system are proprietary, you wont see any studies on the aspects of it. that information is both difficult to find and expensive, hence making it available free to those that would use it for their own ends would be foolish.
If it makes you feel better you can use the much lower 9-14% delivery found with the inferior testosterone gel. the result is still the same, delivery.
Of course use, is the best way to determine the effectiveness.
btw- the "general consensus" is that transdermal delivery is effective. No it generally is not as effective as injection on a mg per mg basis, but it does not have to be. Though as noted above because of LAG (depending on formulation) its inherently time released. There are permeation enhancers that increase lag but they are not as well suited nor as pleasant.
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
macrophage69alpha said:
Still, what is the percentage of oral availability?
and...
Well, I can't seem to find the relevant information on ATD, to confirm your claims regarding ATD and Testosterone
(... last time...)
Last edited by a moderator:
macrophage69alpha
New member
ATD
1, 4, 6-ANDROSTATRIEN-3, 17-DIONE
Melting Point:
164-165°C
Rotation:
+80°
Molecular Weight:
282.38
TLC:
•
Formula:
C19 H22 O2
Testosterone
4-ANDROSTEN-17β-OL-3-ONE
Melting Point:
154-155°C
Rotation:
+101° Diox
Molecular Weight:
288.42
TLC:
•
Formula:
C19 H28 O2
molecular renderings available on steraloids.com
1, 4, 6-ANDROSTATRIEN-3, 17-DIONE
Melting Point:
164-165°C
Rotation:
+80°
Molecular Weight:
282.38
TLC:
•
Formula:
C19 H22 O2
Testosterone
4-ANDROSTEN-17β-OL-3-ONE
Melting Point:
154-155°C
Rotation:
+101° Diox
Molecular Weight:
288.42
TLC:
•
Formula:
C19 H28 O2
molecular renderings available on steraloids.com
macrophage69alpha
New member
oral bioavailability was already covered, its likely 3% or less and likely more than 1%. (see oral studies). There are no oral bioavailability studies in humans (at least none in print), but similar compounds in the same models have had similar uptake in human models
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
taking a break until I can behave
M
Mr.X
Guest
I would like to look at the books macro says he is using to verify this. Especially in regards to the questions that were edited out in this thread - including mine.
I have access thru a personal friend to a full university medical library. I will have him look the books up and look up the studies and I'll have him send them to me for review. I don't think that's too much to ask.
I have access thru a personal friend to a full university medical library. I will have him look the books up and look up the studies and I'll have him send them to me for review. I don't think that's too much to ask.
What is it that you want to know that would be in Merck? First you asked where you can find that the two material, test and ATD, are similar in molecular weight. This was then posted. Now you're asking what exactly? If you have a Merck as you say then I would assume you know how to use it and wouldn't need someone to hold your hand and tell you what page to look on.
Why on earth would anyone care what you recommend? You have no scientific background. No degrees in any science. You copied and pasted together a book of information you lifted from the internet discussion boards and now you consider yourself an expert? You're just a failed rugby player who read the boards and compiled posts.
You actually need someone to tell you where find the molecular weight of chemicals BY GIVING YOU THE PAGE THEY ARE ON.
Go back to posting as Hooker and lose the attitude.
Why on earth would anyone care what you recommend? You have no scientific background. No degrees in any science. You copied and pasted together a book of information you lifted from the internet discussion boards and now you consider yourself an expert? You're just a failed rugby player who read the boards and compiled posts.
You actually need someone to tell you where find the molecular weight of chemicals BY GIVING YOU THE PAGE THEY ARE ON.
Go back to posting as Hooker and lose the attitude.
TheAssholeFomerlyKnownAsDBBT
New member
well not good news here. Today is exactly 7 days after the last application of this product on my forearms. It took the entire 7 days for my rash/bumps/whatever the hell it was to 95% be gone. 7 days ago I started applying it to the tops of my feet. That lasted two days, I had to stop because sure enough the product made the tops of my feet look exactly like my forearm rash. So I have stopped using the product entirely because of this reaction. I have pictures but didn't post them. If anyone wants to see them let me know.
DBBT said:well i started applying the AI onto the tops of my feet as recommended and no redness down there, but my freaking forearms look like i have poison ivy still, both very red and itchy-bumps. I've exfoliated (sp?) and cleaned them well im sure i just have an allergic reaction to one of the ingredients.I like the product, my test dose right now is the highest i've ever done and no gyno yet usually hits me around week 6 though im on 3. And im staying dry...If my camera didn't go tities up awhile back i'd post of pic cuz after last nights w/o and pump i really would have liked to have captured that, definitely at my biggest leanest weight ever and only 3 weeks deep. Again i don't have any problems with the results of the product, its evident that it works and i'm going to continue using it most likey only on the top of feet. Maybe the best advise for anyone using this prod. now or in the future would be to rotate application sites if concerned about getting "DBBT arm"
macrophage69alpha
New member
DBBT,
have you used Pseven before?
if so any problems with that?
it may be the linalool- not in Pseven- it can be slightly more irritating to the skin.
have you used Pseven before?
if so any problems with that?
it may be the linalool- not in Pseven- it can be slightly more irritating to the skin.
