Androshred - ON SALE !!

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by bigdavid View Post
    So you’re saying that you don’t care. That’s cool. Are you an official representative for this company?
    I'm asking you


  2. Quote Originally Posted by skinnybones View Post
    Are you a rep?
    No.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by bigdavid View Post
    So youíre saying that you donít care. Thatís cool. Are you an official representative for this company?
    Nope just trying to figure out why your Hating. Spit some facts bro. Learn me lol

  4. Quote Originally Posted by skinnybones View Post
    Nope just trying to figure out why your Hating. Spit some facts bro. Learn me lol
    So, you don't know the answer as to whether 300 mg of Phosphatidylserine taken via mouth as a dietary supplement is equivalent to 300 mg topically? Because that is what I'm asking. More specifically, for a company to make claims on a product write-up, like "this compound does x and y", you expect the administration to be the same. The studies on Phosphatidylserine come from taking it in the diet, i.e. via the mouth/orally...where is a study showing bioequivalence for topical administration? Or am I just being a hater? Do you understand what I am asking?

  5. Quote Originally Posted by bigdavid View Post
    So, you don't know the answer as to whether 300 mg of Phosphatidylserine taken via mouth as a dietary supplement is equivalent to 300 mg topically? Because that is what I'm asking. More specifically, for a company to make claims on a product write-up, like "this compound does x and y", you expect the administration to be the same. The studies on Phosphatidylserine come from taking it in the diet, i.e. via the mouth/orally...where is a study showing bioequivalence for topical administration? Or am I just being a hater? Do you understand what I am asking?
    I do. But I saw no previous question asked is why am asking.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by skinnybones View Post
    I do. But I saw no previous question asked is why am asking.
    Still waiting to be taught....

  7. Quote Originally Posted by skinnybones View Post
    I do. But I saw no previous question asked is why am asking.
    So your method of seeking understanding is: 1. say wtf? 2. call me a dick/hater 3. See if I am a rep trying to make this company lose revenue 4. Finally ask what you wanted to ask.
    I suggest you reverse the order^^^steps: 4., 3., 2., 1. in that order, would be more efficient

    If you go back to my first post...yes it was a smart-ass way of saying it, but it implies/entails the questions I listed above.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by skinnybones View Post
    Still waiting to be taught....
    You're right, the company still has to explain to you (and me) how it justifies claims made on advertising that do not exist for the method of administration. If I said tylenol treats headaches. Then I say, we have tylenol in our cream...rub it on your body for headache relief. Does that make sense?

  9. Quote Originally Posted by bigdavid View Post
    So your method of seeking understanding is: 1. say wtf? 2. call me a dick/hater 3. See if I am a rep trying to make this company lose revenue 4. Finally ask what you wanted to ask.
    I suggest you reverse the order^^^steps: 4., 3., 2., 1. in that order, would be more efficient

    If you go back to my first post...yes it was a smart-ass way of saying it, but it implies/entails the questions I listed above.
    Thank you ��

  10. Quote Originally Posted by bigdavid View Post
    You're right, the company still has to explain to you (and me) how it justifies claims made on advertising that do not exist for the method of administration. If I said tylenol treats headaches. Then I say, we have tylenol in our cream...rub it on your body for headache relief. Does that make sense?
    So... bottom line is you are saying that they are full of sh*t??

  11. Quote Originally Posted by skinnybones View Post
    So... bottom line is you are saying that they are full of sh*t??
    More like saying: "This makes no sense. I think you may be full of sh*t. I await your response. If you show me studies or evidence that I am mistaken, I will admit that you are not full of ****."

  12. Quote Originally Posted by bigdavid View Post
    More like saying: "This makes no sense. I think you may be full of sh*t. I await your response. If you show me studies or evidence that I am mistaken, I will admit that you are not full of ****."
    Really? Just make your point ,

  13. Quote Originally Posted by skinnybones View Post
    Really? Just make your point ,
    Why you gotta flap about??

  14. Quote Originally Posted by skinnybones View Post
    Really? Just make your point ,
    If you still don't know what my point is or what I am seeking clarification on, then you never will. With that being said, I think our discussion is finished.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by bigdavid View Post
    If you still don't know what my point is or what I am seeking clarification on, then you never will. With that being said, I think our discussion is finished.

    ...

  16. Dude , I just want to try the product that's all, .... lol
    Sorry if I offend you.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by bigdavid View Post
    If you still don't know what my point is or what I am seeking clarification on, then you never will. With that being said, I think our discussion is finished.
    I was semi being a smart ass with my post but it holds some merit. The absorption has to do with the molecular weight. Now, I'm not a rep but as long as the carrier can hold the substance and can be absorbed before it's "rubbed off" there SHOULD be carry over from oral studies since more SHOULD be absorbed by the body.

    Example is clenbuterol. Most studies in aware of are done orally but it's added to topical formulas (by users) with accelerated affects. Same goes for yohimbe. Testosterone is another that comes to mind like androgel, much better than anything done orally but injections there are best as studies show. However topical > oral.

