Originally Posted by Stay Puft

Yes, but the problem is simply that your just saying it, without provide anything to support it.

The parent drug doesn't just disappear as one may easily infer from the above comment. Drug half life is very complex, and often non-linear.

Have a look here to get a better idea. Clearance, Volume of distribution, metabolism and dose are all paramount to determining the half life in vivo, which is why I asked for the source of your claims and if you were aware of a particular mechanism unique to the biological processes inherent to albuterol metabolism.

While the reading above was educational, a distinct metabolic element for albuterol removal at the level of the adipocyte has yet to be discussed.

Dude, I'm not spending my time "proving" an accepted fact: that albuterol is a shorter acting drug than clenbuterol. Feel free to research it if you have such a woody over it. I won't lose any sleep if you prove that fact to be reversed. In fact, I'm sure the entire medical community would love to hear your findings. I know that the field that my latest degree is in would be turned upside down. I'll be looking forward to your results, in fact.

Originally Posted by N4cer

Dude, I'm not spending my time "proving" an accepted fact: that albuterol is a shorter acting drug than clenbuterol. Feel free to research it if you have such a woody over it. I won't lose any sleep if you prove that fact to be reversed. In fact, I'm sure the entire medical community would love to hear your findings. I know that the field that my latest degree is in would be turned upside down. I'll be looking forward to your results, in fact.

Are we getting into degree flashing? I am certain you'd rather not. Given the level of physiological sophistication in which you've made your points, I haven't a doubt that you possess an inflated sense of value in your education.

Answer me this, in terms as simple and complex as you'd prefer: what evidence supports your claim pertaining to the time-course difference between clen and alb at the level of the adipocyte? (If you preach half life, please intrigue us with detail, as I've already shown you that half life is far more complex than you'd like.)

Originally Posted by Stay Puft

Are we getting into degree flashing? I am certain you'd rather not. Given the level of physiological sophistication in which you've made your points, I haven't a doubt that you possess an inflated sense of value in your education.

Answer me this, in terms as simple and complex as you'd prefer: what evidence supports your claim pertaining to the time-course difference between clen and alb at the level of the adipocyte? (If you preach half life, please intrigue us with detail, as I've already shown you that half life is far more complex than you'd like.)

Degree flashing? Dude, what are you talking about? I'm not here to compete with you or anybody else. I don't know what your offense to this is, but it's kinda funny that a supplement company rep is so worried about adding a prescription medication to his OTC product. Not sure I understand why you'd be so concerned about it when it's not really up the FDA's alley. Supp companies anymore are under such scrutiny anyway that it's just strange for you to be so concerned with it that you'd intentionally be disrespectful to customers over it. That's bad business.

I have no need to continue this discussion since you are apparently set on being disrespectful and argumentative for no reason. I don't know what you have against trying to put things into wording that everyone can understand, but you are a prime example of why AM gets a bad rap among the veterans of the online bodybuilding community.

I have no details to make me believe that albuterol is removed from fat faster than clen. Other than the fact that it is a shorter acting compound in all its other effects.

Two points:

1 - Stay Puft represents, himself and AR/AL as a sponsor rep.
2 - There is no need for this to continue in this tone for one more post.

You are again mistaken with several of your points.

You initiated the talk of "your latest degree" suggesting that my pursuit of some scientific data, rather than your subjective parroting ("it's just slower acting"), in regards to the actual -- not imagined -- pharmacodynamics of a drug that we were discussing. As an actual member of the medical community, I have conducted myself in a manner befitting most among us that desire legitimate scientific data to back any and all physiological claims.

Never was I personal, or slanderous. Never did I hesitate to correct the err in commentary, and if you don't like being questioned, then I suggest you learn how to better deal with conflict. Conflict isn't always evil, and if you deal with it appropriately, it never is.

As far as questioning my value as a businessman, I find it utterly laughable that you've been reduced that clinched argument. It is clearly in my interest to understand the mechanism of action of a compound once they are introduced to one of the products that I has a significant hand in designing. I did nothing in this thread except pursue that mechanism at a level of complexity that you continually deny exists and remain reluctant to help me elucidate.

I give AM a bad rep? What do you base this ridiculousness on?

No, you took it wrongly when I mentioned my degree. So what if you're a "member of the medical community"? So am I. Wow! Congratulations!

I'll deal with conflict as I wish. If it's a way you don't like, I don't care. You are nobody and you don't have to approve.

It is NOT in the best interest of any company to support a thread whereby their representative condones adding prescription medications.

What data do you need? Because to say you want data to prove that albuterol is a shorter acting compound than clen says that you don't believe that it is such.

Gentlemen,

This has been a helpful and informative thread for all parties up until now.

It was my suggestion that we leave it that way.