TheAssholeFomerlyKnownAsDBBT
New member
not that i know of were do you find that productmacrophage69alpha said:
macrophage69alpha
New member
Pseven is sold by AF, its another topical with pregenenolone and 7-oxo-dhea.
so guess the answer is no. Unfortunate about the rash, thats an occasional problem with topicals. it could also be that you have a mild allergy to one of the ingredients.
so guess the answer is no. Unfortunate about the rash, thats an occasional problem with topicals. it could also be that you have a mild allergy to one of the ingredients.
TheAssholeFomerlyKnownAsDBBT
New member
only other topical i used was YES and that did not leave any rash etc.macrophage69alpha said:
swordfish151
New member
Hey..just catching up on this thread..been gone since last thursday..anyway..DBBT washed out?? Sensitive ass! lol..anyway week 4 or mid week 4 no rash in site, no irritation, still dry as hell...on week 4 of sust/dbol loving it....at first (week 3) i did notice a slight redness but no irritation on my forearms, went to the feet, but the "slight" redness went away in a day....went back to the forearms...the only thing i did notice is that it really dry's the area out (where applied) other then that...no bad effects at all
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
Ulter said:
The information I was looking for has been posted. The avoidance of the question was basically all I wanted. See...for someone making a claim to be a researcher in the claimed field that you and Macro are claiming, coupled with Macro's claim that he has "thousands of dollars in books" ....I wanted to see if he had this most basic of texts. The refusal to post those page numbers are proof enough, in my mind, that he doesn't actually have "thousands of dollars" in texts. He could have simply posted the pages I asked for if he had the book. And it is, let me remind everyone, the most basic of texts reqauired to work in this area. And he doesn't have it, clearly, as he can't post simple page numbers, instead choosing to do internet searches and such to post the information, when I SPECIFICALLY asked for a page from a specific book.
In short, he doesn't have this book, it would seem. And if he doesn't have it, I doubt he has "thousands of dollars" in research books in this area. And if he doesn't have those books, then he's simply avoiding the questions.
Remember, when he said he can't post certain information because it's only available in books, not the net? Therefore, one must either take his word for it, or spend thousands of dollars to verify his claims. He said that in this very thread.
I would, instead offer another, now seemingly more plausable explanation:
He doesn't have those books that he has failed even to name. He doesn't even have the most basic of them, clearly. And if that is the case, which I think it is, then I believe there must be another reason he has failed to provide verification for his various claims.
That reason is obvious, I believe.
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
Also, I would like to add that unless the "proprietary blend" that has been developed by ANAFIT is better than anything that has been developed by the worlds pharmaceutical companies, given the molecular weight of ATD, I can't see how it would have better than 15% absorbtion. 15% absorbtion is not good enough for anyone to ever reccomend using transdermal steroids vs/ oral steroids. So why are we doing it with an AI? It doesn't make sense.
The formula is not completely unique. But we're not about to tell you where to go find it and post it on the internet. WTF?
The last time we posted our ingredients on Elite (Thermorexin) our bottler got a call from a business associate of Georges who wanted the bottler to make him the same formula.
You will not get the information you're asking for. And my point was that neither you nor anyone else are not entitled to our formula. The starting point for this formula was found in a very expensive book. If you want to know about where these things are maybe you can ask Patrick Arnold since he's used the same books to steal PH and other formulas.
As far as what makes sense to you or not, I'm afraid I can't help you there. Maybe you should read the posts of the people using it. Maybe you should have tried it yourself. In any event you'll have your answer when the 40 people we have using it submit their questionaires and post results.
What's funny to me is that this entire discussion is old hat to me.
2001 - There is no such thing as spot fat reduction so Yohimburn can't work. The science doesn't support it. Yohimburn goes on to become the number one selling product in it's category with no advertising.
2002 - There is no reason to buy R+ Lipoic Acid, regular ALA is just as good so don't waste your money. Glucorell goes on to become the number one provider of R+ Lipoic Acid in the US depite over 20 companies trying to copy it. Many of the same companies that said it didn't work when we introducted it BTW.
2003 - Neurogenex can't possibly help students with the cognitive skills. Piracetim then goes on to be a number one seller for cognitive skills in the US supplement market.
2005 - Anthony says that AI doesn't work because he can't find the literature on it.
Do you see what I mean? No one really cares what you think. The marketplace decides what works, not Anthony, not X, not any individual or group. The people that use it decide if it works.
The last time we posted our ingredients on Elite (Thermorexin) our bottler got a call from a business associate of Georges who wanted the bottler to make him the same formula.
You will not get the information you're asking for. And my point was that neither you nor anyone else are not entitled to our formula. The starting point for this formula was found in a very expensive book. If you want to know about where these things are maybe you can ask Patrick Arnold since he's used the same books to steal PH and other formulas.
As far as what makes sense to you or not, I'm afraid I can't help you there. Maybe you should read the posts of the people using it. Maybe you should have tried it yourself. In any event you'll have your answer when the 40 people we have using it submit their questionaires and post results.
What's funny to me is that this entire discussion is old hat to me.
2001 - There is no such thing as spot fat reduction so Yohimburn can't work. The science doesn't support it. Yohimburn goes on to become the number one selling product in it's category with no advertising.
2002 - There is no reason to buy R+ Lipoic Acid, regular ALA is just as good so don't waste your money. Glucorell goes on to become the number one provider of R+ Lipoic Acid in the US depite over 20 companies trying to copy it. Many of the same companies that said it didn't work when we introducted it BTW.