    See where I am going?
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative

  18. Quote Originally Posted by Distilled Water View Post
    I was semi being a smart ass with my post but it holds some merit. The absorption has to do with the molecular weight. Now, I'm not a rep but as long as the carrier can hold the substance and can be absorbed before it's "rubbed off" there SHOULD be carry over from oral studies since more SHOULD be absorbed by the body.

    Example is clenbuterol. Most studies in aware of are done orally but it's added to topical formulas (by users) with accelerated affects. Same goes for yohimbe. Testosterone is another that comes to mind like androgel, much better than anything done orally but injections there are best as studies show. However topical > oral.

    See where I am going?
    Thanks for a response

  19. Well he is loging the product and you're acting like you've never had results with a TD before.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by Distilled Water View Post
    I was semi being a smart ass with my post but it holds some merit. The absorption has to do with the molecular weight. Now, I'm not a rep but as long as the carrier can hold the substance and can be absorbed before it's "rubbed off" there SHOULD be carry over from oral studies since more SHOULD be absorbed by the body.

    Example is clenbuterol. Most studies in aware of are done orally but it's added to topical formulas (by users) with accelerated affects. Same goes for yohimbe. Testosterone is another that comes to mind like androgel, much better than anything done orally but injections there are best as studies show. However topical > oral.

    See where I am going?
    Quote Originally Posted by skinnybones View Post
    Well he is loging the product and you're acting like you've never had results with a TD before.
    So the theory in general is sound but the problem is PS is a rather large (not huge, but large) molecule. See attached paper for general rule of thumb/consensus on MW needed for transdermal delivery of compounds.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...9003165.x/epdf (Its been cited >700 times so I would give the author some credence on the matter)
    The paper explains that in general compounds over 500 Dalton (MW) can't pass through the epidermis.

    For the compounds you list as "successful" they all have MW <500 Dalton
    (I am giving approximate here)
    Testosterone: ~290 Dalton
    Clenbuterol: ~450 Dalton
    Yohimbine: ~350 Dalton

    Phosphatidylserine: ~750 Dalton


    So while I agree with your statements they do not really apply to PS. And the fact that it is a membrane component can further complicate matters in terms of transdermal transport.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by skinnybones View Post
    Well he is loging the product and you're acting like you've never had results with a TD before.
    You really aren't a fan of evidence based anything are you lol (and about your previous post.. no I was not offended...this forum is all about this type of discussion... however I did find your constant one to five word posts slightly annoying lol)

  22. And before we start to say "Well the product works!!!" my response is that there are other ingredients that likely do pass through the skin.. so I'm really only talking about PS right now. Not the others...and PS is a VERY expensive compound... so would be a terrible thing to go to waste...

  23. Quote Originally Posted by bigdavid View Post
    And before we start to say "Well the product works!!!" my response is that there are other ingredients that likely do pass through the skin.. so I'm really only talking about PS right now. Not the others...and PS is a VERY expensive compound... so would be a terrible thing to go to waste...
    1st off let me say that the product does work....the weight of the PS in a transdermal is interesting-I would be very interested in what the formulator has to say...

    either way, I would buy the product for the very nice result's I have gotten.
    GOD, FAMILY, COUNTRY!!!

  24. Quote Originally Posted by bigdavid View Post
    So the theory in general is sound but the problem is PS is a rather large (not huge, but large) molecule. See attached paper for general rule of thumb/consensus on MW needed for transdermal delivery of compounds.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...9003165.x/epdf (Its been cited >700 times so I would give the author some credence on the matter)
    The paper explains that in general compounds over 500 Dalton (MW) can't pass through the epidermis.

    For the compounds you list as "successful" they all have MW <500 Dalton
    (I am giving approximate here)
    Testosterone: ~290 Dalton
    Clenbuterol: ~450 Dalton
    Yohimbine: ~350 Dalton

    Phosphatidylserine: ~750 Dalton


    So while I agree with your statements they do not really apply to PS. And the fact that it is a membrane component can further complicate matters in terms of transdermal transport.
    There is more to this than just molecular weight. Here is a link.
    http://www.who.int/entity/ipcs/publi...hc235.pdf?ua=1
    MileHighKratom, Ironmaglabs, Musclegelz, representative Use coupon:mace15 for 15% OFF your next order at any of the 3 sites MileHighKratom.com
    http://www.ironmaglabs.com
    https://www.musclegelz.com

  25. Quote Originally Posted by macedog24 View Post
    There is more to this than just molecular weight. Here is a link.
    http://www.who.int/entity/ipcs/publi...hc235.pdf?ua=1
    This is straight from the paper above:

    "There is good evidence that permeation and maximum flux decrease exponentially with molecular weight (Kasting et al., 1987; Potts & Guy, 1992; Magnusson et al., 2004a). Thus, the extent of absorption of com- pounds with a molecular weight over 500 daltons through normal human skin is low (Box & Meinardi, 2000)."

    edit: by "above" I am referring to the link you posted.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-07-2005, 11:34 AM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-16-2004, 07:26 PM
Log in
Log in