The issue of half life with these chemicals is likely intangible when you consider that used in this application (transdermal) they are both likely and theoretically sustained released to a good degree and are supposed to be locally active in this carrier. Does this innovative methods of administration impact the half life of either or both? It may or may not.

If either of you feels that this is that pertinent an issue to decipher in this topic of topical application please provide reference or credible data or theory to support your stance.

Are they different in half life when administered orally? Feel free to generate a new thread to discuss this if your feel the need.

Otherwise guys, please end the personal insinuations.

Thanks.

has anyone determined whether any of the following negate the need for cycling clen enhanced lipoderm or napalm? Or at least allow it to be effective for a full 4 weeks?

*benadryl
*ketotifen orally
*ketotifen mixed in with the lipo/napalm

Originally Posted by EasyEJL

has anyone determined whether any of the following negate the need for cycling clen enhanced lipoderm or napalm? Or at least allow it to be effective for a full 4 weeks?

*benadryl
*ketotifen orally
*ketotifen mixed in with the lipo/napalm

There was some speculation elsewhere on this board about this very topic.

My opinion focused on the issue of distribution. With Napalm, the receptor internalization will obviously be very localized whereas the keto will be much more evenly distributed. Taking this into account one might want to take a slightly increased dose for maximal effectiveness.

I would still suggest cycling anything c/ clen however, perhaps 3 on 1off, 2on 1 off, washout.

Wow...didnt know this thread will last. Anyway, I receive my napalm just the other day. I dont feel temp rising and I just dont understand what the menthol is for (menthol is supposed to replace the smell from"dmso"). Still good because no nausea, blood pressure.. Well lets see if double dose will take effect and if not time to put some experiment with clen

benadryl...This is supposed to be topical not transdermal?

Originally Posted by B5150

By Nandi

I've noticed that with albuterol the increase in heart rate is there, but since the half life is short, you don't notice the effect nearly as much as with clen. This is probably because I use it prior to a workout when my heart rate is up anyway. With clen, I notice it when I'm trying to get to sleep, for example.

The stimulation of the heart is a result of the fact that neither clenbuterol nor albuterol are completely selective for beta-2 receptors. They still act on beta-1 receptors to some degree, and these are the receptors that are primarily responsible for the cardiac effects. Ephedrine is nonselective, and that's probably why many people say they get better fat burning effects with an EC or ECA stack than with clen: the increase in heart rate is contributing to the calorigenic effect more than is the case with clen or albuterol. But it also has more side effects.

As far as the enantiomers go, albuterol contains an equal mixture of the R/S enantiomers, Xopenex consists of the R enantiomer. From the discussion above you can see that both enantiomers contribute to the calorigenic effect. The S form present in albuterol contributes to beta-1 activity, which increases heart contractility contributing to a portion of the calorigenic effect. Beta-1 receptors also contribute to lipolysis in fat cells.

In humans both beta-1 and beta-2 receptors contribute to thermogenesis, with there being conflicting data about the contribution from beta-3 receptors. See (1) for example. So some degree of beta 1 stimulation is desirable.

Both the R and S enantiomers of albuterol contribute to thermogensis by activating both the beta-1 and beta-2 (and probably beta-3 as well) receptors. Xopenex would likely be a much less effective thermogenic than albuterol because of its lack of beta-1 stimulation.



(1) Am J Physiol. 1993 Jan;264(1 Pt 1):E11-7.
Role of alpha- and beta-adrenoceptors in sympathetically mediated thermogenesis.
Blaak EE, van Baak MA, Kempen KP, Saris WH

All hail Nandi.

You too, B

Originally Posted by bodyfort

I dont feel temp rising and I just dont understand what the menthol is for (menthol is supposed to replace the smell from"dmso"). Still good because no nausea, blood pressure.. Well lets see if double dose will take effect and if not time to put some experiment with clen

It is unusual to be free of a warming sensation. Are you scrubbing off the dead skin prior to application (or just out of a shower, etc)?

To answer below topical=transdermal.

@stay puft. how sure are you? Transdermal is systemically while topical work on local (or say under skin). If you are saying napalm is transdermal then I would put my testosterone in it

Also, Im rubbing it the right way. In fact base on some opinion that I followes is absorption will be great if expose to sun or heat

So once the 30ML of Liquid clen is added, how many pumps are needed or how does the added volume affect the amount you need to rub on. Or, do you guys just measure out a certain amount in ML and rub that in?

Originally Posted by slyfox115

So once the 30ML of Liquid clen is added, how many pumps are needed or how does the added volume affect the amount you need to rub on. Or, do you guys just measure out a certain amount in ML and rub that in?