2003 - Neurogenex can't possibly help students with the cognitive skills. Piracetim then goes on to be a number one seller for cognitive skills in the US supplement market.
2005 - Anthony says that AI doesn't work because he can't find the literature on it.
Do you see what I mean? No one really cares what you think. The marketplace decides what works, not Anthony, not X, not any individual or group. The people that use it decide if it works.
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
Ulter said:
How odd. My book isn't available yet (it will be released next week). And...somehow ....you know what's in it, and feel yourself capable of giving a book synopsis on it.
Thats cool.
Do you often give summaries of books that haven't been released yet?
How often do you give opinions on things you haven't read? Just asking out of curiousity...
If you haven't read my book, and are giving an opinion on it, can we assume the same amount of care and research has gone into developing your supplements?
I appologize, I assumed the things you post all over the boards as Anthony Roberts are the same as the book. If you are posting things that are not in step with the book then you're right I don't know what's in it. I have read large portions of the book as far as I know though.
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
Ulter said:
Why would that upset you. You weren't the first on the market with such a product. You were second. So, frankly....shouldn't the first person to come up with it say the same thing about you guys?
So you're selling a product that you won't divulge exactly whats in it. And saying that me and Patrick Arnold are theives who just steal information (him from books and me from "the boards")? Ok. I don't see how that supports your position though, on ATD.
You won't tell us what book you have gotten it from, what the formula, or provide real evidence. Are you starting a cult or practicing alchemy? Because all the secrecy is more akin to magic than science. From my limited experience in science, the more solid your ideas are, the more readily you put them to the test for all to confirm. You, on the other hand, have "secret expensive books"....
I would suggest starting a religion rather than a supplement company, if you want to go this route. Secret books are very popular in this field...thats why the Bible was originally printed in Latin, and the Torah in Hebrew.
I don't know. Relying on posts isn't really credible, I think. Why not get bloodwork done? Also...as for posts well...how do I know that they haven't been edited. Some of my posts in this thread have been edited by Macro when I provided valid criticism of his product.
In any case, here's a quote from someone on another board who has used ATD (oral):
Click to view full post.
(WSTRAINER)
Although this is not an answere to your question, I did want people to be aware of the effects of ATD.
I train (Im a S&C coach) a researcher who has a few patents on AI,s and if all goes well will be introducing one to market in a few years. When I showed him my bottle of ATD, he agreed that it should work, but wanted me to take 1-2 capsules instead of the reccomended 4 (Gaspari brand).
In his opinion, lowering estrogen to raise testosterone for the natural trainee is the best and safest option.
ATD: I didnt take it for PCT (I havent done a cycle in 8 months). My main goal was to lean out and increase LBM. None of those occurred. If anything, I got fatter. The worst side effect, and the reason i wouldnt even reccomend this to my enemies was to constant joint pains. This made training / working out nearly impossible. Im just strating to feel better after about 6 weeks of being off ATD.
Just wanted to warn people.
The next person who posted noted that:
some others have noticed this as well.
Read that post here.
M
Mr.X
Guest
AR....Macro gave me this formula, he said it could be posted as it's not 'proprietary' only the amounts are.
*all the ingredients are made available.
the delivery system is similar to the one used for P-7 (which has been used on this board for several years)
ATD
DHEA
(there are versions with a third ingredient (4 generation oestrogen suppresant) but they are not being made available on the boards)
pure alcohol
propylene glycol
orange oil
oleic acid
linalool
glycerin
*all the ingredients are made available.
the delivery system is similar to the one used for P-7 (which has been used on this board for several years)
ATD
DHEA
(there are versions with a third ingredient (4 generation oestrogen suppresant) but they are not being made available on the boards)
pure alcohol
propylene glycol
orange oil
oleic acid
linalool
glycerin
macrophage69alpha
New member
Hooker (thats your real name anthony- so that people know who you are)
1. do you actually have a legitimate question?
2. actually the merck manual is pretty useless compared to many other texts and is available in its entirety online-btw- do have a copy it and of the PDR, but since they both say that anabolic steroids do not increase muscle mass, have not looked at them in about 10 years. Have not bought a copy since though do have the current third edition herbal PDR.
3. as noted the merck manual has no information on ATD
4. What the pharmaceutical industry uses and whats available are not the same. The method used by pharma is designed for convenience and patentability. The use of HPMC (patch and gel) decreases bioavailibility but extends release. once daily is what they want because people are lazy. Besides the fact that the Isolated PE's that they use are patentable, the organic PE's which are more effective, like orange oil and variants of tea tree oil are not.
5. With respect to steroids and transdermal delivery, the issue is COST and AVAILABILITY. while the cost of steroids is typically cheap, the end user often has a much higher cost and less availability. Plus ester technology is widely used, so injection is the preferred route- which gives 100% bioavailibility- minus the ester weight.
1. do you actually have a legitimate question?
2. actually the merck manual is pretty useless compared to many other texts and is available in its entirety online-btw- do have a copy it and of the PDR, but since they both say that anabolic steroids do not increase muscle mass, have not looked at them in about 10 years. Have not bought a copy since though do have the current third edition herbal PDR.
