MACRO/ULTER........Testing a new Aromatese Inhibitor Formula:

[Anthony Roberts]

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....

 

[Ulter]

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.

 

[macrophage69alpha]

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.

 

[Anthony Roberts]

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

.

...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]

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.

 

[Mr.X]

...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....

Interesting point....I'd like to see some of these studies too, any way to get a scan of them?

 

[macrophage69alpha]

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.

 

[Anthony Roberts]

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

 

[macrophage69alpha]

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.

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.

 

[Anthony Roberts]

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.

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...)