Enhancing Your Napalm: Anyone clen do it!
- 01-21-2008, 10:26 PM
- 01-21-2008, 10:28 PM
There is a shorter half live in albuterol than clenbuterol but this may not be a clear disadvantage:
"Albuterol, like its closely related chemical cousin clenbuterol, is an asthma medication that has been adopted by athletes and bodybuilders as an ergogenic aid. Like clenbuterol, albuterol binds to the so called beta 2 adrenergic receptors found on cells throughout the body. The beta 2 receptors on fat cells activate an enzyme called hormone sensitive lipase. This breaks up stored fat into free fatty acids that are able to then leave the fat cell and serve as a fuel source in other tissues. In athletes the primary target of these fatty acids is working muscle. This is the familiar process we know as lipolysis. Albuterol, like clen, is a potent lipolytic agent. But simply freeing up fat is not enough. Unless the body can burn the extra FFA they will simply be reincorporated into fat. Albuterol has the ability to elevate a person's metabolic rate so these FFA can be utilized for fuel. Numerous animal studies have shown that clenbuterol increases both muscle size and strength; data supporting these effects in humans are sparse. Albuterol on the the other hand has been shown to significantly increase both strength and endurance in humans (1,2). As an added benfit, albuterol lowers LDL and total cholesterol, while at the same time elevating HDL, the "good cholesterol": "Significant alterations (P < or = .02) were observed in total cholesterol ([TC] -9.1% +/- 2.5%), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ([LDL-C] - 15.0% +/- 2.9%), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ([HDL-C] +10.4% +/- 3.2%) concentrations, as well as the TC/HDL-C (-17.4% +/- 2.6%) and LDL-C/HDL-C (-22.9% +/- 2.4%) ratios." (3) 4 mg of albuterol taken approximately 1 to 2 hours before a workout allows for peak plasma levels to be reached during the training session. Additionally the much shorter half life of albuterol compared to clenbuterol allows one to benefit from its ergogenic effects during a training session but not suffer the sleeplessness that many clenbuterol users experience. Moreover, the short half life leads to much less beta 2 receptor downregulation than with clenbuterol, allowing one to use the drug daily for longer periods of time. On the other hand, if one is primarily interested in fat loss rather than performance enhancement, one could take 3 or 4 multiple doses of albuterol throughout the day, always of course cutting back if clenbuterol-like side effects are felt. 1 Bottle Of CEM Laboratories Liquid USP Albuterol Sulfate is 30 ML at 4 MG/ML. (1) Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000 Jul;32(7):1300-6. Effect of salbutamol on muscle strength and endurance performance in nonasthmatic men. van Baak MA, Mayer LH, Kempinski RE, Hartgens F. (2) Aviat Space Environ Med. 2004 Jun;75(6):505-11 Albuterol helps resistance exercise attenuate unloading-induced knee extensor losses. Caruso JF, Hamill JL, Yamauchi M, Mercado DR, Cook TD, Keller CP, Montgomery AG, Elias J. (3) Metabolism. 1996 Jun;45(6):712-7 Effects of oral albuterol on serum lipids and carbohydrate metabolism in healthy men.
Maki KC, Skorodin MS, Jessen JH, Laghi F."
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
01-21-2008, 10:29 PM
01-21-2008, 10:36 PM
So at 4mg/ml how many ml would we want to be adding to a 120ml topical like Napalm or Lipo-U?
Right now the recommendation is 30ml of 100mcg/ml to 120ml of topical Napalm and Lipo-U
01-21-2008, 10:37 PM
01-21-2008, 10:41 PM
They are both b1 receptor agonists which have impact on cardiovascular health when taken orally. The one, albuterol has a shorter half life, yet still the b1 receptor aganist just the same.
01-21-2008, 10:53 PM
01-21-2008, 10:57 PM
Oh, I am not intending to crush your anti-fat dreams. But even when using clenbuterol I would only use it in this transdermal application to avoid systemic administration that will be potential cardiovascular risk. Albuterol has the same risk for shorter durations due to the shorter half life. But this can mean twice or more the dosing frequency. Risk all the same. Of course you can find albuterol for oral consumption if one choses to go that route
01-22-2008, 12:56 AM
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. Pharmacokinetic parameters such as clearance, volume of distribution, metabolism and dose are all paramount when determining the half life in vivo. For this reason 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. To that effect, it appear that albuterol clears faster in obese subjects, suggesting it's poor distribution into lipophylic regions.
In light of all this, it should be obvious that BOTH can be acceptable in a topical solution. However,
I feel that albuterol is ideal for oral dosing, while the clenbuterol is better suited for topical solutions. The former strategy allows athletes to increase their basal metabolism and avoid insomnia, while the latter buffers the deleterious effects of clen on cardiovascular tissue.
01-22-2008, 01:01 AM
And to speak more generally to the entire topic:
It should be very clear now that albuterol is acceptable in a topical solution like Napalm, but is likely more effective taken orally (to boost metabolism and avoid insomnia).
All things considered, both will be very effective in a topical regardless.
01-22-2008, 01:06 AM
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.
01-22-2008, 01:35 PM
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.)
01-22-2008, 05:30 PM
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.
01-22-2008, 06:01 PM
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.
01-22-2008, 06:01 PM
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?
01-22-2008, 06:20 PM
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.
01-22-2008, 07:59 PM
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.
01-22-2008, 08:25 PM
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?
*ketotifen mixed in with the lipo/napalm
01-22-2008, 10:34 PM
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.
01-23-2008, 12:42 AM
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
01-23-2008, 12:44 AM
01-23-2008, 08:05 AM
01-23-2008, 02:00 PM
01-23-2008, 02:16 PM
@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
01-23-2008, 02:21 PM
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?
Similar Forum Threads
- By mdtech123 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 0Last Post: 08-18-2008, 12:18 PM
- By St1ff in forum AnabolicsReplies: 6Last Post: 01-06-2008, 03:08 PM
- By Rage (SoCal) in forum SupplementsReplies: 98Last Post: 08-01-2006, 10:26 PM
- By Grant in forum Training ForumReplies: 3Last Post: 09-18-2004, 05:40 PM