3. as noted the merck manual has no information on ATD
4. What the pharmaceutical industry uses and whats available are not the same. The method used by pharma is designed for convenience and patentability. The use of HPMC (patch and gel) decreases bioavailibility but extends release. once daily is what they want because people are lazy. Besides the fact that the Isolated PE's that they use are patentable, the organic PE's which are more effective, like orange oil and variants of tea tree oil are not.
5. With respect to steroids and transdermal delivery, the issue is COST and AVAILABILITY. while the cost of steroids is typically cheap, the end user often has a much higher cost and less availability. Plus ester technology is widely used, so injection is the preferred route- which gives 100% bioavailibility- minus the ester weight.
Why would that upset you. You weren't the first on the market with such a product. You were second. So, frankly....shouldn't the first person to come up with it say the same thing about you guys?
We weren't the first company to sell Thermorexin? Are you drunk? Who else makes a product with the Thermorexin formula?
You won't tell us what book you have gotten it from, what the formula, or provide real evidence. Are you starting a cult or practicing alchemy? Because all the secrecy is more akin to magic than science. From my limited experience in science, the more solid your ideas are, the more readily you put them to the test for all to confirm. You, on the other hand, have "secret expensive books"....
When are you going to get it through you head. You don't work for us. We have no interest in your review of our products. And ridicule like that isn't going to goad anyone into telling you trade secrets that will result in tremendous loss of sales to competitors who will use that information as a "how to" book to rip off the product.
You act like we owe it to you to do the R&D on our product and then just give it out freely to anyone who wants to steal it just to prove to YOU what we've developed.
Yeah right.
I don't know. Relying on posts isn't really credible, I think. Why not get bloodwork done? Also...as for posts well...how do I know that they haven't been edited. Some of my posts in this thread have been edited by Macro when I provided valid criticism of his product.
Any post that is simply slander will be removed. You have not used the product, nor have you given any reason why we shouldn't be testing it. For the most part what you've done is eliminate another large market for your book. Something you seem to do on all the other boards as well.
Relying on posts isn't credible? Then what do you think the 30,000 people posting on discussion boards are doing? That's the stupidest thing you've said. If you think a post was edited why don't you PM the authors and ask them. Under no circumstances are any results posts edited. Good or bad they are encouraged by us so people with similar experiences can read them and learn.
In any case, here's a quote from someone on another board who has used ATD (oral):
Good thing we're not testing oral use then isn't it?
We weren't the first company to sell Thermorexin? Are you drunk? Who else makes a product with the Thermorexin formula?
You won't tell us what book you have gotten it from, what the formula, or provide real evidence. Are you starting a cult or practicing alchemy? Because all the secrecy is more akin to magic than science. From my limited experience in science, the more solid your ideas are, the more readily you put them to the test for all to confirm. You, on the other hand, have "secret expensive books"....
When are you going to get it through you head. You don't work for us. We have no interest in your review of our products. And ridicule like that isn't going to goad anyone into telling you trade secrets that will result in tremendous loss of sales to competitors who will use that information as a "how to" book to rip off the product.
You act like we owe it to you to do the R&D on our product and then just give it out freely to anyone who wants to steal it just to prove to YOU what we've developed.
Yeah right.
I don't know. Relying on posts isn't really credible, I think. Why not get bloodwork done? Also...as for posts well...how do I know that they haven't been edited. Some of my posts in this thread have been edited by Macro when I provided valid criticism of his product.
Any post that is simply slander will be removed. You have not used the product, nor have you given any reason why we shouldn't be testing it. For the most part what you've done is eliminate another large market for your book. Something you seem to do on all the other boards as well.
Relying on posts isn't credible? Then what do you think the 30,000 people posting on discussion boards are doing? That's the stupidest thing you've said. If you think a post was edited why don't you PM the authors and ask them. Under no circumstances are any results posts edited. Good or bad they are encouraged by us so people with similar experiences can read them and learn.
In any case, here's a quote from someone on another board who has used ATD (oral):
Good thing we're not testing oral use then isn't it?
macrophage69alpha
New member
anthony roberts said:
with the exception of gaining fat, those are all side effects of strong oestrogenic suppression. Though its interesting to note that that is that persons first post. and such fat gain has not generally been reported by anyone using either ATD or other aromatase inhibitors. Though in theory heavy oestrogen suppression could cause fat gain in some individuals, there are animal studies with ArKO mice that are indicative of such.
people often report dryness and joint issues with letrozole, the strongest of the three prescription AI's. Hence why its often reccomended to stack low dose SERMS with any AI.
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
macrophage69alpha said:
Umm..."hooker" is my real name and Anthony isn't?
I used to post under the screen name "hooker" (and still do on occasion), but since my book was finished, I decided to use my name (which, for the record, is actually not "hooker"). This way people know who's posting, relative to my book.
But I don't see how much of this information is relevant. My rugby career (2 trips to the national all star games and playing first division in NZ), etc...just seems to be irrelevant to all of this.
The thread isn't about me, and isn't about my book, or any of the other things you and Ulter have brought up.
So why are they in the nexus of this conversation? I'd like to know how "Pat Arnold stealing prohormone formulas" and me having a "failed rugby career" makes ATD a good product?
What does my career, my book, and Pat Arnold have to do with ATD? Why are he and I being personally attacked in this thread?
