- 12-28-2003, 01:54 PM
- 12-28-2003, 04:47 PM
Other than LG with their methyl-4-AD product nobody has considered the idea of a transdermal 17-alkyl.
Please use your head and do not put methyl 1-test powder into a transdermal.
12-30-2003, 11:23 AM
I fully agree. Plus the reason for the m-1-t is so you don't have to use a transdermal for the 1-test. TTY
PS Way to risky........
01-03-2004, 04:32 PM
Here's my thinking:
M1T transdermal bypasses the liver right into the blood
and the methyl group will protect it from the degradations of the body
01-03-2004, 05:35 PM
01-03-2004, 06:52 PM
01-04-2004, 12:59 PM
01-04-2004, 01:09 PM
But at the dose you would have to run it at would it be worth it? I mean if you wanted to run it a 20mg a day you'd be rubbing on 60mg or so. You'd be better off pinning it.
01-04-2004, 01:53 PM
Originally Posted by ps24eva
Even if it does avoid first pass it must still be metabloized by the liver. If you dose 5mg, your liver must metabolize 5mg, regardless of how it was introduced to the body.
01-04-2004, 06:58 PM
01-05-2004, 03:13 PM
yeah but that will take a LONG while comparatively to the oral route
and it wouldn't bombard the liver all at once
01-05-2004, 04:08 PM
You are trying to apply steady state theory to a compound that was never designed for transdermal delivery.
Can it be dosed transdermally? Yes it can.
Will it be effective as a transdermal? Yes it will.
Will it be efficient as a transdermal in terms of amount of active material? No it won't.
Will transdermal delivery make it easier on the liver? No it won't.
The sum result is that it will take twice as much to do the same job transdermally. Why use a delivery method that is half as efficient (at best) and waste half your powder? Issues like this will become more relevant after the ban is in place and replacement powders are harder to come by.
01-05-2004, 05:05 PM
Originally Posted by Chemo
this is where I am inclined to disagree and why I started the thread. I think it will be better on the liver if it bypasses the hepatic portal vein. That way you don't flood the hepatic sinusoids with M1T
01-05-2004, 08:20 PM
When the liver has to metabolize 10 mg of methyl 1-test it does not regard delivery method...it simply does not care where it came from since the task at hand is the same.
Granted, if a methylated compound gets around first pass the liver must still contend with it through second, third, or fourth pass. The amount of liver stress is not diminished but rather DELAYED...it will still amount to the same magnitude of liver enzyme elevation regardless of delivery method.
The only thing accomplished is wasting half the active material through the transdermal delivery.
01-06-2004, 11:31 AM
that delay would be good
plus m1t is "cheap" anyway expecially the powder, so it doesn't matter if some is wasted
01-06-2004, 11:40 AM
01-06-2004, 12:03 PM
01-06-2004, 05:27 PM
That statement is not very good form.Originally Posted by ps24eva
The raw materials may be affordable and easy to acquire now but what about in a few months when the prohormone ban is implemented?
As in the lifestyle we share, it is better to start with good form and end with good form.
01-06-2004, 05:43 PM
Not that anyone should use it transdermally, but is the molecular weight low enough with the 17aa to even be used this way?
01-06-2004, 05:52 PM
Actually, it's not much higher than 1-test base...it should be able to be dosed transdermally to the same success.
01-06-2004, 06:43 PM
Originally Posted by ps24eva
I did NOT mean to sound sarcastic.
I really do appreciate your feedback
Similar Forum Threads
- By usualsuspect112 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 16Last Post: 09-19-2004, 08:48 AM
- By drew6236 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 1Last Post: 06-14-2004, 01:55 AM
- By victor2003 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 10Last Post: 01-21-2004, 01:42 AM
- By hamper19 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 13Last Post: 02-26-2003, 09:35 PM
- By Judo Tom in forum AnabolicsReplies: 36Last Post: 11-11-2002, 12:47 PM