A bottle of Napalm is 120ml. If you add 30ml more that is an additional 25% more volume. Adjust your dose by an additional 25% to continue to get the same amount of Napalm actives.

Max recommended dose of Napalm is 6ml/day (3ml x 2/d). Take 6ml x 25% more = 7.5ml/day (3.75ml x 2/d)

An other way is this way; 120ml lasts 20 days at the max doses of 6ml/day (3ml x 2/d). When you add 30ml to 120ml you have a total of 150ml. Divide that by 20 days for 7.5ml/day (3.75ml x 2/d)

Topical is different from tansdermal. Topical can apply to the localized effects of aerosol bronchodilators. I wouldn't call them transdermal. I thought this was sopposed to be a parenteral transdermal if we are getting technical.

Originally Posted by bodyfort

@stay puft. how sure are you? Transdermal is systemically while topical work on local (or say under skin). If you are saying napalm is transdermal then I would put my testosterone in it

Also, Im rubbing it the right way. In fact base on some opinion that I followes is absorption will be great if expose to sun or heat

I tend to use the terms interchangeably, but will note your nomenclature.

In that case, the benydrl (or anything taken to attenuate receptor internalization) would be best suited for topical application concurrent with the topical fat loss product. Keeping the actives in the same location will be in your interest for best results.

I am not sure what to make of the absence of a sensation upon application. Would you say you have abnormally high threshold for pain?

Originally Posted by B5150

A bottle of Napalm is 120ml. If you add 30ml more that is an additional 25% more volume. Adjust your dose by an additional 25% to continue to get the same amount of Napalm actives.

Max recommended dose of Napalm is 6ml/day (3ml x 2/d). Take 6ml x 25% more = 7.5ml/day (3.75ml x 2/d)

An other way is this way; 120ml lasts 20 days at the max doses of 6ml/day (3ml x 2/d). When you add 30ml to 120ml you have a total of 150ml. Divide that by 20 days for 7.5ml/day (3.75ml x 2/d)

Thanks man that cleared it all up. I can't wait to try this! I am 8 weeks out from the NPC Upper Midwest Classic and am sitting at about 9-10% BF. I am spot on the diet so I am hoping to see some pretty big changes.

So B5150,
Approximately how many ML per pump from the bottle with the new mixture? And can an extra 30ML of liquid clen fit in an already full 120ml bottle of napalm or does the mixture need to be made in a different container?

Originally Posted by B5150

A bottle of Napalm is 120ml. If you add 30ml more that is an additional 25% more volume. Adjust your dose by an additional 25% to continue to get the same amount of Napalm actives.

Max recommended dose of Napalm is 6ml/day (3ml x 2/d). Take 6ml x 25% more = 7.5ml/day (3.75ml x 2/d)

An other way is this way; 120ml lasts 20 days at the max doses of 6ml/day (3ml x 2/d). When you add 30ml to 120ml you have a total of 150ml. Divide that by 20 days for 7.5ml/day (3.75ml x 2/d)

So its 1ml per pump?

I'm sorry guys but I never use the pumps. I draw my product out and put it into a bottle with an adapt-a-cap lid and metered syringe for measured applications and experimentation.

I'm not sure what it is per pump. I thought I remember reading 1ml/pump somewhere but I will let AR speak for their product.

30ml additional volume will NOT fit into the bottle.

Originally Posted by B5150

I thought I remember reading 1ml/pump somewhere but I will let AR speak for their product.

For Napalm, it is 1ml/pump.

Originally Posted by rpen22

For Napalm, it is 1ml/pump.

OK what is this lipo-u stuff?

I tried google and came up with nothing

Products By Avant Labs Page 1

Products By Avant Research Page 1

Originally Posted by waytoodeep03

OK what is this lipo-u stuff?

I tried google and came up with nothing

As B posted, Lipo-U is referring to the Avant Labs topical Lipoderm-Ultra.

I don't have bulk powder, but I have 50mcg tabs. Can I grind those up and combine it with my Napalm??

Some add clen to Napalm, others to Lipo-U. I want to add the clen to one of them and run the one without the clen during the "off" weeks. Which is more effective, Lipo-U + clen or Napalm + clen or does it matter?

Can you guys also give me some input on a cycle I'm planning: Cap/Lipo-U/Napalm/DCP/CLA/Clen

Originally Posted by ThisGuy02

I don't have bulk powder, but I have 50mcg tabs. Can I grind those up and combine it with my Napalm??

No,there is too much filler present to yield an adequate amount of clenbuterol.

Originally Posted by Colin

No,there is too much filler present to yield an adequate amount of clenbuterol.

Damn. I thought there might be.

Well, lookin' forward to trying out my Napalm anyway, even without the clen mixed in. Besides, I'll still be taking the clen, I'll just be dealing with the sides.