If I had a legit product, and someone asked questions about it, I wouldn't insult them or attack them, nor would I attack people who haven't even posted in the thread. Can you explain these actions?
macrophage69alpha
New member
your circular arguments are amusing, childish but amusing.
do you have a legitimate question?
do you care to respond to the answers given you?
pls. stop trying to play martyr, it does not suit you and certainly is not deserved.
do you have a legitimate question?
do you care to respond to the answers given you?
pls. stop trying to play martyr, it does not suit you and certainly is not deserved.
I only addressed your credibilty and lack of credentials to be able to evaluate this formula. People will find it much easier to look up your posts as Hooker if they want to know just who it is turning this AI results thread into a bb.com bickering festival.
brooklynheight
New member
850 gr. test a week.-prop
60 gr dbol a day
week 4
no bloat or signs of gyno...no skin irritatation at all
60 gr dbol a day
week 4
no bloat or signs of gyno...no skin irritatation at all
macrophage69alpha
New member
brooklynheight said:
brooklynheight
New member
oops mg. 
..but the shit works!!! 
..but the shit works!!!
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
Ulter said:
Shouldn't people be evaluating the arguments I am putting forth? Rather than the person putting them forth? In logic (I have a degree in philosophy, with a concentration in logic), that is generally how one evaluates validity or soundness.
Also...how did mentioning my rugby career give weight to your argument or damage mine?
And since Macro can edit posts here, and you pay to be a sponsor here, aren't posts here just as valid as those on your "competitors board"?
You might have noticed that your posts, even though they aren't of any value, are still here. No one is deleting them. You're able to make whatever points you want to make. Minus the personal attacks that were deleted. So what's your bitch? Macro answered your questions and you simply reword them and ask them again. You've been going in circles all week.
You want to know our secret blend and you can't have it. That's pretty much the beginning and end of this but you keep rehashing it. You haven't made any arguments that have any bearing on the effectiveness of the product being evaluated.
Like I said, we've seen this type of assault on our products before. And hey guess what, those assaults all came from the people on the board you posted the link to. Those particular competitors assaulted our products and then some of them went on to copy them once they saw that our formulas worked better than they knew.
People need to know your background since you are making yourself out to be some kind of expert in steroids and chemistry. I simply pointed out that you are not. The majority of your book is filled with things you didn't author. You just parroted what you learned from the boards or had Nandi write it for you.
I am going to ask at some point that all your redundant posts get deleted because this thread was for people who are using the product to post on. You have soiled it instead of making your own thread.
You want to know our secret blend and you can't have it. That's pretty much the beginning and end of this but you keep rehashing it. You haven't made any arguments that have any bearing on the effectiveness of the product being evaluated.
Like I said, we've seen this type of assault on our products before. And hey guess what, those assaults all came from the people on the board you posted the link to. Those particular competitors assaulted our products and then some of them went on to copy them once they saw that our formulas worked better than they knew.
People need to know your background since you are making yourself out to be some kind of expert in steroids and chemistry. I simply pointed out that you are not. The majority of your book is filled with things you didn't author. You just parroted what you learned from the boards or had Nandi write it for you.
I am going to ask at some point that all your redundant posts get deleted because this thread was for people who are using the product to post on. You have soiled it instead of making your own thread.
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
Where, once again, does my rugby career factor into this?
And....I ask again...if the posts on a board run by your competitor are invalid, then aren't posts here on this board invalid also, as are those on your own board?
And finally, I'd like to mention that Dan Duchaine had a degree in theatre arts, not a science. And HE developed the idea of topical yohimbe, by the way...years prior to you.
Also....I wish I had access to your library...not only does it contain thousands of dollars of "secret books" but it also has books that haven't even come out yet. If you get a chance, can you send me the next Tom Clancy book? It's not going to be out for a few months, but I'm sure you have it, since you seem to already know what's in my book. As for the comments on Nandi, I consulted with him quite a bit when he was alive, and can't really see the similarity between what he wrote and what I write, except for in a few places. He and JGUNS both said that any claims other wise must have been erroneous or misunderstandings. Oh...and in his last e-mail to me, he was very complimentary and brought up the possibility of me moderating on his board (they both did, actually). Do you think they (or he) would do that if I "stole" from him?
Would I dedicate my book to someone I stole from? You seem to know whats in it already...why don't you read the dedication in the front....you'll see Karl's name...
And....I ask again...if the posts on a board run by your competitor are invalid, then aren't posts here on this board invalid also, as are those on your own board?
And finally, I'd like to mention that Dan Duchaine had a degree in theatre arts, not a science. And HE developed the idea of topical yohimbe, by the way...years prior to you.
Also....I wish I had access to your library...not only does it contain thousands of dollars of "secret books" but it also has books that haven't even come out yet. If you get a chance, can you send me the next Tom Clancy book? It's not going to be out for a few months, but I'm sure you have it, since you seem to already know what's in my book. As for the comments on Nandi, I consulted with him quite a bit when he was alive, and can't really see the similarity between what he wrote and what I write, except for in a few places. He and JGUNS both said that any claims other wise must have been erroneous or misunderstandings. Oh...and in his last e-mail to me, he was very complimentary and brought up the possibility of me moderating on his board (they both did, actually). Do you think they (or he) would do that if I "stole" from him?
Would I dedicate my book to someone I stole from? You seem to know whats in it already...why don't you read the dedication in the front....you'll see Karl's name...
You don't mind if I ignore you from this point on do you? 6 times is my limit on reading the same post reworded. If you don't like the AI then don't buy it. In the mean time, everyone else will be using it, paying half as much money, and won't be drinking alcohol that comes from a bottle that says "not for ingestion".
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
I'd also like to know why it is that when I write something that's 350+ pages long, and use some studies that apparently have been on the boards before, I'm stealing? However, when you "develop" a product thats already been written about (Duchaine wrote about a Yohimbe topical years before you had one), and or even been on the market already (sesa-whatever) it's good, solid research...?
When a competitor's board critique's a product it's invalid. Yet when yours does, it's valid?
When I ask questions, my integrity is questioned, and I'm subject to personal attacks on my character and ability....
Is this the "science" your product is based on?
When a competitor's board critique's a product it's invalid. Yet when yours does, it's valid?
When I ask questions, my integrity is questioned, and I'm subject to personal attacks on my character and ability....
Is this the "science" your product is based on?
When a competitor's board critique's a product it's invalid. Yet when yours does, it's valid?
I am talking about competitors that said R+ lipoic acid was a waste of money and 6 months later they were selling it. I don't care about anything my competitors say. I was pointing out the hypocracy of it and the fact they post attacks on the products without merit. Just like you're doing.
The rest of you post is more garbage I won't even bother with. Because it's been answered and you're repeating yourself.
Again, you have totally hijacked someone's thread and most of this will be deleted. You're more than welcome to start your own thread. That's what you should have done from the start. I am getting PM's and people are posting that they can't get the information they are looking for because of all the stupidity you've posted on someone else's thread.
I am talking about competitors that said R+ lipoic acid was a waste of money and 6 months later they were selling it. I don't care about anything my competitors say. I was pointing out the hypocracy of it and the fact they post attacks on the products without merit. Just like you're doing.
The rest of you post is more garbage I won't even bother with. Because it's been answered and you're repeating yourself.
Again, you have totally hijacked someone's thread and most of this will be deleted. You're more than welcome to start your own thread. That's what you should have done from the start. I am getting PM's and people are posting that they can't get the information they are looking for because of all the stupidity you've posted on someone else's thread.
bicepts101
New member
where is the addy for it i cant find it in your store
A
Anthony Roberts
Guest
macrophage69alpha said:
And testosterone, has a transdermal delivery rate (from the largest pharmaceutical companies best formula) of up to 10%. So we can assume your blend is no better than the best effort put forth by pharmaceutical companies. I think that's reasonable. So...we can now say with confidence that 90% of the ATD in your product...never makes it into the body, right?
Sounds like a waste...
SO even if there was a 90% inhibition of Aromatase possible by the amount in your product...how much does someone actually get of that aromatase inhibition when only 10% of the ATD ever makes it into the body?
1: J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2000 Dec;85(12):4500-10.
Long-term pharmacokinetics of transdermal testosterone gel in hypogonadal men.
Swerdloff RS, Wang C, Cunningham G, Dobs A, Iranmanesh A, Matsumoto AM, Snyder PJ, Weber T, Longstreth J, Berman N.
Divisions of Endocrinology, Departments of Medicine/Pediatrics, Harbor-University of California-Los Angeles Medical Center, Torrance, California 90509, USA.
Transdermal delivery of testosterone (T) represents an effective alternative to injectable androgens. Transdermal T patches normalize serum T levels and reverse the symptoms of androgen deficiency in hypogonadal men. However, the acceptance of the closed system T patches has been limited by skin irritation and/or lack of adherence. T gels have been proposed as delivery modes that minimize these problems. In this study we examined the pharmacokinetic profiles after 1, 30, 90, and 180 days of daily application of 2 doses of T gel (50 and 100 mg T in 5 and 10 g gel, delivering 5 and 10 mg T/day, respectively) and a permeation-enhanced T patch (2 patches delivering 5 mg T/day) in 227 hypogonadal men. This new 1% hydroalcoholic T gel formulation when applied to the upper arms, shoulders, and abdomen dried within a few minutes, and about 9-14% of the T applied was bioavailable. After 90 days of T gel treatment, the dose was titrated up (50 mg to 75 mg) or down (100 mg to 75 mg) if the preapplication serum T levels were outside the normal adult male range. Serum T rose rapidly into the normal adult male range on day 1 with the first T gel or patch application. Our previous study showed that steady state T levels were achieved 48-72 h after first application of the gel. The pharmacokinetic parameters for serum total and free T were very similar on days 30, 90, and 180 in all treatment groups. After repeated daily application of the T formulations for 180 days, the average serum T level over the 24-h sampling period (C(avg)) was highest in the 100 mg T gel group (1.4- and 1.9-fold higher than the C(avg) in the 50 mg T gel and T patch groups, respectively). Mean serum steady state T levels remained stable over the 180 days of T gel application. Upward dose adjustment from T gel 50 to 75 mg/day did not significantly increase the C(avg), whereas downward dose adjustment from 100 to 75 mg/day reduced serum T levels to the normal range for most patients. Serum free T levels paralleled those of serum total T, and the percent free T was not changed with transdermal T preparations. The serum dihydrotestosterone C(avg) rose 1.3-fold above baseline after T patch application, but was more significantly increased by 3.6- and 4.6-fold with T gel 50 and 100 mg/day, respectively, resulting in a small, but significant, increase in the serum dihydrotestosterone/T ratios in the two T gel groups. Serum estradiol rose, and serum LH and FSH levels were suppressed proportionately with serum T in all study groups; serum sex hormone-binding globulin showed small decreases that were significant only in the 100 mg T gel group. We conclude that transdermal T gel application can efficiently and rapidly increase serum T and free T levels in hypogonadal men to within the normal range. Transdermal T gel provided flexibility in dosing with little skin irritation and a low discontinuation rate.
Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
But here's something I find interesting...it would seem that ATD is an androgen receptor blocker...meaning it prevents testosterone from attaching to the receptor and thus would eliminate some of it's genomic (Receptor Mediated) effects, such as an increase in protein synthesis, etc...basically slowing down muscle building. Here's a study:
Effects of ATD on male sexual behavior and androgen receptor binding: a reexamination of the aromatization hypothesis.
Kaplan ME, McGinnis MY.
Department of Anatomy, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, CUNY, New York 10029.
The aromatization hypothesis asserts that testosterone (T) must be aromatized to estradiol (E2) to activate copulatory behavior in the male rat. In support of this hypothesis, the aromatization inhibitor, ATD, has been found to suppress male sexual behavior in T-treated rats. In our experiment, we first replicated this finding by peripherally injecting ATD (15 mg/day) or propylene glycol into T-treated (two 10-mm Silastic capsules) or control castrated male rats. In a second experiment, we bilaterally implanted either ATD-filled or blank cannulae into the medial preoptic area (MPOA) of either T-treated or control castrated male rats. With this more local distribution of ATD, a lesser decline in sexual behavior was found, suggesting that other brain areas are involved in the neurohormonal activation of copulatory behavior in the male rat. To determine whether in vivo ATD interacts with androgen or estrogen receptors, we conducted cell nuclear androgen and estrogen receptor binding assays of hypothalamus, preoptic area, amygdala, and septum following treatment with the combinations of systemic T alone. ATD plus T, ATD alone, and blank control. In all four brain areas binding of T to androgen receptors was significantly decreased in the presence of ATD, suggesting that ATD may act both as an androgen receptor blocker and as an aromatization inhibitor. Competitive binding studies indicated that ATD competes in vitro for cytosol androgen receptors, thus substantiating the in vivo antiandrogenic effects of ATD. Cell nuclear estrogen receptor binding was not significantly increased by exposure to T in the physiological range. No agonistic properties of ATD were observed either behaviorally or biochemically. Thus, an alternative explanation for the inhibitory effects of ATD on male sexual behavior is that ATD prevents T from binding to androgen receptors.
PMID: 2925181 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
macrophage69alpha
New member
anthony roberts said:
this study done in 1989 proposed a theory, that effects were due to AR binding, a theory that was later refuted and dismissed.. by studies like this one.
Differential effects of aromatase inhibition on luteinizing hormone secretion in intact and castrated male cynomolgus macaques.
Resko JA, Connolly PB, Roselli CE, Abdelgadir SE, Choate JV.
Department of Physiology, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland 97201-3098.
To understand the role of central aromatization in feedback regulation of LH in nonhuman primates, we treated adult male cynomolgus monkeys with the aromatase inhibitor, 1,4,6-androstatriene-3,17-dione (ATD). We measured LH, testosterone (T), and ATD in systemic sera of blood samples drawn on a diurnal schedule (0900 and 2100 h). Each animal was bled for 4 pretreatment days from a femoral catheter after which they were divided into the following treatment groups: castrated (Cx), n = 2; Cx + T, n = 6; Cx + T + ATD, n = 6; Cx + ATD, n = 3; and sham operated + ATD, n = 3. Silastic capsules or packets containing T or ATD, respectively, were placed sc between the scapulae at the time of Cx or sham treatment. In T-treated animals, T (20 micrograms/kg body weight) dissolved in propylene glycol was injected im at 2100 h to mimic the diurnal rise of T observed in nonhuman primates. Animals were bled for 2 weeks after which they were killed, and selected brain areas were analyzed for aromatase activity and cytosolic and nuclear androgen receptors. Animals treated with ATD had significantly reduced levels of aromatase activity in selected regions of the hypothalamus, preoptic area, and the amygdala (P < 0.05). Even though ATD inhibited brain aromatase activity, it did not prevent the negative feedback actions of T on LH secretion after Cx. In addition, ATD by itself inhibited LH secretion after Cx and activated brain androgen receptors. These latter effects of ATD seemed to have been mediated through a metabolite. In sham-operated intact males, ATD produced variable surges of LH that were accompanied by elevations of T in the systemic circulation. These differential effects of ATD in intact vs. castrated animals demonstrate the importance of selecting the proper model system to study LH control mechanisms. In the intact animal, aromatization seems to play a role in regulating LH secretion, but the postcastration rise of LH seems to be regulated differently.
----------------------------------------------------
with respect to AR binding, ATD has the same binding affinity as exemestane (Aromasin) between .2% and .25% of DHT.
macrophage69alpha
New member
anthony roberts said:
1. poor assumption
2. not really best effort- even at the time of conception
3. not reasonable
4. such confidence is not justified
do you even know what the base for androgel is?
alcohol and a single permeation enhancer IPM (isopropyl myristate). (relevant ingredients)
this technology is not only OLD it has a low efficiency, what it does have is FDA approval for that prescription use. developed in this case over 20 years ago. Hey old technologies can be good, this is just not one of them.
EVEN IF ALL THE CLAIMS YOU MADE WERE TRUE---- which they are NOT.
its irrelevant, dosing is not based on delivery percent. Those percentages, while interesting and somewhat prideful are just estimates of delivery based on the delivery vehichle. Dosing is based on suppression of aromatase activity.
How much of the active that is "wasted" is also irrelevant, sure its interesting to the developer of the delivery platform- in a prideful way, but to the end user suppression of aromatase is what matters. Whether you waste 100mg or 30mg to deliver 10mg but the cost and effects to the end user are the same- what does it matter to them?
Tux
Well-known member
Well I just started using my sample one pump on each forearm, morning and night, for 4 pumps per day total. This will be with over a gram of test and around 80mg/day of dbol. If don't become a total blimp, I'll say it's pretty good. I'll know in about 10-14 days. Smells kinda like orange pine-sol.. kinda nice
macrophage69alpha
New member
Tux said:Well I just started using my sample one pump on each forearm, morning and night, for 4 pumps per day total. This will be with over a gram of test and around 80mg/day of dbol. If don't become a total blimp, I'll say it's pretty good. I'll know in about 10-14 days. Smells kinda like orange pine-sol.. kinda nice
thanks for the feedback
I just got back from vacation but I have used the AI for 3 weeks now. So far no complaints. I have used as per directions on the bottle. It seems to keep the water bloat off quite well (my face is ALWAYS a bit puffy on test but this time it is decent). My only slight complaint was a small red rash on the inside of my forearm. all i did was use the solution a bit further up and it was fine withiin a day. anyways good product imo.
macrophage69alpha
New member
Tux said:
Ulter said:
Nobody is asking for your propietary information.
The science simply doesn't fit.
And here's the conundrum:
You claim to have been able to increase the transdermal delivery to roughly 30-40%, when pharmaceutical companies (Who have an R&D Budget bigger than your entire company*100000000000), haven't been able to.
If you can answer that question, you will be able to shut up everybody for good.
macrophage69alpha
New member
this has already been covered in post #178. You may read it or not. You may take it as you will.
just as a note- while its not particularly relevant there are many large companies with huge research and development budgets that put out substandard products. Quite frankly a lot of them are in the pharmaceutical industry and a lot of that lack of biological quality is tied to patentability.
just as a note- while its not particularly relevant there are many large companies with huge research and development budgets that put out substandard products. Quite frankly a lot of them are in the pharmaceutical industry and a lot of that lack of biological quality is tied to patentability.
So Fonz (js27) you're saying that drug companies, because of their money, put out more effective products than supplement companies. Is that right?
Which anti-hyperglycemia remedy is best for stimulating glucose uptake?
Metformin and glyburide (PRUDENCE PHARMA)
Troglitazone (Parke-Davis)
Humulin R (Eli Lilly)
Insulow (Glucorell R+ Lipoic Acid)
Did you guess insulin? Guess again. The ingredient R+ Lipoic Acid beat ALL three of the top diabetes drugs used for glucose uptake. Now how can a little company like ours sell a product that beat out Eli Lilly, Prudence Pharma, and Parke-Davis. Surely they have more R&D money than we do. Ah so maybe what Macro is saying is true, ya think? Maybe drug companies don't sell what works best. They sell what they can patent.
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/50/6/1464
LA is R+ Lipoic supplied by Asta Medica
Which anti-hyperglycemia remedy is best for stimulating glucose uptake?
Metformin and glyburide (PRUDENCE PHARMA)
Troglitazone (Parke-Davis)
Humulin R (Eli Lilly)
Insulow (Glucorell R+ Lipoic Acid)
Did you guess insulin? Guess again. The ingredient R+ Lipoic Acid beat ALL three of the top diabetes drugs used for glucose uptake. Now how can a little company like ours sell a product that beat out Eli Lilly, Prudence Pharma, and Parke-Davis. Surely they have more R&D money than we do. Ah so maybe what Macro is saying is true, ya think? Maybe drug companies don't sell what works best. They sell what they can patent.
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/50/6/1464
LA is R+ Lipoic supplied by Asta Medica
swordfish151
New member
UPDATE: Week 5...still dry as hell...no skin irritations at all...man im loving this stuff...i did have a question about it though. Being that we use a "pump" to administer the product...how do we know how "much" of the product we are using? For instance, first pump is always alot less then the second time i pump on the other forearm....is there a "ballpark" dosage per pump?
macrophage69alpha
New member
swordfish151 said:
200mcl
.2ml
macrophage69alpha
New member
???
macrophage69alpha
New member
updates?
swordfish151
New member
Week 5 going strong...started applying it to the tops of my feet...got this itching sensation on my forearm....but no redness? other then that...dry as hell...loving it!
macrophage69alpha
New member
Tux
Well-known member
Well the minor sides went away, continuing with 2pumps, twice a day, inner forearms. On 80mg/day of dbol, by now I'd have expected to look like the stay-puff marshmallow man, yet my face is very lean for already gaining7lbs in 10 days. I am still holding some water SOMEwhere, but it's not in my face, which the only area I really care about when bulking. This is some good stuff, though my girlfriend thinks I've got an orange pinesol fetish or something now
Similar threads
